Are you a lumper or a splitter?

[Angrboda]

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?

[FatAndFaithless]

Can I be a little of both? I've never really thought about this specifically, but I think it's not hard to recognize how closely we resemble other animals in certain ways while also identifying the stark differences. Can I be a... splimper?

[Pat Mustard]

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

[SaStrike]

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.

The splitter option lumps all other animals though. Poll is rigged.

[Minimalist]

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

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

This goes for differences between humans and other animals, as well as differences between dogs and other animals, birds and other animals, snakes and other animals, etc... 

"Splitting" just seems more logical all around. Lumping seems rash.

---

Which do you think is more important for shaping what we are as humans today?

A couple examples of how splitting has been important: 

- We have doctors to treat sick people, and vets to treat sick animals, and different types of vets to treat different types of animals. 

- We eat other animals, but it's extremely taboo and unacceptable to eat people, unless in extreme life/death situations and only if the person we eat is already dead. 

- We have different fields of study for different species of animals, including humans in their own category.

- The way we talk to/treat our pets is different from the way we would do so with our human children.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[Edwardo Piet]

Lumper. That doesn't mean we aren't different from other animals in some way. We just aren't different enough to need our own category.

There's only 2% difference in DNA between us and chimps. That's the only reason they don't have technology like we do. Once you get a creature with the brains and limbs able to construct tools and technology gets started... it just snowballs from there.

We're nothing special. I'm sure there are plenty of other lifeforms out there in the universe that also had an evolutionary pathway that happened to take them on the path to invention... and then it snowballed just like it did with us.

Why is there only us? There wasn't. There were other apes that were smart enough to make tools and stuff, we just happen to be the smartest of the bunch (anrhropic principle there), and also the most aggressive. We out-bred, out-thought and murdered all competition.

I'm sure that must be the same on alien planets. When live evolves and a create starts to develop simple tools, there will be other creatures closely related that do too... and then it just becomes an arms race and they exterminate each other. The strongest species sticks around and becomes the dominant creature.

Hell, we still exterminate each other today... and that's our own species.

[Joods]

Can I be a little of both?  I've never really thought about this specifically, but I think it's not hard to recognize how closely we resemble other animals in certain ways while also identifying the stark differences.  Can I be a... splimper?

This would be how I feel too! I see some of both categories. I can't just pick one or the other.