Comments on: I think I nailed it

By: Frank Paynter

Frank Paynter — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:15 +0000

Stereotypes are labels and/or simplifications, sometimes over-simplifications. To the extent that the stereotype offends people with a vested interest in what is being labeled or simplified, it is politically incorrect.

Don’t I sound like Marilyn Vos Savant?

Tell your granddaughters, or rather remind them that they don’t need a weatherman which way the wind blows. Also, did you see The Who on teevee yesterday? I felt like their lyrics might be considered mildly subversive. Between the new online generation’s commentary on The Who and the Abe Vigoda/Betty White commercial I thought I sensed a little ageism. I’m probably overly sensitive.

By: Betty Jo

Betty Jo — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:39 +0000

Are stereotypes always wrong? And, are they always politically incorrect?
Are good stereotypes and bad stereotypes sort of like correlations and causality? With the first, they represent observations of (to be sure) potentially statistically insignificant data – but useful in sorting out personal expectations and, if positive, may be viewed as benign. Whereas, if one presumes causality from correlation, then they are bad? Hmm.

It’s snowing again. Second time in 10 days the weatherman promised rain below 4000 ft. We got 8 inches of white stuff last week, and it surely isn’t rain coming down from the sky this morning.

I must remember to advise the granddaughters on their Valentines cards – when it’s time to pick their sweeties, they’d best stay away from weathermen. They are, it appears, unreliable and can’t be trusted.

By: betty jo

betty jo — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:14:50 +0000

T’was an excellent response to be sure. I’m still paging
through the dictionary for the big words. Perhaps you are right that epigenes will not prove to be the vehicle by which
we might strengthen the compassion and tolerance that
seem so often missing in our body politic. Heck, mebe there ain’t no such thing as genes that make us kind, and hence
nothing for the epigenetic layer to work on. But then,
no Mom ever smiled at or hugged her child just because God would get her if she didn’t, so there must be something there in the science of evolution with which to craft a kinder society.

You don’t buy the “encourage the myth that we are a good
people and maybe we shall become so.” ok, it’s a stretch.
but then what of Ghandi’s notion that change comes from becoming the change we want to see?

And, tho I understand such thoughts are playing on the edge of political correct heresy, are stereotypes always wrong? And, are they always, even if positive, politically incorrect? To be sure as you say, they can be used for
oppression, but can’t they also be used to encourage
identification with behaviors that are positive and make for a better world?

I for one, am enchanted that the geneticists have finally abandoned the short form misaprehensions of genetic predestination. I always was partial to free will.

ok, the observations of that study on multigenerational effects of feast and famine attributed to epigenetic influence on genes was about a fairly specific survival issue. But still,
if we are to be tarred by the sins of the fathers, there oughta be a way to inherit virtue too.

By: fp

fp — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:17:33 +0000

It’s about time I heard from you Don. Sadly, spontaneous generation posits that new living forms will arise from inanimate matter. I’ll leave it to you to parse that.

By: Don Harvey

Don Harvey — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:05:56 +0000

Frank, I too had high hopes for Lamarck. But after years of dedication I still have the same sized peeny-bone. God or Darwin? Either way I am not amused.