Reply to comment

Last class brought up a lot of interesting points. I thought about the idea that our cultures are getting homogenized. To a certain extent, I feel that it is possible. I am a Bengali, and I know a lot of Bengalis that grow up outside of West Bengal or Bangladesh that speak the language of the place they grew up at. When language is not enforced at home, it is lost. With geographical location changes, the cultural validity of a place is in certain ways altered or lost. Having been brought up an Indian though, I find myself leaning towards experiences that have elements of my culture in them in this country. (Eating food that is closest to the kind I am used to back home, loving crowded places, etc). In a certain way, my brain is typecast into my culture. Even if I were to spend the rest of my life in other countries, I will still keep looking for these elements. In that sense, heterogeneity is not lost. I wonder though, to what extent can the brain still hold on to one culture, and how much of it depends on the age of the person? Genes probably have a role to play too.

I find the idea of the I Function as a filter put forward by drichard very interesting. It helps me make a lot of sense of what the I Function is about.

Also, I wonder whether evolutionarily, humans should have come to a set point which is the most conducive to their healthy functioning. Obesity is a problem, as earlier noted, and having a high set point is not beneficial to the person because of the risks it has. Is it possible to arrive at lower set points for humans? I know we discussed that there are certain advantages to having a higher set-point, but it seems as if a lower one is far more beneficial. I also wonder about the anthropological significance of different set points in different cultures. How much of it is culturally related? How much is dependent on environmental conditions?