Hi Ed,
I've repeated some aspect of the nature vs. nurture divide in my previous
message ("Bagatelle") so I'll cut straight down to the place where you're
charging me with a "static" position.
(EW)
<<<<
. . . . I would suggest that you take a rather static view of society and
fail to give sufficient recognition to the enormous impact that social
change can have on what people do and what they can aspire to. I would not
deny that there is a genetic component to intelligence, but there is also a
very large class and gender component.. . . .
>>>>
I understand what you're saying but can't see how this makes my view of
society a static one. Indeed, my view is, if you like, a doubly-dynamic
one, (even though it's an apples and pears-type problem!). I'm trying to
compare the rate of change of innovation (and therefore the increasing need
for high-grade talent) with the redistributive genetic effects that take
place at each new generation. If the pace of one exceeds the other then
genetic drift takes place; if it doesn't then we retain a largely uniform
society. My fear is that the former might be happening.
(KH)
<<<<
P.S. Let's remind ourselves that two of the most long-lasting and inventive
economic systems in human history were the product of conscious talent
selection from the masses. The first (approximately from 200BC to
1600/1700AD) was the mandarinate system of China whereby intelligent (and
physically skilful) children (but only boys!) were selected by the local
mandarins and then had to pass extremely gruelling examinations over many
years before being given power. The other was the selection of bright boys
from the peasantry by the monastic orders of Europe -- those orders being
the main developers and innovators of medieval society, bringing immense
tracts of swampy and mountainous land into cultivation or sheep farming,
etc and making immense profits -- more than equivalent to the largest
multinational corporations of today.
I suggest therefore that the same selection effect might be going on today
-- albeit unconsciously.
>>>>
(EW)
<<<<
Somehow I don't think so. The two societies you cite were very hierarchical
and narrowly focused. Advanced societies of today are simply not like that,
but I'll leave that for another time.
>>>>
Being hierarchical is beside the point, surely. The point is that they were
both meritocratic. (Incidentally, both the societies were, if anything,
much more partial to democratic notions than the traditional aristocracy.
The sheer numbers of mandarins required meant that the comparitively rare
individuals could only be supplied in sufficient numbers (several thousand
throughout China) from the masses. On appointment, mandarins were always
sent to regions where they (and their origins) were unknown to the landed
aristocracy so there were no obligations to be maintained and they were
thus able to start their terms of office with considerable freedom and
political power. In Europe, although the abbots of monasteries had total
power over their monks (and great commercial power in the neighbourhood)
they were usually democratically elected from the ordinary ranks when the
previous abbot died.
As for being "narrowly focussed" I don't know what you mean. In both cases,
I would have thought, the mandarins and the monks were both in the vanguard
of developments and were in widely in touch with all the ideas and
innovations that were springing up around them in their respective domains.
The big difference between the periods I'm talking about and the present is
that the Chinese mandarinate and the European monastic systems were laid
down in great detail by two of the most powerful intellectuals in history
-- Confucius and St Benedict respectively -- while today's meritocracy is
being forced into existence by no-one in particular but by the brute
necessities of an increasingly complex economy.
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
