[…] Clannishness – the Series: How It Happened Clannishness – the Series: A Finer-Grained Look at How It Happened — […]

JayMan, so good to see you back! The thought that you, HBD Chick, and Peter Frost had all stopped blogging was so disheartening. Fatherhood must be exhausting. Hope you’ll be doing lots of blogging in the New Year!

You tore this Daniel cheenk a new one, lol!

Unfortunately globalization have this ability to increase this moral concernments, at least among some people, unfortunately because instead less things to think/to care we have a multiplication of it. If i had in very bad place and some out-people decide save me and my people i would be eternally grateful and i will try to retribute this enormous help in all ways my possibilities can touch.

Different from you i little care about my own family, maybe more about my mother, my father is extremely stubborn ( extremely stubborn people, you need leave them live their own ignorance in peace) and my older brothers follow him and they tend to be very stupid in their own ways, the middle brother is a incurable and very silly leftist, my older brother is the classical ”red-pilled”/libertarian-tard, nonexistent emotional intelligence and too much polymath syndrome. Because i’m very different than my other relatives i find very little similarities, strong enough to connect myself with them but i believe even i was very similar i would not change my universalistic point of views if this is just the truth of moral facts.

My ability to care about what Africans or Martians do to each other borders between none to little. I’m not sure why I should, either, until I want the day for someone to impose their universalist attitudes upon me and declare that all pronouns must be zher.

As far as I can hold as an universal moral philosophy, by allowing multiple forms of society to exist, it creates a diversity of societies which is worth preserved in the same way that animal biodiversity is worth preserving, as opposed to, for example, unleashing the European rabbit everywhere. For all I know, Africans doing horrible things to other Africans might result in a better society for them thirty generations from now.

I’ll let you have the last word here but perhaps because of how I am, I really don’t care much for what other people do to each other, so as long as it doesn’t affect me or my family. I rather like the idea of being able to just exit from any society I find too annoying, and find one where I belong to better.

WEIRD societies are extremely recent phenomenon…

Before crazy sixties, europeans, out and in Hainal circles were homogeneously conservative: ”homophobic”, ‘racist’, ‘anti-semitic, ”xenophobic”, … what do you think about it Jay*

Returning vaguely to the original point and conflating with the link, I believe that there may be another aspect of clannish attitude that isn’t quite addressed – for example, I’ve always been conservative, even reactionary for as long as I can remember on certain aspects. One would argue that in some ways, I should be similar to you in that I would acknowledge how universalist values benefit me; while I can see that, I also extend logically that I’ve lost much from it and gained in ways that are ultimately meaningless to me.

When I was younger, for example, I remember affiliating myself with a group composed, as I found out, of almost entirely Deep Southerners(and East Europeans) that has naturally structured themselves into an elite which were mostly descendants of plantation owners and a “redneck” population of former sharecroppers, etc. I worked with them in a role that proved essential for their cause, but made me utterly invisible, such that my successes would be seen and acknowledged by almost no one. And yes, even at the time, I had wondered why something as neutral as a gaming group seemed to had segregated itself along geographic lines. Our rivals used a faux democratic structure and clearly North American/West European, incidentally.

Its probably the happiest that I’ve ever been in my life. Ironic, given that it might seem to be working to marginalize myself.

But nothing else later that I can think of has quite matched up to the feeling of togetherness in a tight-knit, ordered group with a sense of history and defiance. I’ve since become much more “successful” as an individual, but none of it feels really all that meaningful.

I wonder if lack of clannishness is affiliated with a greater sense of “self-interest” in a way that individual gains are more meaningful. I’ve never particularly cared, for example, for my own personal survival – my culture has often taught suicide as a way to redeem from familial shame, for example, and so as long as the larger form of my family endures, focusing on the brief life of an individual seems almost silly.

Thanks to traditional masculinity wars has happened..

Wow. Rude you isn’t??

I agree about force people to do what they don’t want to do is at priori waste of time BUT I also disagree because MOST of people are intellectually hopeless AND like it or not there are universally morally correct things MOST don’t want understand by pure immaturity/stupidity. Yes priests being forced to celebrate marriage of two people of same sex is a separated and negotiable thing.

But we have some attitudes that are essentially/universally wrong

Do you want that African teens have their clitoris removed BECAUSE you don’t care what other people do??

As ALWAYS….

There are cases and cases

My issue is just that overt normalization of homosexuality has brought a host of other ridiculous concepts as norms, and served ultimately to signal traditional masculinity as something negative. I really don’t care if homosexuals had a satellite state or whatever, I just don’t feel a particular need to force bakeries to make cakes for same-sex marriages, be certain that the women I’m with are actually biologically born women, and be allowed to make snide remarks about people within my state.

I like Peter Thiel and all, but I don’t feel a need to praise people for who they choose to boff. Nor do I think they need special protections against people who might say bad things.

I wouldn’t care if people wanted to exclude me for my ethnicity from certain regions, I mean, and I don’t demand women who don’t like Asians to like me or be considered a bigot.

There are extreme types who lack of self control among homosexuals it’s evident. They are firstly victims of themselves and this laws I’m proposing will be very good for them or at least will creates a correct divisions between those who want really build something sustainable at long term and those who are too immature or childish to build anything.

In many aspects homosexuals has been persecuted by pure disgusting or hate by other people. There are a hierarchy of legitimacy of “PC” social causes. Speciecism and homophobia are in the top of legitimacy. Racism and specially anti Semitism is in the bottom. The two first are really biggest sin humans has committed and with very little rational reflection for very long time still this days. Anti Semitism are the least legitimate of this sin partially credible but predominantly caused by own Jewish attitudes against their host and we know what collectives do individuals many them who are innocent pay for it.

I believe lack of protective factors increase certain intrinsic trends among homosexuals. Yes promiscuity is common among us and it’s not entirely explained by cultural factors but what I said, a sub ideal scenario increase vulnerabilities. For example the increase of social pathologies among white working classes this days. Many or most of promiscuous people are those who are always searching for “perfect” mate but they are unsuccessful while monogamous people because their personality traits, higher percent of available people and strong social network tend to find their long life partners easily. I believe most people want a long term if not long-life partners, this factors increase or reduce the chance you find him/her/sher,

Too much promiscuity that is not caused exactly by homossexual nature but also by lack of efficient social network that can find correct partners to the most of the homosexuals.

Do we know this for certain? I’ll virtue signal a little bit here that I have nothing really against homosexuals, but my experience with gay men is that they always seem to have a very large number of short-term partners. When a gay friend of mine told me that he just found out that he had HIV, he told me something like “Eh, that was going to happen anyway sooner or later, no big deal.”

I mean, there have been gay bars for a long time. At least with gay men, wouldn’t sexuality being tied to testosterone imply more frequent and casual partners?

“by now”

“curse”

First, homossexual community need emancipate yourself and start to behave like a parallel political state just like Jews, just like a satellite of the heteronormative society. But still need build a real community because by no there such thing homossexual community I mean a group of people who help one each other.

Homosexuality is in the state of feral culture without behavioral laws. Just like if heterossexuals were through in the natural state without a culture.

There are important points that explain great part of homossexual problems for example the popularity or sacrament of the anal penetrative sex. This practice must avoided. Too much promiscuity that is not caused exactly by homossexual nature but also by lack of efficient social network that can find correct partners to the most of the homosexuals.

If most of this points were corrected I believe homosexuality will stop to be a social cursed, collectively speaking.

Many homosexual pathologies can be in the true co occurrence of mental disorders like schizophrenia in disproportionate rates if compared with “control” groups.

No jayman nor you can decide for us what we must to do for yourselves.

OT–does anybody know of a concise write-up on gay pathologies, medical and social, and how society should deal with it? Ideally some concise arguments and needed authoritative sources, not too many, not too few, plus workable ideas on what to do, politically, morally, rhetorically.

Also, JayMan: Merry Christmas!

Jayman is back!!!!!

Jay,

about IDENTICAL twins — homossexuality heritability

How they analysed it*

they measured their levels of same-sex[ual] excitability*

Without group selection, the payoffs to defection are still there, and there’s intense selection for deception, that is defecting while appearing not to, which fits a lot of the behaviors we see today such as virtue signaling and pathological altruism.

Please, please, please elaborate.

How independent is this organisation!

In April 2015 TI defended the decision by its American chapter, TI-USA, to give Hillary Clinton its Integrity Award in 2012. TI’s statement followed a report by National Public Radio that Bill and Chelsea Clinton were not factual regarding the transparency of the Clinton Foundation.
It has the smell of the corporate sector all over it!

Why not replace ethnic by GENETIC interests firstly??

Well there are that ethnically-genetically aficionados too, aka, ethnic genetic interests. But generally human beings tend to be primarily and generally concerned by their own genetic interests independent of ethnicity. Ethnicity is not the first option, may be one of the options.

If ethnic personality types really exist so I think people who are more “exotic” in this way will be more ethnically aficionado than ex centric ones or outsiders. Everything tend to conspire to the ethnic aficionados: Greater facility and fastness to find a partner as well a kind of intrinsic attraction/motivation to the people who look like him/her. Conservatives those who tend to be more ethnically interested tend to marry earlier and build a family.

Both exist, ethnic genetic interests and lack of it in the same way there are cons and libs.

> The article is a repackage of Orientalism, the mother of Racism/White supremacy/Nazism, presenting bigotry observations as the scientific evidence to legitimize racism/White supremacy/Nazism by ignoring the cause of creating the differences of the levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust around the world. The falling behind social developments in the rest of world is caused by the West’s destructive intervention with organized violence and barbaric inhumane imperialist colonialism in the last few hundreds of years.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/02/paul-bairoch-on-industrial-revolution_20.html?m=1

Tell us more on how only Whitey invaded other lands.

>Before the advent of the destructive intervention of the bagger-thy-neighbor West, the large part of the rest of the world was way ahead of the author’s shinny example, the West, in the levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust in thousands of years.

WE WUZ KANGZ

Go list all the accomplishments that weren’t Chinese or Indian from the fall of Rome onward that weren’t derived from European work .

>In human history majority of the time the author’s shinny example, the West, was an ignorant, superstitious, barbaric, backwards and oppressive federal serfdom.

Unlike the paradises that were Muslim lands and India. Or Sub-Saharan Africa.

Here’s a tip for you, whiny boy: Stop attending SJW classes, stop reading Commie books, and stop getting your history from films like Braveheart or Monty Python.

>The author’s narrative in the article is equivalent to pointing the lack of “human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust” in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. as the poor outcome of “evolution through natural selection – specifically, gene-culture co-evolution.” instead of they are the disasters created by the West’s bombing, killing and torturing on the their fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

Meanwhile China trolled around in Tibet.

LOL. You can’t hack it, can ya, J-Bob? You cannot abide any questioning of your cant. You’re tracking the Razib Khan path outahere, and nobody is going to miss you a bit. Nobody wants to read solipsistic shinola that some nabob regards as incontestable religious articles of faith.

Hey, your worship, go get published in a legitimate scientific publication. That’ll stroke your needy ego. Awwww…do you have to put up with unwashed, uneducated Doubting Thomases? Welcome to the world of publishing, Jack! Go be a jerk among among those you fancy to be your peers — if only!

after the reading the article, the comments section didn’t disappoint either

thanks for the article.

[…] a valuable book on The Rule of the Clan, and a different take on “clannishness” across […]

Where does “asking for money” fall in the clannishness aspect of society?

Maybe Steve Sailer or Heartiste can help us answer that one.

Har! Zing!

There are a lot of such specimen in Vietnam, they are called Vietnam War time babies, you do not need to take the trouble of doing plastic surgery on them, they were all grew up a perfectly normal Vietnamese (mentally and behavior wise).

Vietnam is fairly recent, and the cohort suffers somewhat from societal rejection. Another example might be the Germans in South America — classically adapted to their host culture.

A property of the DNA sequence itself is the ability to switch epigenetic state, and is therefore subject to natural selection on conventional mutations. Natural selection will eliminate switches with maladaptive effects but perpetuate, and refine, those with adaptive effects. The additional ‘information’ represented by a DNA sequence’s particular epigenetic state is repeatedly being reset.

Thus, epigenetic switches do not involve cumulative, open-ended evolutionary change. Switches are tools that increase the options available to DNA sequences but, in themselves, should not challenge the beliefs of a Darwinist. The high rate of epigenetic change is also important because the level of achievable adaptive precision is limited by the fidelity of replication. Adaptation is constantly being degraded by copying errors and the higher the rate of errors, the larger the selective advantage that is required to maintain previous adaptation. Thus, small selective advantages are unable to be maintained in the presence of low-fidelity replication.

EGI doesn’t work because they overestimate the effect of inclusive fitness for distant relatives.

Genetic relatedness for two co-ethnics is on the magnitude of second cousins. People match on phenotype, you’re going to tell me that there is no matching by genotype? Culture is a product of genetics, so culture, by proxy, is an example of genotypic matching. We’re also genetically similar to our spouses and friends (on the magnitude of fourth cousins). This clearly shows that we want to be other that are genetically similar to ourselves.

Otherwise there is more than a whiff of mono-causal mania about HBD claims.

And a sizeable dollop of self-fulfilling prophecy.

In THE TETHERS OF THE SAPIANTS, culture is defined as “the consensual paradigms of belief, habits, customs and traditions derived from a group genome’s interaction with its circumstances over time.”

You care about your relatives in addition to yourself and your own offspring. … However, your concern falls off as the degree of relatedness decreases. … EGI doesn’t work because they overestimate the effect of inclusive fitness for distant relatives.

What about pedigree collapse?

This comment of mine as a reply back to a comment by another Unz Review commenter might be of interest to this discussion:

Why then are our greatest universities mostly in the north? They got to greatness by having great students and great faculty doing great work, and I think less of that work gets done when you’re sweating on the paper and would rather go have a nice iced tea or go for a swim, or golfing, or whatever.

– http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522227

FKA Max says:

August 8, 2016 at 11:25 pm GMT • 400 Words
@artichoke

Because Nordics/Northern Europeans are on average the tallest humans on the planet (but this is not the only reason), and therefore have on average slightly higher IQs. You are correct temperature plays a significant role in the adaption to taller heights in colder, northern climates/latitudes, but it is not the only selection pressure/motivation, in my opinion:

Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?

Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.

– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

Establishing and maintaining a great university and university environment, or just getting accepted into a great university by way of high test scores (which my above comment was mostly about) are two completely different things, in my opinion. In order for a university to be great it needs to be run by intelligent people, who have certain cultural and genetic attributes, which are the most prevalent in Nordics/Northern Europeans at this time. High intelligence being just one of several factors/attributes/traits required for the long-lasting success and high quality of such an idealistic undertaking to manifest.

Just being tall and intelligent is not enough.

I cannot go into all the details, but there are a couple of clues in the following quote, which might give you some clarity and hints on why many of the great institutions of higher learning and teaching of today, can be found in the regions traditionally inhabited by Nordic/Northern European peoples (this includes North America):

that’s all i’ve got for you today. the short of it is: i wonder if the reformations were a product of several tippining points in the selection for certain behavioral traits in northwestern europeans, among them individualism, universalism, and anti-corruption sentiments. and i don’t think the selection for any of these stopped at the reformation — northwest “core” europeans continued down that evolutionary pathway until we see at least one other big watershed moment in their biohistory: the enlightenment.

– https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/

I am confident, that Nordics/Northern Europeans could even establish and run successful and high-quality institutes of higher learning in the tropical/sweaty/hot regions of the world. Who would attend such a school and how this would manifest itself in either high or low average test scores/achievements of the student body, is another matter and discussion altogether. In my opinion the quality of the faculty is of greater importance than the quality of the student body. But of course, the ideal scenario would be to have a high-quality faculty teach a high-quality student body.

– http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522396

There are a lot of such specimen in Vietnam, they are called Vietnam War time babies, you do not need to take the trouble of doing plastic surgery on them, they were all grew up a perfectly normal Vietnamese (mentally and behavior wise).

The article is a repackage of Orientalism, the mother of Racism/White supremacy/Nazism, presenting bigotry observations as the scientific evidence to legitimize racism/White supremacy/Nazism by ignoring the cause of creating the differences of the levels of human development

racism/white supremacy/nazism = you need choice only one, what do you think*

Yes, i agree in the near past white supremacism was mainstream, or better, nordic supremacism.

Nazi ideology wasn’t a mere coincidence but the explosive rupture of the honestly-racist culture being nurtured many decades/centuries before.

I agree to the ”nazi ‘insight’ ” about always-permissive jewish role whatever the place where they are. BUT i disagree a lot with the ”methods” nazis used as well their essential racial ideology.

The falling behind social developments in the rest of world is caused by the West’s destructive intervention with organized violence and barbaric inhumane imperialist colonialism in the last few hundreds of years.

Only partially i agree with you. Well westerner”s” become so powerfull… why**

Just think about if super-evolved aliens invaded the earth and start to colonize or to kill us…

Now compare europeans with ”the rest of the world”.

People just luv creativity but without wisdom it can be deadly.

I’m not a blind european-phile, but i’m against injustice and ordinary living white/european caucasian people today no have nothing to do with the ”mistakes” (euphemisms) of their ELITES and the connivance or indiference (or also, stupidity/lack of factual knowledge) of most of their people, or better, ”sheeple-ness” in the past… and even today if they are being opressed by their (and ”their”) elites too, in very different and sophisticated ways.

Elites jumped to the anti-(ordinary) white people because it’s quite convenient for them. (Even, current living rich western people today no have, literally speaking, nothing to do with the ”mistakes” on the ”PAST””’… but they, many them, are direct heirs of it).

The author’s narrative in the article is equivalent to pointing the lack of “human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust” in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. as the poor outcome of “evolution through natural selection – specifically, gene-culture co-evolution.” instead of they are the disasters created by the West’s bombing, killing and torturing on the their fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

In this part i absolutely agree with you, but bear always in mind that the brains of all this ”intervertions” ALSO have ”david star identification”.

Exactly, even cousin marriage + hyper-masculine culture + lower IQ can create a progressive nightmare for itself, we know very well that for example civil war in Lebanon was not a DIRECT product of this complex scenario.

Cousin marriage theory seems want blame ”muslims”/MENA and europeans by their own current fate, BUT we know, or at least, ”we” know WHO are manufacturing all this shit.

I strongly believe reduction of cousin marriage make people more ”open-minded” or open to new experiences but this theory can’t explain alone why ”westerners” (how the % of them, exactly*) begin to be ”more progressive” only three four decades ago if they started to stop cousin marriage since a long time.

Socio-economic, psychological (psychology of cohersion apllied) and politic factors are also very important to explain this cultural changes.

Where does “asking for money” fall in the clannishness aspect of society?

The article is a repackage of Orientalism, the mother of Racism/White supremacy/Nazism, presenting bigotry observations as the scientific evidence to legitimize racism/White supremacy/Nazism by ignoring the cause of creating the differences of the levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust around the world. The falling behind social developments in the rest of world is caused by the West’s destructive intervention with organized violence and barbaric inhumane imperialist colonialism in the last few hundreds of years.

Before the advent of the destructive intervention of the bagger-thy-neighbor West, the large part of the rest of the world was way ahead of the author’s shinny example, the West, in the levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust in thousands of years. In human history majority of the time the author’s shinny example, the West, was an ignorant, superstitious, barbaric, backwards and oppressive federal serfdom.

The author’s narrative in the article is equivalent to pointing the lack of “human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust” in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. as the poor outcome of “evolution through natural selection – specifically, gene-culture co-evolution.” instead of they are the disasters created by the West’s bombing, killing and torturing on the their fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

Reading a slight too much into what I meant, good sir. I did link the relevant source in a later comment incidentally.

Unrelated: Are you back because Razib is gone?

I will take these explanations more seriously when the expounders show they’ve done their reading in economic history at a more scholarly level. Otherwise there is more than a whiff of mono-causal mania about HBD claims. Take HBD chick’s comments quoted in the text – she seems to revel in her ignorance of comparative history.

For example there’s a well known explanation for the great divergence between East and West Europe in terms of the Black Death and its demographic consequences; how, in the West a shrunken population was able to demand higher wages and engender a path to commerce-intensive growth, whereas in the East the loss of population led to even harsher forms of serfdom (the ‘second serfdom’). Now how does HBD account for this kind of rather rapid, socio-political shift that then had long term path dependent consequences? OK, maybe Easterners were slightly differently endowed genetically before this divergence, but that slight difference doesn’t ‘explain’ the divergence itself which was contingent and political in nature but then had enormous long term effects. The same, more obviously was true in the split Germany and Korea.

Many sophisticated socio-economic explanations exist for divergences and splits between regions. HBD might contribute something to understanding why fault-lines lie where they do and how institutions then ‘select’ for certain traits (thus cementing divergences that were primarily caused by politics), but until any HBDer shows any serious interest in institutional history, comparative anthropology, etc, no one is going to take them seriously.

Lack of CHARACTER is heritable too Jay??

Contrary to all previous scientific enquiry concerning the genetics of mental disorder you have succeeded in discovering a single gene that is responsible for depression? Publish your research immediately for a Nobel Prize surely awaits you.

Contrary to all previous scientific enquiry concerning the genetics of mental disorder you have succeeded in discovering a single gene that is responsible for depression? Publish your research immediately for a Nobel Prize surely awaits you.

Hehehehe

I’m alien in this department. Maybe I have the southern European/and MENA gene that prevent me to become alcoholic. Well I need like alcoholic drink first to have some vulnerability but not, I have none. I’m very feminine-like in this taste.

None born drunk

Allow me to introduce you to the specimen of humanity known as the Irish

Interaction of genetic and environmental factors, yes. Obviously one couldn’t be an alcoholic in a world where no one has invented any form of alcoholic drinks, agreed.

Alcoholism as well many other behavioral traits are enviroment-dependent because if you no have any alcoholic drink to become alcoholic how you will express phenotypically this behavior**

So alcoholism is not heritable, what is ”heritable” is the vulnerability to the alcoholism, because alcoholism is already a unbalanced product/combination of intrinsic/genetic and environmental/availability of alcohol and permissive culture, what i call ”secondary reaction”.

None born drunk,

The whole point of a brain is adaptation…Brain is a plastic organ (unlike the lungs); it gets formed during your lifetime

I also want to object to this, its confusing the purpose of the brain with a feature of the brain. The “point of a brain” is simply to get the individual to be able to reproduce successfully; the human brain’s ability to adapt was a reaction to highly changeable circumstances during our origin conditions.

When society and environment is stable, selection then favors brains that thrive within such an environment, and certain traits are hereditable. The science is pretty strong on that, to be honest.

Incidentally, alcoholism is indeed partly hereditary.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

I study neuroplasticity extensively. However, neuroplasticity has its limits – for example, women put in male careers still use inter-hemispherical neural expression while men put in careers utilize intra-hemispherical neural expression typical of their sex.

Only hormones, for example, ultimately affect your amygdala size and the sexually dimorphic nucleus is pretty much set at birth as far as we can tell. You can’t think yourself into having a larger hippocampus and more primitive and basic structures such as the brainstem can’t have any alterations at all without causing serious, potentially fatal health effects(they influence things such as heartbeat).

Neuroplasticity can emphasize knowledge and skills but only partly explains traits and feelings. There’s a lot of the hindbrain activity when it comes to “gut feeling” and the neocortex where most of neuroplasticity occurs doesn’t account for all of it.

I humbly submit that you’re making the fallacy of composition – what is true of a part isn’t always true of the whole. Its like arguing that just because we can increase our muscle size, that our bodies are not hereditary at all. We can indeed hypertrophy, but we can’t extend bones through effort, for example.

If they didn’t sacrifice the opponents there would have been beats of burdens to pull those wheeled carts around.

I don’t see the point in bringing genetics into this at all.

Let’s do a thought experiment:
- take a sperm from the most individualistic arrogant Anglo-Saxon asshole we can find.
- take an egg from a similar Anglo-Saxon lady.
- fertilize the egg.
- implant it into the most collectivist rice-growing lady we can find, on the other side of the world. We’ll hypnotize her and her family to believe that she is pregnant from her rice-growing husband.
- once the baby is born, we (secretly) perform a plastic surgery on it, to make it look like a typical person in that rice-growing community.
- done.

I predict that the person will most likely grow up to be a perfectly normal rice-grower, like any other rice-grower. What does your intuition tell you?

Regarding the “ethnic genetic interests” issue, from what I understand, it emphasizes relatedness and having copies of one’s genes in other organisms. But isn’t lineal descent what genes care about? For example, if there were trillions of exact clones of you on other planets replicating themselves in perpetuity, your genes in your own body here on Earth wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care. They’d only care about their own lineal descent. Am I wrong about this?

we see with the larger lung capacity in the populations of the Nepal

Lungs and brains are not similar. The whole point of a brain is adaptation, being able to learn and adapt dynamically – and I don’t see how this could be contested in good faith.

True, some physical characteristics of a brain could be inheritable – but to jump from that to traits, that’s just craziness. This is exactly the stuff you’d hear for an old village woman: ‘his father was always late (or lazy, or drunk), and so is he’. That’s a superstition.

Neuroplasticity, man. Brain is a plastic organ (unlike the lungs); it gets formed during your lifetime. Check twin studies, of the twins grown up in different environments. If I remember correctly (it’s been a while since I checked), even homosexuality – a major, super-major trait – turns out it’s not significantly gene-based. And that a super-major personal trait. Collectivism? That’s not even a trait, it’s a socioeconomic development; product of societal evolution…

The Maya used the wheel for children’s toys, so they knew of it. The wheel wasn’t conducive with their city state layout and there were no beasts of burden to carry the load.

Not “layout” necessarily. One good look at what the Maya called a “road”, and you would immediately conclude that sitting on a wheeled device of any kind would have been an invitation to suicide. Walking and llamas are infinitely safer, and consistently effective for the terrain. And yes, llamas can be used as beasts of burden.

It’d be much more logical (even perfectly obvious, imo) to surmise that the cause for collectivist activities is the environment: rice-growing, in this case. Or, for that matter, any low-tech labor-intensive high-density agricultural society. Villages. And the same goes for any other cultural quirk: all of them have good (and often quite obvious) environmental and socioeconomic explanations.

Golly, they sure do, don’t they? And those factors combine to provide some rather much more complete explanation, don’t they? Sonofagun.

Not that parsimony matters when genetic hijinks are just begging to be theorized, eh?

You don’t need a beast of burden to make a simple wagon useful, as anyone who has used a dolly can relate. And they did have a pack animal, though a weaker one than in the Old World: the llama. The Incans made quite a bit of use out of them.

I believe what was actually missing wasn’t the idea of a wheel, which might be present in the New World as you suggested, but the idea of an axle. The axle is what makes wheels actually useful for moving burdens.

For example, the New World did potentially lack draft animals, but nothing stopped them from creating the wheel. And yet, no one thought of it.

The Maya used the wheel for children’s toys, so they knew of it. The wheel wasn’t conducive with their city state layout and there were no beasts of burden to carry the load.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel

What about it?

Without group selection, the payoffs to defection are still there, and there’s intense selection for deception, that is defecting while appearing not to, which fits a lot of the behaviors we see today such as virtue signaling and pathological altruism.

We all agree that people adapt to the environment. Part of that adaptation, as you indicated is cultural, however, part of that adaptation can be physical as well as we see with the larger lung capacity in the populations of the Nepal, or the development of sickle cells in African regions. Carrying logically from that is the realization that certain mental traits are also hereditary at least in part, and therefore can impact perception, society, and culture as well.

Otherwise, the argument is effectively a form of black state – that we are born as blank states, wholly impacted only by society. While gender theorists love this idea, I must unwaveringly hold that testosterone has clear physical effects on the shape of certain brain structures, leading to behaviorial differences.

It would seem similarly logical that other genetic traits also can impact the brain, and thus personality. In aggregate, then, it would impact developed culture and society.

Guns, Germs and Steel is interesting and I’ve studied it before, however, it is far from a complete theory. For example, the New World did potentially lack draft animals, but nothing stopped them from creating the wheel. And yet, no one thought of it. Sometimes, the limiting factors aren’t the environment; sometimes, its just an idea, and that idea isn’t present for some reason.

The science behind heredity of mental traits is not really as fragile as you think it is, I am afraid.

People (and animals) adapt to their environment; adults teach their young how to behave. And so it goes…

All of it have genetic/intrinsic basis.

Social conformity have genetic basis, human capacity to self-deception have genetic basis…

Genetics is omniscient. Even the most cultural or environmental thing is genetic-dependent in some way.

A million things are correlated with each other. You pick some and you fantasize, which is fine, a decent way to kill time, if you got nothing better to do. But that’s all it is – fantasies, and extremely unconvincing at that.

It’d be much more logical (even perfectly obvious, imo) to surmise that the cause for collectivist activities is the environment: rice-growing, in this case. Or, for that matter, any low-tech labor-intensive high-density agricultural society. Villages. And the same goes for any other cultural quirk: all of them have good (and often quite obvious) environmental and socioeconomic explanations. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, or something. People (and animals) adapt to their environment; adults teach their young how to behave. And so it goes…

Just think about all this changes in clothing and attitudes, since begining of XX and today*

Or too fast genetic changes has happened during the XX century (in all places, included not-so-”universalistic” places) OR no doubt culture/social pressure have important but not absolutely determinative role in human behavior ( i always inclined to believe both).

We have, individually speaking, SOME limited but existent ”mask of sanity/normalcy” to wear and as many people are not constant/habitual thinkers and/or more self-aware so they tend to internalize that their social milieux IS the reality itself/whole reality, while it’s not correct to conclude.

We are basically talking about ”subconscious social smart” people, those who have the chameleon strategy (emulating ”the environment”) because social conformity usually have many individual advantages and the most important of all, fertility potential, and they are, invariably, the majority.

Leftism is the demonstration that human beings tend to be skilled to adapt to their cultural environment BUT at the same they tend to become dependent of their environment.

When everything in your life appear to be right why you would question*

Well, ”we” know this don’t happen with more self-aware people, but we must need to put ourselves in the clothes and in the mind of the common/ordinary people to understand this collective changes or patterns and many times we just put in the place them (partial empathy) but analysing their existential/evolutive perspective based on our perspectives, more self-aware, a wrong thing to do, the first mistake of the empathy.

In the end, i believe most of this cultural changes were superficial, at the best, over-exagerated by hbd’ers, to fit with their genetic direct role on human behavior-theory.

The fundamental cause on this cultural differences in western behavior is the re-organization/re=programming of this social-hierarchical structures privileging ”extremistic and ignorant/vague ‘humanistic’ point of views”, divorced from ”cold” facts and completely embodied by emotion, and emotion without reason is just histeria. Means and their progressively known ends…

Means = gigantic emotional blackmail

Ends = ”pacific’ capitulation of the european and their race.

Maybe the fundamental psychological trait that tend to correlates with higher degree of exogamy is openess.

But centuries of ”clannish–conservative-leaning” behavior of NW europeans show for us that lack of cousin marriages don’t make people instantaneously post-modernists. Europeans and descendents are disproportionately more open to experience, to intellect and culture/arts than other people*

since XVII*

You clearly haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Change that before commenting here again. Last warning.

Ah, that saved me some pointless reading, thanks. No warning needed. Preach as you see fit.

Its not impossible, but we’ll need a mechanism by which the serotonin transporter gene turns exhibits its short allele form due to long-term rice consumption since that was what was observed. Its something which can be clearly be experimented for, I think at any rate.

Here are the sources:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319313/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-27-Depression_culture_N.htm

Upon analysis, the authors theorized that while the gene was indeed correlated with depression, it also was potentially correlated with even lower depression than usual when individuals had frequent social contact.

So, if individuals are more likely to need more social contact, they tolerate or even be encouraged by societies where social contact is more frequent. This isn’t either condemnation or praise, just an observation.

”But thank G-d we’ve progressed out of that hell hole! It was repressive, illiberal, anti-individualistic, patriarchal, authoritarian, xenophobic,

and far too often, antisemitic.”

Oops,

hbd-o-sphere have more jews, creeptojews and jewlover than a synagogue, period.

Today’s dominant beliefs

individual selection would have given a high payoff to defection

True, but we also had a lot of cultural machinery devoted to prevention and punishment of defection.

But thank G-d we’ve progressed out of that hell hole! It was repressive, illiberal, anti-individualistic, patriarchal, authoritarian, xenophobic, and far too often, antisemitic.

If you take something as simple the prevalent depression gene in Southern Chinese, it highly leads to implications of why the rice-growing regions in China are more collectivistic.

This sounds like word salad. To begin with, there’s no such thing as a “depression gene”. In addition, “it highly leads to implications” and “more collectivistic” are completely meaningless combinations of words.

Right, but presumably the behaviors and traits evolved earlier. Under individual selection, the payoffs to defection without detection would have been great. The sort of things we see today like virtue signaling correspond to defection without detection and incurring of costs.

I haven’t seen data on fertility by political views there. Only the United States.

Am I correct in assuming that leftist political views in the USA correlate with lower fertility? Anecdotally I find that to be the case.

If you take something as simple the prevalent depression gene in Southern Chinese, it highly leads to implications of why the rice-growing regions in China are more collectivistic. Any consistent strain of behavior/motivation frequently exhibited in a population will lead to policies that rise to meet the need.

Suppose that “genetic” factor is a situational product of long-term dependence on high glycemic index food sources, and not “genetic” at all?

Have you seen the previous entry in the series, and everything linked there? You get a lot of predictability.

No, I have not. So, for that aspect, judgement withheld until I get around to it. So far, the potential for epigenetics to be preempted by culture and environment is so … strong … that I have been inclined to dismiss epigenetics out of hand.

Are these people easy marks for common con artists, too?

I think that may be one of the issues with this theory. If group selection was not involved, then individual selection would have given a high payoff to defection. One possible way of resolving this and maintaining the theory is that the individual selection favored deception, whereby the appearance of trust is maintained coupled with defection. This would conform to the sort of phenomena we see among Westerners such as virtue signaling and pathological altruism whereby the costs are avoided or deferred onto others and/or others are actively harmed.

Excellent point.

It’s easy to become emotionally invested about results of conditions that seem permanent, but are not.

Today’s bitter debates over fads and fashions in politics & science will change as soon as the underlying environment does. As I’ve noted in a few comments today, few people seem to remember what that fad/fashion environment entailed just 40 years ago. It was a near inversion of now.

I know I’m a one-note wonder, but anyone can look to a long-term arithmetic chart of the DJIA or S&P500 and see that the last 35 years are every bit as much an anomaly as were the Popular Delusions of John Law’s Mississippi Scheme and England’s South Sea Bubble, excepting duration.

Beliefs are fashions. Today’s dominant beliefs are perfect exhibits of those that rise up during major upturns in social mood. Today it falls to pseudonymous bloggers to aggregate the otherwise blasphemous data on human phenotypes at the group level. In a few years it seems likely to me that these ideas will move from the fringe to the mainstream as a bear market in social mood leads to rejection of “unlimited resources/no limits” in favor of “dwindling resources/hard limits.”

Today’s “problems” will turn into something else entirely, while things now considered non-problems will come to occupy the social environment. It’s thus meaningless to become emotional over any of it.

Except for the fact that it makes sense and has been scientifically validated in many ways? If you take something as simple the prevalent depression gene in Southern Chinese, it highly leads to implications of why the rice-growing regions in China are more collectivistic. Any consistent strain of behavior/motivation frequently exhibited in a population will lead to policies that rise to meet the need. Doesn’t mean it has to be the same policies.

So the question remains:

Can people genetically predisposed to higher trust societies (and lower fertility) survive in the geographic presence of those who are predisposed to lower-trust societies (and higher fertility)?

I find it fascinating to discuss all this with intelligent people who still appear unable to see where all this leads. Is it that they don’t have children, and so just don’t really care if the unique attributes of Westerners disappear over coming generations? Or is it that they are so high-spectrum for those trusting attributes that they simply cannot imagine others are different? Are these people easy marks for common con artists, too?

I well recall the topics-of-the-day back in the early 1970′s. Back then people were truly terrified of running out of room, out of food, out of water, etc., and the notion of inviting tens of millions of (fast-reproducing) people into their midst would have caused mass fainting or riots. All we heard about was that Spaceship Earth was going to be rechristened the “Thomas Malthus.”

Now, the children of those 1970′s worriers are all sailing the good ship Pollyanna, apparently happy to invite the world to raid (their neighbors’) local refrigerators while producing the next round of grandchildren.

Such is what happens when we’ve endured 35 straight years of debt-based “prosperity,” leading to a perception of unlimited resources.

I respectfully disagree, JayMan. “Nope” doesn’t say anything.

But the question is, how did it happen? How did these divisions come to be?

I was born and raised in a vast mental asylum. I was a young man before I had any inkling I had somehow become partly sane. We had all learned in the asylum that to speak or even think in any mode other than the collective insane voice of the other asylum residents would mark one as different and dangerous. The onset more

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/asylum-earth/