I would have no problem with such an exemption if no money changed hands. However, it's not as if every open-source software user has the time required to security check everything they use. In the event that an individual pays for a specific service (such as the use of a JPEG processor) and the service is not rendered correctly (such as the JPEG processor executing arbitrary code on the machine in question), the individuals who originally promised to render the service should be held responsible and should repair this problem at their own expense. It works that way in other industries. Really.
The likelihood of this is ridiculously small. The variance between the significant biology of a Pirahã tribesman and an American citizen is miniscule. After all, even presuming that the Pirahã lived in total isolation from all other cultures since their arrival in South America, only 30,000 years have passed since and, in terms of evolution, this is a flash in the pan. This is not enough time to create a significantly different genetic branch of our species. Pirahã tribespeople are not different from members of any other culture in the world except in that they have a different culture; you can't chalk this up to a brain chemistry difference.
Do you agree though that it would be nearly impossible for a researcher to convey to the Pirahã that there even exist distinct quantities greater than three?
I doubt it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't require effort. What I am saying is that I believe that the distinction would lie in whether or not the Pirahã really care, not in any form of limitation. If you showed a Pirahã individual a picture of five fish and another picture of fifty fish, this individual would be capable of pointing out that there are more fish in one picture than the other. If you asked "how many more are in this picture than are in that one" or whatever its equivalent may be, I would postulate the response would be something like "Plenty enough to eat. Why do you worry about such things?"
I agree with your conclusion, however. Tests like this only determine whether or not the individuals have information which is considered basic in our culture. It is not surprising that the Pirahã do not necessarily have this information; after all, the average American has little to no familiarity with which snakes in the Maici river area are poisonous and which are safe to pick up. That's about the only conclusion we can draw from this study.
The language-defines-thought principle in and of itself will be quite difficult to measure anyway, since speaking a different language almost always implies living in a different culture and determining what variations in behavior are due to one or the other will be nearly impossible. It's like trying to solve a linear equation with two unknowns.
First, I am dubious as to the accuracy of the study involved. The article states that "The Pirahã also failed to remember whether a box they had been shown seconds ago had four or five fish drawn on the top." The article does not, however, state how long the box had been displayed, whether or not the Pirahã had been told that the fish were significant before the box was removed, and whether or not it had been properly conveyed to the Pirahã that different quantities of fish in numbers greater than three were significantly distinct.
To contrast, let us imagine that the Pirahã are conducting a similar study on a member of another culture. As this site is of the.org domain, I will select Americans for my sample study. The Pirahã may then show an American a box containing a fish and ask what species it is. I personally know little about species distinction in fish, especially those in Brazil, and would fail to answer the question correctly. The point is that it has never been necessary for me to have this information to function in my society. Would it be academic of the Pirahã, then, to assume I was less intelligent for not being able to recognize an Epen Nomin?
Additionally, the Pirahã have a phrase in their language which indicates a degree of certainty, usually applied at the end of a sentence:/-xáagahá/. If I were to answer the correct species of fish and fail to use that suffix, would it be correct for them to assume I was not confident of my answer?
My point here should be fairly obvious. We cannot assume that we know the critical details of the study based upon a web article which, between two columns of advertisements, still only takes two pages (on my monitor, at least).
Second, and more breifly, the assumption that counting capacity defines intelligence is inherently flawed. The Pirahã have no need for counting; this is not to say they are not capable of it. Most Americans don't need to know what a coral snake looks like or that touching the little yellow-and-black frog is a bad thing. This doesn't mean they couldn't learn.
In summary, while the study definitely presents an interesting idea, one must evaluate it critically before accepting it as fact. Mistakes can be made.
That was a lot more than I meant to type. Thanks for the time.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Y'know, if this were such a big deal, Microsoft could put change the Microsoft logo on their website to contain and execute the patch...
I would have no problem with such an exemption if no money changed hands. However, it's not as if every open-source software user has the time required to security check everything they use. In the event that an individual pays for a specific service (such as the use of a JPEG processor) and the service is not rendered correctly (such as the JPEG processor executing arbitrary code on the machine in question), the individuals who originally promised to render the service should be held responsible and should repair this problem at their own expense. It works that way in other industries. Really.
The likelihood of this is ridiculously small. The variance between the significant biology of a Pirahã tribesman and an American citizen is miniscule. After all, even presuming that the Pirahã lived in total isolation from all other cultures since their arrival in South America, only 30,000 years have passed since and, in terms of evolution, this is a flash in the pan. This is not enough time to create a significantly different genetic branch of our species. Pirahã tribespeople are not different from members of any other culture in the world except in that they have a different culture; you can't chalk this up to a brain chemistry difference.
I doubt it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't require effort. What I am saying is that I believe that the distinction would lie in whether or not the Pirahã really care, not in any form of limitation. If you showed a Pirahã individual a picture of five fish and another picture of fifty fish, this individual would be capable of pointing out that there are more fish in one picture than the other. If you asked "how many more are in this picture than are in that one" or whatever its equivalent may be, I would postulate the response would be something like "Plenty enough to eat. Why do you worry about such things?"
I agree with your conclusion, however. Tests like this only determine whether or not the individuals have information which is considered basic in our culture. It is not surprising that the Pirahã do not necessarily have this information; after all, the average American has little to no familiarity with which snakes in the Maici river area are poisonous and which are safe to pick up. That's about the only conclusion we can draw from this study.
The language-defines-thought principle in and of itself will be quite difficult to measure anyway, since speaking a different language almost always implies living in a different culture and determining what variations in behavior are due to one or the other will be nearly impossible. It's like trying to solve a linear equation with two unknowns.
First, I am dubious as to the accuracy of the study involved. The article states that "The Pirahã also failed to remember whether a box they had been shown seconds ago had four or five fish drawn on the top." The article does not, however, state how long the box had been displayed, whether or not the Pirahã had been told that the fish were significant before the box was removed, and whether or not it had been properly conveyed to the Pirahã that different quantities of fish in numbers greater than three were significantly distinct.
.org domain, I will select Americans for my sample study. The Pirahã may then show an American a box containing a fish and ask what species it is. I personally know little about species distinction in fish, especially those in Brazil, and would fail to answer the question correctly. The point is that it has never been necessary for me to have this information to function in my society. Would it be academic of the Pirahã, then, to assume I was less intelligent for not being able to recognize an Epen Nomin?
/-xáagahá/. If I were to answer the correct species of fish and fail to use that suffix, would it be correct for them to assume I was not confident of my answer?
;)
To contrast, let us imagine that the Pirahã are conducting a similar study on a member of another culture. As this site is of the
Additionally, the Pirahã have a phrase in their language which indicates a degree of certainty, usually applied at the end of a sentence:
My point here should be fairly obvious. We cannot assume that we know the critical details of the study based upon a web article which, between two columns of advertisements, still only takes two pages (on my monitor, at least).
Second, and more breifly, the assumption that counting capacity defines intelligence is inherently flawed. The Pirahã have no need for counting; this is not to say they are not capable of it. Most Americans don't need to know what a coral snake looks like or that touching the little yellow-and-black frog is a bad thing. This doesn't mean they couldn't learn.
In summary, while the study definitely presents an interesting idea, one must evaluate it critically before accepting it as fact. Mistakes can be made.
That was a lot more than I meant to type. Thanks for the time.