@Papaya: Aye, I've read the research as well.... All of your cites are completely irrelevant to the subject. I looked them up since you didn't link them:
Spoiler for Cite #1 and #3 irrelevant to topic; only quoting the abstract for obvious reasons:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Log or linear?
The mapping of numbers onto space is fundamental to measurement and to mathematics. Is this mapping a cultural invention or a universal intuition shared by all humans regardless of culture and education? We probed number-space mappings in the Mundurucu, an Amazonian indigene group with a reduced numerical lexicon and little or no formal education. At all ages, the Mundurucu mapped symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers onto a logarithmic scale, whereas Western adults used linear mapping with small or symbolic numbers and logarithmic mapping when numbers were presented nonsymbolically under conditions that discouraged counting. This indicates that the mapping of numbers onto space is a universal intuition and that this initial intuition of number is logarithmic. The concept of a linear number line appears to be a cultural invention that fails to develop in the absence of formal education.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by six month old infants use analog magnitudes for duration
This paper investigates the ability of infants to attend to continuous stimulus variables and how this capacity relates to the representation of number. We examined the change in area needed by 6-month-old infants to detect a difference in the size of a single element (Elmo face). Infants successfully discriminated a 1:4, 1:3 and 1:2 change in the area of the Elmo face but failed to discriminate a 2:3 change. In addition, the novelty preference was linearly related to the ratio difference between the novel and familiar area. Results suggest that Weber's Law holds for area discriminations in infancy and also reveal that at 6 months of age infants are equally sensitive to number, time and area.
|
Since you started off by implying I know nothing because I disagree with your assertions - and then your scientific cites are irrelevant... <shrug>.
"Race" is a colloquial term ... it simply isn't used in genetics because it is amorphous and poorly constrained. Even the soft sciences are learning it isn't meaningful when looking at categorizing populations as they migrate and shift. At best its a messy cultural or trend tag - and knowledgeable people cannot agree on where the lines are. You're simply pointing at stronger variation in your examples. Isolate those humans for a few hundred thousand years and then you may have an example.
You're also playing the "conspiracy of silence" card which I find interesting ... next you're going to tell me there's a "Chinese" race or that anyone who is a Jew is a member of the "Jewish race"? The very idea of "various European races" is amusing -- there's simply too much exchange of genetic material over the last few thousand years much less further back. Modern DNA analysis is showing just how interconnected humanity is. The word "race" is simply too diluted to be useful.
Quote:
|
Everyone in the research community acknowledges that race discussion and research is off the limits.
|
Well, "flat earth", "phrenology", Velikovsky-pseudoscience, and "creationism" are also poor subjects to get funding on. Trying to pin it on "political correctness" is a canard...