User talk:Goethean/Human3

Proposal[edit]

I envision three paragraphs of roughly similar size. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have 2 "spirit" paragraphs... — goethean ॐ 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh...in merging the psychology text, I seem to have made a hash of it. please revert or improve or whatever. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some slight changes to the biological explanation. I'm not too sure about the cultural explanation at the moment, I think that needs the most work doing to it. For example, are we really the only species to tell stories? I'm sure I once read about a chimp (or some other primate) that was taught sign language who told her child a story about a vicious dog as a threat. The spirituality section looks good to me. I'm unsure about the wording of the start but that's an aesthetic issue more than anything else - the content looks good. With a little more work, I think this will make a good intoduction to the article and hopefully one which all sides can agree on. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at rewording the start of the spirituality section - flames welcome ;p. I've also added a copy of the somewhat contraversial version written by Silence so that we can merge information from that into the new version. The culture section in Silence's looks better than the current proposal. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...under the great apes family, Hominidae. I think that this clause is redundant because it is contained in the infobox to the right. — goethean ॐ 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a problem to have the same information in the infobox and the main body of the article. On the other hand, I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's in there or not so feel free to take it out if it bothers you. Hitchhiker89^talk 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting the fourth paragraph at the end of the first (or is that where you took it from?) — goethean ॐ 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken (mainly) from the third (religion) paragraph of Silence's version and the cultural paragraph of this current proposal. I've now moved it to the end of paragraph one. Hitchhiker89^talk 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get a link to origin belief in the religion section somewhere. and a link to myth somewhere in the intro. — goethean ॐ 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to origin belief. Hitchhiker89^talk 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire, clothes, and stories[edit]

Fire, clothes and stories are classic demarcations of humans, and have been removed from the proposal. I am not the greatest expert on this, but I am going to try to re-introduce. Tom Haws 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed stories as it is bound to be endlessly argued no matter how we try to word it. It appears that the third paragraph is the paragraph that takes the historic approach of defining humans by what is unique about them. I just thought I would state that expressly. Therefore we seem to have in the first three paragraphs biological perspective on what is a human, spiritual perspective on what is a human, and uniqueness approach to what is a human. Tom Haws 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you guys have done, esp. the bit about fire and so forth. Humans are unique, and we need to emplain that. Some "objective" observer would certainly not consider us little more than one more primate, they would clearly discern some distinct features if they can be said to understand us at all. Sam Spade 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I don't like your change to the religion section here. religion/spirituality is not according to a small group of theologians and teachers, it is according to the experience or assumptions of a majority of human inhabitants of the planet. Do we need to specify who it is "according to"? — goethean ॐ 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Goethean on this one and have changed it back. I've also made a few changes to the third paragraph to make it flow better. Hitchhiker89^talk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a tricky issue. I agree with the explanation of Goethean. I will try another change to address the parallelism problem I am seeing, or to use Goethean's earlier expression, the "fairness" required by NPOV. Tom Haws 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grammar, emphasis[edit]

I changed this:

Like all primates, humans are social by nature but the complexity of human society appears to be unparalleled.

to this:

Although all primates are social by nature, the complexity of human social structures appears to be unparalleled.

...and now its been changed back. I feel that my version is better grammatically. Although I guess the paragraph shouldn't start with "although". Also, my version switches the emphasis from continuity with primates to discontinuity with primates. Which, of course, suits my POV, but it is also (now) the topic of the paragraph (which I applaud). Perhaps if we stick a topic sentence in front of this one, we can go with the "although" version. — goethean ॐ 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this possibility:

Although like all primates, humans are social by nature, the complexity of human social structures appears to be unparalleled.

— goethean ॐ 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you changed it from Humans, like all primates, are social by nature. How about Humans, like all primates, are social by nature but the complexity of human society appears to be unparalleled.? I don't think that particularly emphasises humans' similarities with other primates but rather points out similarities and differences. The rest of the paragraph then goes on to explain other ways in which humans are unique. Hitchhiker89^talk 17:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awkward. Maybe its just me. — goethean ॐ 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can see your grammatical chafing about it. Let me throw in another variable. It isn't only primates that have complex social structures; bees and ants do too. So how about we say Humans, like many other living things, are social by nature. But the complexity of human society appears to be unparalleled.? Then again, I am not sure that is a very good introduction to the paragraph anyway. Is it about social structures? Maybe Goethean we better go ahead and stick a topic sentence in the front. Tom Haws 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph seems to be about the view that "humans are incredibly (extraordinarily?) intelligent". Social structures, philosophy, clothes, fire, etc. Tom Haws 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Go live, HH, if you agree. (I would do it myself, but if SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk, or Mel Etitis saw my name on an edit to the intro after all these months of absence, it might cause grief. I'd better stay away until it's live.) Tom Haws 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more changes which I'd like feedback on before we put this into the main article. I've removed the boldness from humans in the third paragraph as it seems to be supplementary information about humans rather than a definition in its own right and I think that having the word bolded too many times looks messy. Personally, I think that it should only be bold once, the first time it appears, but I understand the argument for having it bold in the second paragraph so I've left it. I've also removed the refernece to adornment since it is covered in the clothing article and adornment redirects to beauty which is linked to by name a little later on. Hitchhiker89^talk 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I favor unbolding for aesthetic reasons also and because I feel that this thing has been thoroughly NPOVed. It's not like anyone is going to miss the 2nd paragraph. — goethean ॐ 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean unbolding in the second paragraph or the third? Hitchhiker89^talk 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd. It would be different if it said something in the form of "...humans are...", but now we've got "Spiritual perspectives on humans state..." so the bolding doesn't work for me anymore. — goethean ॐ 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding or no, I'm extremely pleased by our work. You may fire when ready. — goethean ॐ 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Tom Haws 20:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Great work everyone! Hitchhiker89^talk 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

late to party[edit]

Sorry to make such a major change when you are rapping things up.

My rationale is as follows:

In the spiritual section was the sentence below:

"Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion."

This seems out of place a bit clunky and it was is not immediately clear what ullusion refers to. I am assuming the illusion comment refers to evolution and the two sentences that deal with this are:

"Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research."

If those two sentences are removed we can we remove the sentence in the spiritual section? Or is that sentence refering to everything in the first paragraph? David D. (Talk) 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was saying that some spiritually-minded people see the biological account of human beings as an illusory one. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clunky, but I think that the relationship between th biological and the spiritual needs to be handled. And your change would really gut the biological paragraph. — goethean ॐ 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and since i am pro biologist i thought i could probably make these comments without being viewed as biased. Would biological description (anatomy/classification) fall into the category of biological account? Or just the evolutionary perspective? David D. (Talk) 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a good cut (if the biological folks can handle it). — goethean ॐ 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the biological folks and I can handle it. The evolutionary context of the bipedal and brain sentences is interesting but are probably more appropriate ion the biological section. The first paragraph has the biological description has the appropriate description. Possibly brain size could be mentioned in a descriptive sense? David D. (Talk) 20:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that being taken out but it does make the biology paragraph quite short - something will need to go in its place. Hitchhiker89^talk 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not everything. I think if we try for equal size it does a disservice to our goal here and we end up padding the intro with unnecessary information. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your change has highlighted another problem. The first and second sentences in the spirit paragraph now appear to be distinguishing between spirituality and religion, although I don't think that we intended to make that distinction. — goethean ॐ 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) nevermind; its ok. — goethean ॐ 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you removed from the spirituality section refered to everything in the biological section, i.e. some people see humans as spirtual rather than physical beings and believe that our appearance as "bipedal primates" is an illusion. This is a very interesting perspective and one that I think needs to be covered. Removing mentions of evolution from the biology section is not enough make this sentence unnecessary. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really. Then that is not obvious at all. Is this idea possibly too complex for the introduction? I did not read the original sentence that way at all. Actually i should say that I read it that way but then assumed that it must be referring to evolution since literally "seeing our appearance as "bipedal primates" is an illusion" did not seem like the possible intention. What is the illusion, that we are physical or that we are primates? David D. (Talk) 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a somewhat strange concept as well but the following quote from User:Sam Spade on the talk page for the human article illustrates the kind of viewpoint this sentence is meant to deal with:

All this flesh and blood and materialism could easilly be maya, illusion, window dressing. The soul on the other hand is my self, my being. I know what I am.

Hitchhiker89^talk 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The illusion is everything you think is real. :-D Really. That was the intent. (p.s. Great find-- that quote from Sam Spade.)Tom Haws 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to the removal of the sentence, as it is key to the spiritual definition (the spirit is more definitive than the body). And there are some who might object to the removal of illusion, though that is less certain. Tom Haws 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert here, so if you are fine with it then that is O.K. with me. But be aware that this concept will have to be spelled out a bit more since those like myself, who have never come across this way of thinking, will get confused. David D. (Talk) 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we need to move this talk to the main talk page since it's live now, I guess. Tom Haws 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replying here for continuity) It might be more accurate to say: spiritual and religious perspective often hold that the biological perspective is wrong. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something along the lines of "Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or may view the physical manifestation of humans as an illusion." Hitchhiker89^talk 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly better than before. I have to run now but will check back in to the human talk page later. Good luck with the new intro. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to take a short break from this for the sake of my sanity and what's left of my life outside Wikipedia. I'll be back later tonight or tommorow afternoon at the latest. Hitchhiker89^talk 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!! — goethean ॐ 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is better than what we have now. But I maintain that it is common, among fundamentalist christians, for example, to hold that we are indeed physical beings, but that the biological account ("humans are primates") is just plain wrong. It would be good to get this in if possible. — goethean ॐ 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is too specific for an introdution. Even Hitchhikers sentence borders on the level of too specific. We really should be aspiring to the shortest possible intro. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — goethean ॐ 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]