Talk:Human variability

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katherineong, Georgehe4, Mingho.c, Varna.vasudevan, DeBerkeley, Mgortega, Andrewliu08, Ipshab, J4lyn, Pranav4149, Yihsienwu, Aashishp, Ipilgaard, Jeffreyburr, Rohanis2cool, Margaritaoreta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I moved a couple of paragraphs here that seemed awkwardly un-integrated. The business about misconception of the biological basis of race is only tangentially relevant to illustrating the extremes of social valuation put on human difference (whether easy or hard to define biologically). I'm sure it was not the intent of the author but it almost implied that the major Nazi sin was their ignorance of the science. If someone wants to tweak and reintegrate them feel free:

• There are several misconceptions which have historically misled people about human variability. In Europe, where extensive intermixing over centuries, even millennia, has produced a more or less homogeneous population, minor differences in language and culture have misled certain people (e.g. the Nazis) to believe that significant differences exist between different national populations. With respect to the peoples of Africa, where modern man (Homo sapiens) originated about 80,000 years ago, the surface characteristic of skin color has masked the extensive variabilty which has built up over the tens of millennia with respect to numerous other characteristics.

• Many genetic variations which are considered undesirable are governed by recessive genes, and therefore arise from matings of people who do not display the characteristic. In modern times many of these variations have been identified and in some cases can be detected before conception of a child or while the child is still in vitro, raising the possibility of abortion.

This is an interesting and important article and deserves additional contributions from a variety of perspectives. Alteripse 01:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question: Under "Other aspects of human physical appearance", would it be worth including things like supernumerary nipples and polydactylism, or is that going into more detail than necessary for what is obviously a general discussion leading to more detailed topics? Also: Where would you put those seemingly unimportant and often not obvious differences such as the ability to roll your tongue, the ability to smell musk, etc. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The variations you mention would seem all to be heritable, so it would make sense to me to give a list of such factors with links to the appropriate articles. P0M 16:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some such variations may depend on inherited genetic material but may not be heritable in the usual sense. There may be developmental problems that recur from time to time, and there may be extra chromosomes present in some individuals. See, e.g., http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/9/3396 for examples of the latter. It begins to look like we need to have a little breakdown to give readers a better idea not only of variability but also of causes for the variability. P0M 17:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there would be anything wrong with greatly expanding our list, so that it included more examples of these minor variations. I agree with Patrick that most of them that you mentioned are probably genetic. There are a zillion genetic syndromes consisting of major and minor differences, most of which we would without hesitation lump under "diseases" rather than variation. I probably would adding those to the list, but even that is of course sometimes a controversial value judgement. And Patrick you have to have found the most obscure endocrine syndrome I have ever seen cited in a public forum. I subscribe to JCEM and don't remember ever seeing that one. And did you wonder why that unfortunate young lady with "mild to moderate mental retardation" "required" surgical equalization of her breasts? alteripse 03:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that she required surgical treatment because of discomfort -- the discomfort that she caused to people in her immediate community.

Actually, I was looking at some of the thing like "supernumerary nipples" mentioned by GK and wondering whether they were the results of abnormal conditions during gestation or whether they had some genetic basis. At that point it hadn't occurred to me to think about extra chromosomes, etc. It looks like the situation that I am seeing over and over again in all these issues, that it is important to show both what the ordinary (statistically normal) way is, and then what the "fan-out" is from that point. Have we included the Fugates with the blue skin? Do we need to? I suspect that the educational value of an article like this will be to show how ordinary facts of reproduction (and not being "spawned by the devil") account for extra fingers and toes, freemartins, and other "departures from God's will."

• • Your listing of freemartin here suggests that a human form has been reported. Have you an example or a report in mind? alteripse 06:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Freemartins occur when the female twin is masculinized due to male hormones secreted by the testes of the male twin and transmitted via anastomosed blood vessels in the fused chorions of the twins. It is my understanding that this fusing does not occur in the case of humans. I mentioned only because it is a common enough phenomenon to have a colloquial designation, and it is easy to understand how the behavior of a genetically female mammal could be masculinized. It is likely to be persuasive to most people that heiffers identified as freemartins (almost?) always have a male twin. Once you understand that bit of general knowledge, it may be easier for readers to understand and accept the idea that abnormal hormonal states in the mother's body during a critical window during gestation can have profound effects on the individual in later life. P0M 06:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While we are on this topic, one ethical problem for me is how we treat people who are uncommon in ways that may make them a danger to other human beings. I do not hate tigers, rattlesnakes, or any other creature that might kill me if our paths crossed too abruptly. On the other hand, if a black widow makes her web under my bed I will probably ask her to go outside. But many people hate these animals. They also may hate people like Jeffrey Dahmer. You may know that his father wrote a book about him in which he indicated that, in retrospect, he not only saw signs of differences between his son and average male children, but he also saw in himself things that bore a disquieting resemblance to behaviors that took a more ominous turn in the development of his son. So he seemed to me to be suggesting that something more than nurture was amiss. In the Zhuang Zi there is a description of a ruler who was regarded as malevolent by the ordinary people of China. Mencius would have said that buried somewhere within this person were all of the eu-social motivations that account for humans being a gregarious species. Mencius had a picture of humans much like that of Karl Menninger (Menninger Institute, Kansas, USA), a picture that said that no human motivations were instrinsically bad. (Menninger pointed out that ordinarily aggressiveness is regarded as a bad thing -- until we get cancer and want an oncologist that will use aggressiveness in pursuit of a desirable social goal, the destruction of the cancerous tissue and preservation of the life of his patient.) But Zhuang Zi saw a bell curve. On one end of it were small numbers of human beings who were nothing like what Mencius imagined. Of the ruler whose people were killed in droves Zhuang Zi said, "Qi2 de2 tian1 sha1 ye3." -- "His virtue by nature is to kill."

Ethically it makes me uncomfortable to think of ending the life of some creature just because 'e happens to pose a danger to my life and to the lives of others like me. If it were a grizzly bear that showed up when I put my garbage out, then I would not like to kill him. I'd call a game warden to tranquilize him and move him somewhere far from human habitations. But if it were a creature with human intelligence and human appearance but no conscience or affection for other human beings, somebody who would kill me as easily as I would kill a rat, it wouldn't work to move him where I moved the grizzly bear. He would be back in contact with human beings sooner or later (unless the move was to an environment that he couldn't survive in). So it looks like the most humane course of action would be life in a prison for the "criminally insane." P0M 07:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh, what are wars for?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Common human variations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Psychic Ability? Seriously? Tombrabbin (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate Topic of Human Variability

There is a separate topic--a topic I do not feel is adequately addressed here--of human variability which deals with the degree or amount of randomness that is present in any human performance or behavior. While the range of human diversity is logically related to human variability, they are not equivalent concepts.

The concept of diversity discusses how many distinctions can be made on any dimension of measurement on humans (whether biological, psychological, behavioral, and others), but variability deals with the randomness or non-randomness among the range of potential diversities. Something can be more diverse yet less variable, or more variable but also less diverse, or some other combination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YosefLevi (talk • contribs)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Split

Article scope is almost comically out of bounds. The page appears to propose to list everything conceivable associated with humans that may be quantifiable and then discuss how anything measurable will exhibit variability. This is not a viable approach to writing an encyclopedia article. Please WP:TNT and split into existing pages on notable types of variability. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a terrible article. I'm not sure how to salvage it. Improving the resources would be a start, but it needs so much more than that. GBFEE (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)