Are you a lumper or a splitter?

[Anomalocaris]

There are times and occasions when seemingly small differences affords profound insights. There are also other times when focusing on small differences obscure larger patterns.

It seems to me whether lumping or splitting is appropriate should depend entirely on what one is trying to achieve. The dispute between limpers and splitters arose largely because attempts to find the least suboptimal one size fits all solution, or perhaps even subconscious attempt by some interested party to suppress particular insights that might be gained from either small but significant differences, or larger commonalities.

---

Interesting poll. I voted splitter. I think as a general rule, you can learn more about anything specific if you pay attention to small differences and split them up, vs having a more broad view and lumping everything together into the same big group and leaving it that way.

It depends on the criteria which is used to affect the split, and whether the resulting split really afford insights into significant differences, or if it merely result in a distinction without any meaningful differences.

[Whateverist]

Interesting poll. I voted splitter. I think as a general rule, you can learn more about anything specific if you pay attention to small differences and split them up, vs having a more broad view and lumping everything together into the same big group and leaving it that way.

Differences are important too though I'm definitely a lumper on this one.  Recognizing intractable differences helps with tolerance with people with a different bent than our own (even freaking believers like you and conserva-***** like Brewer ).  But humans have this propensity to live in the abstract reasoning lobes and pay too little attention to our animal nature.  That sets us up for unreasonable expectations and can interfere with satisfaction in life.  (Have you tried drugs and porn?  Could help.)

---

There are only two kinds of people:  Real human beings and republicunts.

You're as intolerant as an ex-smoker.  Anyone would think you started out life as cunty-tarded republican conservo-nazi and then saw the light.

---

Since evolutionary radiation seems to make more sense (as far as morphological differences are concerned), I'd have to put myself in the splitter camp. 

That being said, I didn't answer the poll - the choices make no sense. Human are indeed animals, but we are also unique: gorillas and shrews are both animals, but they're unique enough that we have no trouble telling them apart. 

Boru

Yes but we have a lot more in common with mammals than with computers.

---

And three types of mathematician: those who can count, and those who can't.

Hmmm .. so type 2?

[Edwardo Piet]

And three types of mathematician: those who can count, and those who can't.

That's it! Look at my own crappy attempt to remember it lol:

There are only two kinds of people: Those we can count to two, those who can't count to two, and those who are amazing at math.

[Fireball]

And three types of mathematician: those who can count, and those who can't.

10, Base 3

[robvalue]

Lump it all in for me.

[Anomalocaris]

And three types of mathematician: those who can count, and those who can't.

10, Base 3

Enumerate.

---

There are only two kinds of people:  Real human beings and republicunts.

Republicunts are people now? Damn bleeding heart lumper!

---

In every classification scheme, there are two camps. There are those classifiers who tend to find similarities between things and prefer to lump smaller groups into larger groups, and on the other hand those catalogers who tend to find differences and prefer to split larger groups into smaller groups. In thinking about human nature, too, there are lumpers and splitters.  Splitters like to emphasize the ways in which we are distinct from the other animals, such as our rationality, language, opposable thumbs, bipedalism, civilization, and so on.  Lumpers on the other hand believe that the most significant influence on the way we are is those ways in which we share traits with other animals.  This includes things like our social nature, the importance of sex and reproduction, our emotions, and so on.

Which do you think is more important for shaping what we are as humans today?  Are you a lumper or a splitter?

I am a splitter when it comes to having sex. I am a lumper when it comes to sea food flavored treats.

[paulpablo]

I am a bit of both.

But in terms of which statement I think is more important, I think it's more important to consider similarities, which might make me a lumper.

The correlation between being religious and being a splitter I imagine will be very high.

My entire reason for finding it important to be a lumper is that as an atheist I encounter claims of humans as being divinely unique and not a member of the great ape family.  Me being a lumper is due to my opposition to this mainly religious inspired view, and being a supporter of mainstream science when it comes to evolution and animal classifications.

[Edwardo Piet]

The correlation between being religious and being a splitter I imagine will be very high.

It definitely will be. It's because as far as religion is concerned we were made in God's image. Religion is inherently speciesist.

[Anomalocaris]

The correlation between being religious and being a splitter I imagine will be very high.

It definitely will be. It's because as far as religion is concerned we were made in God's image. Religion is inherently speciesist.

I don’t know.   The Bible seems rather eager to lump all the things it totally didn’t know into a few catagories it imagine itself to be somewhat acquainted with.

How many kinds did the biosphere of the earth got lumped into?

[Edwardo Piet]

It definitely will be. It's because as far as religion is concerned we were made in God's image. Religion is inherently speciesist.

I don’t know.   The Bible seems rather eager to lump all the things it totally didn’t know into a few catagories it imagine itself to be somewhat acquainted with.

And the part about animals being put there for man?