Yet you don’t agree with the liberal notion of immigration to increase IQ via increased nutrition which helps the world. I see. Just a part of the American neoliberal yellow journalism at heart.

After 1964 and the Civil Rights Act, the Solid Democratic South became the Solid Republican South. There was no sea change rearing up in any direction. It was a wholesale, pretty much instant conversion. It’s very hard to draw out any regional/political, urban/rural, conservative/liberal, Dem/GOP relationships corresponding to any election since that watershed year.

If someone in the Solid South voted Democratic prior to 1964, would it mean that they were more liberal? Or just that they were still following the Confederate mind/set which would rather die than vote Republican? If someone voted Republican in that region, would it have meant that they were conservative, or that they were voting against the Dixiecrats? Would party voting tell us anything about urban/rural differences or similarities? There would be no way to distinguish between two sorts of motivation, so no conclusions about that region could be drawn, at least not in the same way as afterwards.

Broken link:

which, as of this writing, is reaching critical levels in Spain.

https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hyJdb-8EEhBjETpyrnKh92lMQU0w?docId=af84f7d4f42d4b8e9b5b90605ce95267)

“Equally important, the effect of the shared environment appears to be zero for these traits. Children growing up in the same home (and sharing all the environmental influences such children encounter) do not resemble one another in any discernible way (especially when measured as adults, and when the effect of assortative mating in addressed). Adopted children aren’t any more similar to their adoptive families than random strangers. ”

You know that c2 means shared environment right? And that a lot of those in the table you show are greater than zero, and many are significantly so? And reproduction, social interaction, and social values are all quite high?? And these matter just a bit…

“Hence, there is no human ethnic group that exhibits ethnic nepotism.”

Single dumbest sentence ever posted on Unz.

Also altruism is the wrong paradigm. Altruism is about sacrificing, laying down your life, etc. Giving your life for twenty six percent chance to save your nephew etc.

The father isn’t ‘sacrificing’ anything so all these ideas about some ‘altruism allele’ are silly. All things being equal, he wants baby carrying more of his genes. That is true if she breeds intra race. It’s that easy.

No ‘self sacrificing allele’ necessary.

From another angle: we all have these in-group/out-group genes for both recognition and affinity. They may not apply in a very safe environment of abundance, or when we’re with a subgroup with whom we feel even more unity (e.g. high IQs may feel more feel more affinity with each other vs. dumbs than they feel for their own race, but this is just another form of group selection or grouping on a clearly genetic trait)

Groups or peoples that didn’t have these instincts to group together and punish shirking went extinct pretty quickly. See: all of human history. And every person’s natural instincts (every person who is within a racial grouping…).

Is it possible a few people evolved to ‘shirk’? Yes, but a huge amount of human psychology is recognizing and punishing shirking, and tribes that were cowardly and prone to shirking…you guessed it, went extinct.

You can’t dismiss group selection when the bulk of human history is group warfare and group conquering. These events were the single biggest shifts in genes.

You seem to forget most genes have immense pleiotropy and the same for cognitive systems/traits. People who don’t ally with their group may not ally as necessary to even cooperate day to day and pass on their individual genes. People who shirk get shunned and may have not found a mate. See: most conversation among group members is most often gossip meant to detect shirking.

So this ideas that the shirking, ‘go at it alone’ allele is adaptive is silly. It gets punished brutally day to day in any small community or tribal setting. It may work in rare cases of anonymity that didn’t exist for most of history but over most of history group ties, group loyalty and low shirking (or very smart shirking) were necessary.

Do we have to group by “race”? No. It could be by any phenotype that seems relevant but for a lot of people the closest thing they can spot (and they’re mostly right according to DNA) is race.

Jayman:

Love your work but this is all hopelessly naive.

The entire history of humanity is genocide. Point blank. From a few million years of evolution only a couple branches from a couple hundred thousand years ago survived. War and conquering have been a constant even in recent millennia and centuries. It formed many of the races (Hispanics, Thais, Vietnamese etc. all were mostly X’s from indigenous and Y from conquerors from the north or across the ocean as the case may be).

Watch a few of those videos of empires over the past 10,000 years and the shift in territories. Look at WWII and Germans reuniting ethnic German territories, killing Jews, Jews plotting to kill Germany and all Germans in retaliation, etc.

We have strong genes to defend and fight for our race, because most of these major battles were between people that looked and acted different than we. It’s remarkably easy to spot the difference between dozens of ethnic sub-groups if you’ve done any traveling. And there’s no doubt those of us who aren’t a blend of everything feel when people share or don’t share our genes.

The fact that you’re a unique mix of every race may mean you love (or are strategically willing to ally with) every race and makes for uniquely insightful writing on HBD, but it also means you have no understanding of most people’s psychology.

As to specific theoretical arguments made, a lot of comments and a basic chart of PCA debunks these. We can very quickly tell those with whom we share genes, and historically when there was conflict or overcrowding people group up that way. It’s very obvious who on the tribe shirks war and who fights for their tribe/race etc. Desertion wasn’t treated any more hospitably before 10,000 bce.

And tribes / sub-races / groups that weren’t willing to fight or perhaps were less group conscious lost every time to those with more power and unity.

The whole of human psychology is based extremely strongly on in-group/out-group morality. Look at any religion. There is a reason groups and peoples with the religious, group-forming impulse survived to pass on their writing and genes. And the other groups went extinct. SEE: Old Testament. History of Islam. Any form of history.

Cute theory. But when it goes against all of human religion, impulse, psychology, and history, then maybe it’s time to admit it’s nothing more than a cute theory.

“First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.”

So how you would account for this study?

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285

And for this analysis of this study?

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/are-all-human-traits-heritable

Wouldn’t the German portion of Texas be another one of these pockets?

[Apologies for my English, it is not my mother tongue. Also, this post is all over the place.]

“The fitness impact to a White man’s genes if his daughter marries a Black man is the same as if she married an unrelated White man (again, fitness from gene function notwithstanding).”

This is reductionist and does not take into account that a national character exists. Descriptions of peoples (“Völker”) have been stable throughout history, as german anthropologist Andreas Vonderach has shown in his work “Völkerpsychologie”.

(Arabs, for example, were hot-tempered and prone to violence even during ancient times, and recent findings have shown that 15.6% (!!) of Saudis have the genotype MAOA-2R. This is clear evidence for what german anthropologists call “Siebung”. Also, the Hijab was known in the Middle East long before Islam started to appear, hinting to a high sexual drive of the muslim population living there. This is inline with our findings regarding “rapefugees” who are predominantly from these countries.)

This means that on average, people of a Volk are embodying certain characteristics. Germans, for example, have been known throughout history for their chastity (way back to the German barbarians), their proclivity to tinker; their technical ability (even during the middle ages, as Montaigne noted), their tendency to being drawn to deep metaphysical speculation, their reflective nature (think of the German idealist philosophers), their drive to get behind “the nature of things”, their faustian character and so on. A short essay of Vonderach deals with what defines being german objectively, from an anthropologist’s standpoint: [0]. In this piece he also cites the fact that 64.4% of Germans can be classified as ethnic Germans by their genetic traits, the other 35.6% overlap with neighbouring states.

Germany is a good example actually: Armin Mohler was perplexed that a country as culturally heterogenous as Germany was so staunchly united during WWII. And one of the reasons is the percentage cited above: most Germans looked alike and acted alike due to their shared tempereament and characteristics as well as their national character. If a national character did not exist, nationalism would be impossible. Vonderach goes into further detail regarding Germany’s national character in his study “Die Deutschen Regionalcharaktere”, where he makes the case that even different regional characters exist in Germany — unfortunately, it’s out of print.

There is little to no reason for Europe to become “multicultural”, or, as is rather the case, to become an ethno-cultural wasteland like the US, something that would more honestly be called “Rassamassa”. And there is all reason for Europeans to now become nationalists defending the their people and culture against globalist One World lunatics. As Vox Day writes — who does not get tired (rightly so) of pointing out that civic nationalism is false — Europe is in better shape because people over here have unique identitarian cultures and see themselves as a distinct people, meaning that there are still left-overs of the solidarity of the different “Völker” that created the base for the European welfare states. We see this especially in eastern Europe, but the French are strong in this regard too; it was a Renaud Camus who coined the term “The Great Replacement”, and it was the French who have been the first Identitarians. There is a reason that many Europeans don’t get along, like the Germans and the Poles, or the Poles and the Russians, or the French and the Germans. It’s because they are a distinct people with a distinct history and culture. Vonderach’s magnum opus “Anthropologie Europas” deals precisley with this topic: the diveristy of the European peoples.

Since it’s already a culture shock for someone “immigrating” from northern Germany to the south of Germany, how would it ever be possible for someone from several thousand kilometers away to immigrate? It is impossible. It’s only possible if your whole culture is based on cheap consumerism and tied together by a fat and expensive welfare state (which is basically bribing all those different non-European ethnicities in western Europe).

The quote I used at the beginning of this post leads me to question the real motives of the blog author “JayMan”. I gathered from reading that he is of mixed race, but lacks the objectivity a mixed race thinker like Theodore Beale brings to the table, because Beale understands that Europe is defined by distinct peoples, and that the current process of immigration and assimilation is a threat to the survival of Europe. I question the objecitivty precisley because the blog author also deals with Europe here, and, as written, Europe has no reason whatsoever to allow immigration. There has been Third World immigration to Germany only for the past 5 decades, it’s nothing that can’t be reversed, and polls show that the majority of Germans have been opposed to immigration during the 60’s up to the present day. It’s solely the wish of corrupt elites and economists who support this process of destruction. Every ethnic Italian has more right to Italy than anyone else on this planet; this is true for every country.

I get the feeling that the author “JayMan” might indeed be sold on consumerism, and high culture is not really part of his life. That’s fine, but then he must not use his influence to spread destructive ideas. He might not feel connected to a specific European culture, whereas I feel indebted to my Greco-Roman and Christian roots as well as to the vast canon of unique and high quality art, philosophy, classical music, literature and science that has been produced by Europeans; as a German, I feel especially connected to German culture, of course, and I have immersed myself in its culture for decades; few immigrants appreciate it. Again, consumerism. No matter if group selection is true or not, mass immigration and genetic assimilation would lead to the downfall of Europe and my culture. Again, if you support this, I question your motives. I question them especially since I’ve read posts by “JayMan” that are critical of mass immigration, and he is aware of the fate of the Portugese, as well as the Greeks and the southern Europeans, especially the Spanish. Up until several deaceds ago, central and northern Europe was spared non-European immigration, and due to this remaind wealthy and produced culture of high quality. The only immigrants that can be said to have had positive effects were the Ashkenazi Jews — I will ignore the Culture of Critique for this post –, but you have to understand that they were only about .7% of the German population. And they were of high intelligence. That’s the opposite of the Third World population western Europe is suffering from now.

What I’m getting at is that the author of this blog post wants to paint being in favor of one’s own culture, which includes one’s own people, as right-wing extremists, as bigoted and as being on the wrong side of history. Europeans don’t need to justify themselves if they vote for politicans who would limit or even completely disallow non-European immigration. In fact, the intergeneration contract forbids replacing your people, or initiating a process that would alter the demographics of your country severly. Even if we wanted to, we wouldn’t be allowed to destroy the unique peoples and cultures of Europe. Mass immigration is not an act of nature, it can be stopped and reversed. And I hope Europeans start to wake up to reverse the damage that has been done — but it might be too late already.

The 16 points of the Alt Right that Vox Day wrote make this very clear, especially the last point. [1] We of the Alt Right support nationalists of every nation; but the Alt Right is against imperialism of any kind; it supports all nations becoming autonomous.

I apologize for the length, but I want to provide those who visit this blog post with a saner perspective, and I want to make clear that defending your nation and opposing immigration of any kind is not a crime.

[0]: http://sezession.de/37160/wir-selbst-anthropologisch.html
[1]: https://voxday.blogspot.fr/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

Jayman,

Most of the original settlers of central Texas (New Braunfels and Fredericksburg) came out of Solms, an area north of Frankfurt.

I would say extremely similar, not identical. I am Korean and I can trace three of my grandparents to the north in Pyongan province and further trace many ancestors back hundreds of years in these regions.

Autosomal DNA analysis shows that genes are overwhelmingly Korean. The marginal differences (less than 20-25%) are attributed to Manchurian as well as Northern Han Chinese populations, tilted more to Manchurian. I have calculated the ratio of the non-Korean ancestry to be around 60% Manchurian to 40% Chinese (using Xibo/Xibe/Sibe and Beijing Han/CHB as proxies). Keep in mind, southern Manchurian population is more gravitated to East Asian populations rather than Siberian populations (Daur and Hezhen would be intermediaries between the two, Oroqen is pulled toward Siberian). This would cause only slightly higher Siberian DNA in northern Korea than in the south. So there is only slightly more Siberian ancestry detected in me than other Koreans (less than 5%).

Still the results show that even in the north samples should register frequently with Japanese samples as in other Korean samples. I guess this is the result of undifferentiated DNA, more so than recent common descent, of which some portion of genes that read as “Japanese” would show up in one area of Korea and another portion would show up in another region of Korea.

Have you read David Pearce?

One feature of these individuals is a visceral opposition to “race mixing� (ignoring the fact that such gave us the modern races we see today). Well to those guys, I say I’ve been busy spreading my Black (and other) genes into the White gene pool here in Maine

Uh, no. Your children are not part of the white gene pool. To be part of the white gene pool, you can’t have recent non-white ancestry.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/beware-of-hbd/

“I think I’d rather be hated by a 250-pound beer-guzzling, pick-up-driving, Confederate flag-waving bubba than some socially-deprived STEM geek quant.”

by the way your hereditary studies even explicitly chalk some of their phenomenon up to environmental factors, which is funny because you have an instinctual need (and probably environmentally reinforced) to believe that isn’t possible and yet you cited it.

All the studies to a one you ever link are A.) outdated B.) dont say what you want them to say C.) you ban everyone that demonstrates this D.) rely on p-values which the scientific community is gradually abandoning

All I said was that it was OK to eat meat (and it sure is) (…)

How so, given greenhouse gases from meat industry is the main contributor to global warming? Eating meat is not necessary for human health in most environments, we do it for pleasure.

Jayman,

Altruism towards in group as a basis for racism or reasons why we’d be genetically predisposed to mate in group? eh.. maybe a bit, but not as likely as other real physical traits.

There is a basis for preferring those of a closer but not close genetic group. Consider that there are broad areas with their – until recent times – vast separation between them. There are over the 10K years* of separation between the European stock, the Asian stock, the Native American Stock, etc. Each of these areas has it’s own fun problems of disease, pests, etc. Each of these has some amount of genetic fitness passed on to each generation for that local.

Consider something as simple as a nose. There is typically a small nose in northern Europe, a large nose for the European of the Med, and then a much larger broader nose in the African population. Why? well one suggestion has to do with how the nose regulates the air we breath making it match what the lungs tolerate better. It needs to create the right humidity and warmth.

We could look and melatonin in the skin, hair color and shape, etc. Each of these leads to a fitness for a given area.

Now let me put in what is the real signalers of these – the pheromones that we as humans put off. These are un noticed by our conscious mind, but our mating response picks up on them and helps to fill and filter out who we should be with. Women are especially sensitive to this evidently, and it would be disastrous for a woman in prehistory to badly mate having children who were ill suited to their climate zone.

Fast forward to today, some of that is still going on. This is not to say that the pheromones are destiny on mate choice, it is to say that they play a roll.

Does this mean mixed children are worse off? Not necessarily because the threats of early death from genetic unfitness have been for now reduced, come the SHTF crash of the future, where we as a species have lost the capacity to live as we do today? well a reversion to Roman level food production will makes those genetically fit for the local hostile environment more able to survive

* ok probably longer but 10k is an ok wag for this

PS all this talk of human inbreeding. Any animal studies done on primates on this?

What is the country you describe and are white children there now the minority of births country wide?

So how does this Hajnal line bs explains Finland thn?

In many cases, the Red Army.

East Germany wasn’t communist because it was naturally more sympathetic to communism, it was communist because Russia is east of Germany and that’s where the Red Army was at the end of WW2.

So, can you explain the apparent counterexample that Nazi Germany poses to the theory that NW Europeans are genetically universalist?

Is racism (defined as a specific loyalty to one’s race) clannish? It would seem so because: 1) conservatives manifest stronger racial loyalties and are more clannish – so linking them causally is parsimonious; 2) race, being biological, is a kind of greatly attenuated kinship; and 3) racism is anti-universalist.

But then, why did a northern European country embrace the most virulent racism of the 20th century?

When I brought this (obvious) objection to Peter Frost’s attention, his response was that Nazism is a form of universalism. If that’s accurate, “universalism” is a misleading label for the NW European mindset.

For over a hundred thousand years, all humans–even relatively outbred ones–got the vast majority of their information about the world from vertical sources like their parents or local religious leaders.

There’s a lot of evidence against this assertion. http://works.bepress.com/david_lancy/133/

what happened to misdreavus?

he was the only non-retard in the whole of the HBD-sphere.

The late Marxist historian Eugene Genovese was often accused of writing too favorably about the antebellum South:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/148550

More broadly, Mr. Genovese was accused of playing down the truth that slavery, by definition, demonstrates the cruelest kind of racism. Mr. Genovese repeatedly felt compelled to assert that his books were not an apology for slavery. In subsequent books, Mr. Genovese praised intellectual life in the antebellum South, particularly its tradition of cooperative conservatism, which he saw as kinder than capitalism in the North. He cited statistics showing Southern whites, even those from disadvantaged families, were more apt to go to college than Northern whites. He argued Southerners preferred broader ownership on property and more constraints on the marketplace.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/oct/05/southern-comfort/

The easiest way to approach Eugene D. Genovese’s fascinating recent work on Southern conservatism is to compare the two lost causes that he has long admired. For in his view the slaveholders’ ideology, theology, and political theory, which culminated in the Southern Confederacy of 1861–1865, and the Marxist-Leninist ideology, which culminated in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, represented the only serious challenges in modern history to the domination of bourgeois values and finance capitalism. “The fall of the Confederacy,� Genovese points out, “drowned the hopes of southern conservatives for the construction of a viable noncapitalist social order, much as the disintegration of the Soviet Union—all pretenses and wishful thinking aside—has drowned the hopes of socialists.�

can’t believe you still haven’t retracted this post.

“The reason is simple: if an altruistic act isn’t going confer a fitness benefit when outsiders are absent (thanks to Hamilton’s rule), it isn’t going to suddenly confer more fitness when outsiders are present”

That is absolutely right.

The thing is however that altruistic acts towards your closest kin always confer a fitness benefit. First come your children, then your more distant relatives. This works in all sets of circumstances, indeed also when no outsiders (meaning more distant related people) are present.

Nevertheless cooperation between strangers (meaning more distant related people) to mutual benefit also plays a big role in society. The thing is however that cooperation (sometimes resulting in social classes) and ethnic nepotism are orthogonal forces working simultaneously in society.

I can recommend ‘the ethnic phenomenon’ by Pierre L. van den Berghe on this topic. I actually think this book should be obligatory reading for any politician because the knowledge it contains can inform policies that reduce or eliminate ethnic conflicts.

An easy argument for the emotional types to understand is this:

Billions more innocent people have been killed by armed military, police, and criminals than by armed law abiding citizens.

Knowing this fact, why would you demand that law abiding armed citizens be disarmed?

“A Fastidious Connoisseur of Empiricism” is such a word sandwich and hardly arrogant enough. Get that changed to Magna est Veritas et Praevalebit or something similar.

Not no such thing as ” ethnic genetic interests ”, you guys need to accept me !!!

In short, jayman position !!

You looked at a group of college students (weirdos) from Oakland to note that **

Perhaps because race is not the same than species, may be only partially correct. Biological differences are not large enough to produce this kind of behavior in many human beings, but it will be enough to increase your chance of enphasis in certain subgroups.

The emphasis on race, is partly cultural, and like all hbd’s you know, plays an essential genetic background, because the culture tends to be the result of genetic predispositions. But will not be forever, because human behavior is based on limits of tolerability and is quite complex because we are highly likely, especially Europeans, to internalize vague abstractions to explain reality OR just accept the context and try to adapt.

Changing circumstances, especially in the top of the social hierarchy, can modify the behavior of the masses, through the systematic (directed) brainwashing and knowledge in psychology, that elites are good to do.

There is a culturally behavioral flexibility spectrum, where some people are highly likely to change their behavior, especially if there is a positive relationship between their predispositions and the dominant and socially advantageous meme.

The imposition of philosophical ideas or behavior, can and usually change the behavioral trajectory of many people.

If a behavior is tolerated, people will be exposed to a systematic chain of tolerance ” or ” acceptance of this behavior, and we have many people modulating their predispositions, to adapt better circumstances.

If the behavior is not tolerable, many people, because of their instincts of self-preservation, are more likely to control their predispositions, we call conformity. Only those who are more intense in their predispositions, which may be less likely to conform to the social context of any moment or were a philosophical genius.

Intelligent people who tend to be naturally curious and nonconformists, especially if the system is flawed, tend to make self-projection to understand how the mind of ordinary people.

Ordinary people are highly susceptible, suggestible, because they do not tolerate loneliness or social ostracism.

This communion of less genetic content of theories and more interactional, of course that can attach itself to possible changes in the genetic background of the western world as well as in countries such as Brazil, as the increase of people who have children later in life. But it is also important to understand how it works the psychology of ordinary people or masses.

And as Kevin McDonald once said, Europeans are very difficult to be analyzed, while it is much more predictable analyze the collective behavior of other populations such as Ashkenazi.

To say that the Ashkenazi are totally devoid of genetic interests or even ‘ethnic interests” does not exist, it is very extreme and potentially wrong. As I said, because we are divided into subspecies or races, it is possible that his claim is partially correct, precisely because we still have this feeling of belonging to a larger group called humanity.

The feeling is mixed and variable and not non-existent.

Although most people marry others of the same race, lots of people seem more than willing to procreate with others of a different race…

Exactly. His number of surviving descendants would have to be different for such a racial preference to be selected for through inclusive fitness. Since it wouldn’t be, it doesn’t work.

But even in this example the number of surviving descendants do can change, even with the same number of descendants, since the incentive for parental inversion changes dramatically. If your own son have less DNA in common with you than most other children of your ethnic group, even not kin, then to invert your resources in the other people who look like you is better adaptative than doing it in your son. Because of this, and others things, genes for a “favor those who look like you, smell like you, etc.” behavior spread. Even among the common offpring with a same partner of the same ethnic group, people tend to favour the children who resemble themselves. This means that the number of surviving descendants would not be the same in the two cases if parental inversion confers an advantage.

Sorry, I have only repeated one part of it because you have not replied to it, and I was interested in a rebuttal from you. I will think then that the quote of Fuerle and the numbers of Salter are right, or at least that you don’t have any argument against them.

Here’s a question (assuming the genes of your own group are fitness-neutral vs those of the other ethnic group in question): who would have more descendents in that scenario: the man who mates with a woman of his own ethnic group, or one who mates with a woman from another, different ethnic group?

I’m not sure if I undertand your point here (I’m not an english native speaker). Assuming the number of descendents in the two cases is the same, the man who mates with a woman of his own ethnic group would have the same number of descendents, but they would have more DNA in common with him than in the other case. This means that the same resources this man invest in his offpring are better invested, since for the same price he favors a greater number of copies of his genes (inherited from him or not) in the first case than in the second.

Regards.

So I take it you’ve read David Sloan Wilson’s best arguments?

You pass on 50% of your genes to each of your children. Neither you nor your genes care where the other 50% comes from, past the extent that other 50% impacts the fitness of your genes.

* Excuses for my English.

In reality, you pass 50% of your genes plus the genes you share with your partner. You share more genes with a partner of your ethnic group than with another, ergo, you share more genes with your son if your partner is from your ethnic group. So it is adaptative and increase your fitness choose a partner in your own ethnic group, your descendency will share more genes with you if you do so.

¿What is wrong with this in your view?:

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap7.html

“For most Asians, and a large (but less than half) percentage of white Europeans, a mulatto child with a Bantu African would be less closely related to them than a randomly-selected child of their own race! 12 The explanation for that strange result is simple – the isolation of the Bantus from the Eurasians has resulted in the two populations becoming so genetically different from each other that, because Eurasians have interbred among themselves for at least tens of thousands of years, the neighbor’s child has more alleles in common with the Eurasian than the Eurasian does to his or her own mulatto child. 13

12. The statement will therefore be true of any population where the genetic distance, “FST,� between it and Bantus is greater than 0.25%; even if the “FST� of the population is less than 0.25%, the statement will still be true of a percentage of the population, which will increase with its “FST� to the Bantus. (Salter, 2003, pp. 38, 45, 46, 64). Relatedness, r, = (½)n, where “n� is the number of generations between two related people. (Salter, 2003, p. 38). For a parent and his child, n=1 so r = ½. Kinship, f = r/2 (Salter, p. 45), so your kinship to your child is ¼. The local kinship coefficient, fo = FST + (1 – FST)[ –1/(2N – 1)], where “FST� is the genetic distance or variance and “N� is the number of people in the population. (Salter, p. 46). If the population, N, is large, then – 1/(2N – 1) will be close to zero and fo ≈ FST.

13. In fact, people tend to choose mates who look like their parent of the opposite sex, thereby ensuring that their children will have more of their alleles and that favorable traits will be passed on to their own children. (Bereczkei, 2004).”

Swedes (as well as Germans) are also heavy drinkers and Norwegians are teetotalers. A big split in the American Lutheran Church happened because of Norwegian American support for prohibition as opposed to German and Swedish Lutherans who did not support it.

So this is wrong then? How?

“The race mixers love to point out that white men fear that black men will take “theirâ€� women. Of course, they fear that; 14 for a white man, it’s a significant loss in fitness. The biological purpose of a male of any species is to pass on his alleles, and the principal way he does this is by impregnating females. But he gets a big bonus if he impregnates a woman who already has more of the same alleles that he has, i.e., someone of the same race (Chapter 8, FN 4), and his fitness falls if he lets someone of another race impregnate “hisâ€� women (and similarly for women). This biological purpose implies, of course, that he must not only compete against other men, particularly men of a different race, but win that competition. If he does not even try to win and, indeed, facilitates his own failure, then his unique collection of alleles, including the alleles that made him a biological loser, are out of the game. 15

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap29.html

Once numerical genetic distance data had been collected, it became possible to calculate other results, some of which are quite startling. For example, we all assume that a mother is more closely related to her own child than she is to anyone else’s child, but that is not always true. For most Asians, and a large (but less than half) percentage of white Europeans, a mulatto child with a Bantu African would be less closely related to them than a randomly-selected child of their own race! 12 The explanation for that strange result is simple – the isolation of the Bantus from the Eurasians has resulted in the two populations becoming so genetically different from each other that, because Eurasians have interbred among themselves for at least tens of thousands of years, the neighbor’s child has more alleles in common with the Eurasian than the Eurasian does to his or her own mulatto child. 13

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap7.html ”

“Like I said, in-group favoritism does exist, …”

Then it must be genetic, right? because according to the mantra “all human behavioral traits are heritable”. right?

So 12.5% is the amount of their genome that two first cousins will have inherited directly from the same people (their two common grandparents)…but what is the true figure given that they will have coincidentally inherited some of the same genes from their unrelated grandparents of the same race?

I guess its the same for siblings…you have more genes in common with your mother if both parents are the same race.

I don’t know where I’m going with this in relation to the thesis…nowhere I guess…just wondering.

I know this post of yours is actually older, but I’m going to address you here instead of waiting for a new post which is relevant. My CEE friend szopeno mentioned Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia. But what do you think about Romania? Ancestry-wise, we are an almost exact match for Greeks, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians and Serbs (over 85% match in mix of paternal haplogroups).

http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/un-pic-de-genetica-romania-si-vecinii-sai

Do you have any posts or any thoughts on the likely potential of Romania or the evolution of its populace? Which is unencumbered by a personal bias in favor or against Romanians? The country used to be on a brighter path (economically, technologically and governance-wise) until the advent of Communism, but we can’t know if it would have fizzled out like Argentina at some point.

The reason I mention this is that, in addition to the large brain drain the country is experiencing and the rapid fall of the population due to aging and the eventual retirement of our boomer generation, Romania also has a significant Roma minority.

This page should be very enlightening for our demographic collapse. I suspect it is easy to understand already what the figures are and a translation from Chrome would clear everything up nicely.

https://demograffiti.wordpress.com/ceasul-demografic-al-romaniei/

The official census, wherein you declare your own ethnicity, has them at 3% of the population, but they approach 10% more likely or around 2 million individuals. Romania’s TFR is 1.4, but, out of that, the Roma minority has a TFR of approx. 3. This means the Romanians+Hungarians+every other minority have very low fertility, lower than China in fact, at 1.1. The Roma practice in-group morality, reject European norms of behavior, are anti-social, anti-education and have boiled off their rebels so thoroughly in the general population, that those who identify as Roma today still look like they came out of the Punjab area, despite being here for 800 years.

It is estimated that, by 2050, my country will have 16 million inhabitants, of whom half will be Roma, and an even larger proportion of the working age or under 35 populations.

Any thoughts? It’s a bit hard to be 27 and not apprehensive about the future in these conditions. I don’t subscribe to the idiocracy theory of brain drain among Romanians, I’m sure that we can raise a new generation of bright people if we can plug the leak and maybe regain some fertility (most of us are descended from illiterate peasants after all, just a few generations removed). But the whole shebang makes me really anxious and I fear runaway emigration when the reality of population replacement becomes obvious, compounding the problem.

Hi everyone! I am a layman and the technicalities of group selection (or the lack of it) are way beyond my ken. But I am reading Peter Turchin´s book “War and Peace and War” (Turchin is one of the creators of the “cliodynamics” discipline -the dynamics of history-, but he is also a population biologist), and he has the following thing to say (p. 127):

“It is now becoming broadly accepted that natural selection operates at all levels simultaneously -genes, cells, organisms, groups of relatives and simply groups“.

Doesn´t this fly in the face of this post´s argument?

I apologize if this post is the fruit of some misunderstanding due to my avowed amateurism.

PS: The child is cute, but we want to see the wife ;-P

I don’t understand. I thought that two unrelated Europeans had significantly more allelles in common than a European and African. If not, how do they cluster together and with other Europeans as a group?

Please answer.

Pedigree collapse.

I think Universalism has accelerated recently because of technological changes encouraging more horizontal/lateral meme-transmission–widespread TV, internet, radio, cellphones, etc., did not exist a hundred years ago.

The Japanese seem quite resistant to immigration enthusiasm.

The history of anti-Semitic universalism (?) in Minneapolis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minneapolis#Politics.2C_corruption.2C_anti-Semitism_and_social_change

Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[28] The city was described as “the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States” in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[29] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[30] At that time the city’s Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[31] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[32]

Racialist universalism in Sweden before it became part of the American Empire in 1945:

http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-paradigms-shift-eg-our-view-on.html

To illustrate what I talk about. Louis Armstrong visited Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was describe as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And in the reviews by the most serious music critics.

Who would have imagined in 1933, that twelve years later Western Europe would undergo an America-led cultural revolution which would lead to the common belief that there are no differences between races?

Translation of two of the quotes:

Knut Bäck in Göteborgs-Posten, November 1933:
“This world is strange… No protests are raised against how the jungle is let loose into the society. Armstrong and his band are allowed to freely wreak destruction.”

Sten Broman in Sydsvenskan, November 1933:
“Dare I say that he at times had something monkey-like about him and sometimes reminded of, according to our perceptions, a mentally disturbed person, when he pouted with his mouth or gaped it to its widest open and roared like a hoarse animal from a primeval forest.”

The third quote compares the concert with a natural disaster, and Armstrong’s trumpet with a hell machine. The only good thing coming out of it, he says, is that it solves to old dispute of whether monkeys have a language.

This is what Europe looked like, up until 1945. And since some people will live under the misconception that this was a phenomenon of the ’30s, I here provide a quote from the Swedish Encyclopedia, Nordisk Familjebok, the 1876-1899 edition (here and here).

“Psychologically the negro can be said be on the level of a child, with vivid fantasy, lack of endurance, … can be said to lack morality rather than being immoral … etc.”

Even though the point here has been to illustrate how social paradigms can shift completely in short time (and this is just one out of numerous examples), let me add how up until 1945 all the focus was put on the differences between races, and after that all the focus has been put on what is equal (while ignoring differences).

n/a and I had a big debate about this. If you care to read the back-and-forth, go here: http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/07/reply-to-rcb-on-evolution-and.html

In my view, the debate ended with me asserting six points, and n/a conceding them. Note: the argument was mostly built on whether Salter’s book on ethnic genetic interests is a correct use of Hamilton’s rule and evolutionary theory (it isn’t), not whether ethnocentrism exists, or human populations are genetically distinguishable (both of the latter are true). Here are the six points: (I mention English and Bantu groups to address a particularly stupid hypothesis that Salter makes in his book; you can generalize it to any large ethnic groups.)

(1) In large groups (modern day England), novel group-altruistic alleles have F_ST ~ 0. Because of this there is no positive group selection for the allele. There is only within-group selection, acting to kill the allele off. Unless it gets very lucky, it will not spread in modern England.

(2) For group-altruistic alleles at high frequency (i.e., ones that got lucky), F_ST may be large enough to facilitate some generations during which the expansion of altruistic groups at the expense of non-altruistic groups causes the allele to increase in frequency globally, even though it’s decreasing within every subgroup due to within-group selection.The Price equation shows this.

(3) Unless there is some mechanism maintaining F_ST (e.g., shuffling among small groups), within-group selection necessarily pushes the group-altruistic allele toward 0 in *every* group, whether the group is growing or shrinking. Therefore the ultimate fate of such alleles is to be replaced by non-altruistic alleles, despite the possibility of transient growth noted in (2).

(4) England and Bantu are large ethnic groups that do not undergo reshuffling. There is no current mechanism replenishing F_ST at disfavored loci for these large, stable groups. Thus, the current tendency for group-altruistic alleles is to die off faster than non-altruistic alleles – i.e., negative selection.

(5) English alleles, broadly speaking (across the genome), would indeed live longer if England were able to resist foreign invaders for longer. (This is just noting that group-beneficial behaviors exist.)

(6) Given the ubiquity of ethnocentrism, and its heritability, it is quite possible that conditions favoring ethnocentric behaviors did exist in the past, and still do in smaller ethnic groups. Or, the genes may currently be favored because they provide some other benefit, in which case ethnocentrism at present would be considered a maladaptive byproduct of selection on other behaviors.

I can’t help but think of the supposedly 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA in modern non-African humans. Any favorable combination coming from racial recombination will sweep through a population. But that won’t mean that the whole population becomes a racial blend. Only the favorable trait will survive in the long run and this can be totally detached from any observable racial features.

@Jayman

“But no one is making that argument. At least no one here.”

Cool, my mistake, so we both agree the argument is whether pre-existing altruism genes (evolved and spread because of the parent-child relationship) could somehow get re-purposed to kin-altruism behavior (even if in a very diluted form).

@Jayman

“That would require a really haywire set of mother love genes.”

Nope.

The argument is that altruistic genes can’t evolve because they lower the fitness of the first carriers.

Which is why mothers kill their babies.

Not.

Mother-child is an example where standard game theory about free riders doesn’t apply and that’s how altruistic genes can develop and spread among a population.

This doesn’t prove anything about kin altruism but the correct baseline for this argument isn’t a population that doesn’t have any altruism genes but a population that already has them but for other reasons.

Jayman,

Love your blog but I think there are a few problems here.

““Group selection� in a sense can occur, when one group out-competes other groups because of traits the first group possess. But the key fact is that these are traits that individually advantageous within the group. That is, this sort of “group selection� acts in tandem with individual selection, not in spite of it. In that sense, such selection is really a type of individual selection.�

I definitely think that you’re misinterpreting Bourrat and the pragmatic approach to multi-level selection more generally. It isn’t that such selection is “really� a type of individual selection. Rather, they’re one and the same process.

The ontological interpretation of group selection/multi-level selection does indeed posit qualitatively different selection processes at two or more levels. But the more pragmatic approach to multi-level selection, by contrast, makes no such claim. Rather, the latter approach claims that there is only a single, unitary selection process occurring at each level simultaneously. Hence, as commenter n/a correctly noted, group selection and kin selection are theoretically equivalent formulations — that is, different perspectives on the same phenomenon. In other words, group selection and kin selection are two equivalent frameworks, analogous to the two equally valid ways of observing a Necker cube (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube).

Bourrat and others before him have argued that since multi-level selection pertains to theoretically equivalent formulations, there is much scope for utilizing either. It depends on what one’s scientific questions are; partitioning selective processes in the manner afforded by multi-level selection can therefore be a pragmatically useful theoretical approach.

David Sloan Wilson has even maintained that all selective processes, even just straightforwardly kin selective ones, can also be re-described in group-selective terms — he calls such re-descriptions ‘kin groups’. In any case, as per the ‘bookkeeping argument’, all group selectionist accounts (including ‘kin group’ formulations) can reciprocally be re-described in kin selectionist terms (so it works both ways).

(Sterelny and Griffiths describe the ‘bookkeeping argument’ here on page 66: http://scilib-biology.narod.ru/SexDeath/SexDeath.htm#03_3)

At any rate, framing the selection pressures that shaped our ‘groupish’ psychological adaptations (whatever the precise details of those end up being) can be a very pragmatic conceptual approach. As long as one has the above notion of group selection in mind (as opposed to the older Wynne-Edwards approach and ontological approach), there should be no problem.

“The non-existence of group-selection means that any traits any human ethnic group possesses are the result of individual selection (and on close kin as described above).

This includes Jewish peoples. A common trope in this space is that Ashkenazi Jews have group-selected traits that as aided in their success and survival. Of course, that’s rubbish. Any traits they possess are as individually selected as they are for other groups.�

We have to be careful here, because it’s easy to skate over the subtleties in this territory. Since you mentioned the Ashkenazim, take Kevin MacDonald’s work as an illustration. He utilizes the cultural group selection approach, which, despite many misconceptions, is quite workable and plausible. Anthropologists like Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich have been developing this framework in a sophisticated manner for quite a while now.

But in a nutshell, the basic idea as applied to the current discussion is that cultures can play a direct role in the survival prospects of groups, as well as in competitive contexts with other rival groups.

The group selectionist approach can make our coalitional/tribal evolutionary history more apparent, and the cultural group selectionist approach can help make salient how cultural evolution then emerged as a separate channel of inheritance and evolutionary change. In a sense (and to condense things to a very large degree (!)) group survival and group conflict over human evolution and human history appear to a large degree to have played out in the cultural domain, in the process implicating both aggregates of memes and individual memes alike.

Another layer to all of this is gene–culture co-evolution. When cultural group selection is an important, persistent, and long-standing feature of the evolutionary game, as it appears to have been with humans, it’s a good bet that such processes will feedback into gene pools and leave distinctive marks, thus also differentiating those gene pools from one another.

So while I’m pretty skeptical of ethnic genetic interests having played a direct evolutionary role in our evolution, it’s quite possible that gene–culture co-evolutionary processes have made certain genes and certain cultures ‘stick to one another’. On this view, such cultural evolution affects genetic evolution and makes certain genes ‘mesh’ better with those corresponding cultural elements, and those genes in turn make those corresponding cultural memes more attractive to the bearers of those genes.

So, without expounding on any of this any further, a rather odd process may have emerged in our evolution, creating something that, at least superficially, looks a lot like selection in favor of ethnic genetic interests. Perhaps, because of the varying nature of cultural group selection processes, some groups have gene pools and corresponding cultural memeplexes that ‘stick’ together more easily. Recall, also, that from their respective points of view, genes and memes are both in it for ‘selfish’ reasons. Perhaps, at least in some cases, they have sort of ‘hitched’ themselves to one another (at least for periods of time), akin to the various evolutionary transitions in the history of life (e.g., the endosymbiotic rise of eukaryotes).

Most of what looks like ethnic genetic interests is probably just tapping into our evolved coalitional psychology, however (viz., the constituent functionally specialized cognitive adaptations that comprise it). Needless to say, these are difficult issues to disentangle, and I haven’t tried to survey all of the relevant interdisciplinary literature. But as Haldane reminded us, this reality is queerer than we suppose, and perhaps even queerer than we can suppose. So who knows how deep this rabbit hole goes.

An overview of cultural group selection from Boyd and Richerson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981912/

Alex Rosenberg has recently done a good job of debunking bad arguments against the existence of memes and presents a strong positive account in their favor (see pages 22-25):
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/1/1.full.pdf

Cheers.

I think the point is speed and scale. Your population isn’t going to pick up all the available “best” genes without some mixture but the question is how much and how fast.

“Now how could said putative alleles have grown in frequency if the targets of altruism – hence selection for these alleles (distant relatives or even unrelated people) were highly unlikely to carry it? The fitness of the bearer goes down but the allele does not increase in frequency to compensate.”

All you need is a situation where initially low levels of altruistic behavior increase fitness e.g. mother-child.

I agree the dying in battle example doesn’t work on its own but if mother-child spreads the altruism genes first then the argument against sacrifice in battle no longer applies – it would simply be a side-effect of the mother-child relationship being an exception to game theory.
.

“racial mixing introduces novel combinations of genes. Selection will weed out those of them who are not favorable but there might also be favorable combinations that otherwise would never have come to be.

Yup, and that’s the only real word here on the matter. ”

Ay…just realized that this actually might be more of an argument against racial mixing than the old fashion biblical one that the south Africans used to justify apartheid (god created the races because according to the bible the world hasn’t existed long enough for them to have evolved since, therefore they should not mix). Unfavorable new combinations that eventually get weeded out are not positive for the ethnicity but they are a minor hit compared to an actual new favorable combination because that is like introducing a new breed of fish in a pond that might replace all other fish and thus wiping out the ethnically alleles that have no place in that new genetic combination. Any selfish gene worthy of the name would not stand cheering at such a prospect of annihilation. So, you could say natural selection is no friend of ethnic genetic interest but of course natural selection is no friend of anyone anyway.

:

coefficient of relationship is flawed, if a man fathers a child with his sister his child is more than 50% related, this extends to niece/nephew mating and therefore logically also to mating within ethnicity or even nation

No, coefficient of relationship is perfectly fine.

JayMan, the fact that the table of “coefficients of relationship” on wikipedia is not valid for the purpose you’re attempting to use it is not some subtle issue that’s open to debate, but a point that follows directly from the definitions of the relevant terms.

Thus, if we can calculate the percentage of homozygosis which would follow on the average from a given system of mating, we can at once form the most. natural coefficient of inbreeding. The writer3 has recently pointed out a method of calculating this percentage of honmozygosis which is applicable to the irregular systems of mating found in actual pedigrees as well as to regular systems. This method, it may be said. gives results widely different from Pearl’s coefficient, in many cases even as regards the relative degree of inbreeding of two animals.

Taking the typical case in which there are an equal number of dominant. and recessive genes (A and a) in the population, the random-bred stock will be composed of 25 per cent. AA, 50 per cent. Aa and 25 per cent. aa. Close inbreeding will tend to convert the proportions to 50 per cent. AA, 50 per cent. aa, a change from 50 per cent. homozygosis to 100 per cent. homozygosis. For a natural coefficient of inbreeding, we want a scale which runs from 0 to 1, while the percentage of homozygosis is running from, 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. The formula. 2h-1, where h is the proportion of complete homo- zygosis, gives the required value. This can also be written 1-2p where p is the proportion of heterozygosis. In the above-mentioned paper it was shown that the coefficient of correlation between uniting egg and sperm is expressed by this same formula, f 1-2p. We can thus obtain the coefficient of inbreeding fb for a given individual B, by the use of the methods there out- lined.

The symbol rbc, for the coefficient of the correlation between B and C, may be used as a coefficient of relationship. It has the value 0 in the case of two random individuals, .50 for brothers in a random stock and approaches 1.00 for individuals belonging to a closely inbred subline of the general population. [. . .]

If an individual is inbred, his sire and dam are connected in the pedigree by lines of descent from a common ancestor or ancestors. The coefficient of inbreeding is obtained by a summation of coefficients for every line by which the parents are connected, each line tracing back from the sire to a common ancestor and thence forward to the dam, and passing through no individual more than once. The same ancestor may of course be involved in more than one line.

Coefficients of Inbreeding and Relationship
Sewall Wright
The American Naturalist
Vol. 56, No. 645 (Jul. – Aug., 1922), pp. 330-338
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2456273

Go ask Greg Cochran about this if comprehension continues to elude you.

‘No, coefficient of relationship is perfectly fine’

I can’t refute the ‘just because I say so argument’

And in cases where that happens, what happens to your genes within the group? That’s right, the decrease in prevalence and eventually disappear. This is why group selection doesn’t exist.

There is no reason why my genes would decrease in frequency within the group. The only genes that would be weeded out (by the group) are those of the free rider. Exactly by those supposedly unadaptive altruists.Doesn’t the persistent cultural stereotype of the relative collectivist Chinese with their saying ‘the nail that sticks out, gets hammered’ ring a bell?

hmm, now having actually read the section from Misdreavus and further down I think this ‘altruistic gene cannot be selected for idea’ is actually a classic free-rider problem. You can actually observe that people are mostly quick to administer altruistic punishment to those who don’t ‘chip in’ or ‘pull their weight’. In the most extreme case during war an example would be deserters or cowards being shot.

So altruistic genes, leading to behavior not optimal for the individual vis-a-vis other individuals in the group but optimal for the group vis-a-vis other groups, can be selected for if there is simultaneously a selection for ‘free-rider punishment genes’. Of course no instinct can have evolved to deal with the big populations of todays nations because those big populations have not existed for most of humanities history.

some notes

– coefficient of relationship is flawed, if a man fathers a child with his sister his child is more than 50% related, this extends to niece/nephew mating and therefore logically also to mating within ethnicity or even nation (if it is ethnically homogeneous) where you probably only have to go back no more than a couple of dozen generations to find a common ancestor.
– it is therefore illogical to claim kin selection exists but that group selection does not because they are basically the same thing, namely proportionally favoring those who share more genes with you.
“The reason is simple: if an altruistic act isn’t going confer a fitness benefit when outsiders are absent (thanks to Hamilton’s rule), it isn’t going to suddenly confer more fitness when outsiders are present” -> this is simply false because groups compete and groups that have individuals that sacrifice for the group simply win. If the group wins which in which almost all your genes can be found wins out by an self sacrificing act of yours then you reproduce more copies of your genes then when to less related group wins out.(‘winning’ meaning having the most secure reproductive future).
– When you racially mix you throw away 50% of the genes that are distinctive for your own race (and therefore of you!). Actually that sort of behavior doesn’t seem very adaptive. You for instance introduce the change that your grandchild won’t have any of your (ethnically) distinct genes because those might be the ones thrown away in your child’s mating.
Your conclusion can simply be turned around, you can’t excuse your racial mixing by claiming ethnic interest doesn’t exist.
– racial mixing introduces novel combinations of genes. Selection will weed out those of them who are not favorable but there might also be favorable combinations that otherwise would never have come to be.

My point was that the “no ethnic altruism” argument does not imply a lack of genetic fitness impact from racial mate choice. You claim too much ground, and so does Misdreavus. Cochran didn’t.

Would such a behavior be selected for under such circumstances?

Unsure what “such a behavior” refers to, but the answer would probably be: I don’t know. Real world mate choice integrates lots of factors. The issue under discussion may be a factor, but it would be subject to overrides from many other factors. In the case of US race relations, I’d expect other factors to dominate.

I do expect outbreeding avoidance to exist, probably more pronounced in women, although not necessarily based on the effect under discussion.

A whole, whole lot of people have reproduced or not reproduced because they survived or did not survive a war. A whole, whole lot of people have reproduced or not reproduced because they killed or ran off a stranger before they caused them trouble. The “us/them mentality” gets you there on both fronts. And it seems like a behavioral trait in the plainest sense.

Now, if you mean that all families “regress� to the mean of their race in the sense that the mean IQ of all families at a given moment is the mean of the race, you’d be right.

I’ve repeatedly used the word “race” in quotes, because I think it’s a cheap concept that has much too little resolution to be viable. Fortunately, I don’t mean what you’re attributing to me, because that would be an absurd interpretation. You see, the real world is a messy place, and occasionally an elite child is born to non-elite parents, and the elite child goes on to revolutionize mathematics and instantly calculate complicated infinite continued fractions in his head. And if we lived in a mathematical world, he’d have had the reproductive success of Genghis Khan. Or something.

If you mean across generations, you’d be very wrong (have you not heard of Gregory Clark?).

I’ve not only heard of Gregory Clark, I’ve read A Farewell to Alms, and I’ve watched his video in your post The Son Becomes the Father, although regretfully have not yet read The Son Also Rises.

You yourself said:

The intergenerational correlation of status – a measure that includes wealth, education, occupation, longevity, etc (i.e., the “good stuff� of life), was as high as 0.8 in Clark’s analysis. Clark did find that regression to the mean occurred; high-status families became less high-status with time and vice versa, but it took a very long time – 10 to 15 generations, to for them to get there.

That sounds like inevitability to me.

Regression to the mean would cease entirely after the first generation in a world with perfect assortative mating. Come on now.

The world doesn’t have perfect assortative mating. Please refer to the previous quote.

And how does any of this impact fitness?

Don’t try to twist the phrase “fitness from gene function”. Fitness from gene function is no longer the same as fitness of the “numbers of copies of genes” variety. The former sounds a hell of a lot like what Ryan called “socio-political fitness” and what Gregory Cochran called “moxie”.

Frankly, JayMan, I’m disenchanted. I agree with your core thesis—no ethnic-genetic interests, no group selection, etc.—but your argument in support of it is intellectually dishonest. And you’re hilariously misusing the relationship coefficients bit. (We share half of our genes with a banana. How does the chart deal with that? A banana-man hybrid offspring would share fewer alleles with his daddy than a white-Asian hybrid child would, no? How about pedigree collapse? Hello?) And your slipperiness and snark when I point out the weak points is the cherry on top.

And guess what, race and sex and education and dress and speech are all fully legitimate bases on which to discriminate, even though a few blacks are nuclear physicists (real blacks, not Indian-Chinese-European-supereliteBlack hybrids), and a few women are heads of state, and the vast majority of today’s college graduates shouldn’t have made it past high school freshman year. Sue me.

P.S. My tags should work this time, but if they don’t this comment is to account for that condition as well.

I guess what really confuses me is why people would bend over backward trying to make a case for the evolutionary fitness of ethnophilia when the case for the fitness of xenophobia seems really obvious. Or is not as obvious as I think?

Would such a behavior be selected for under such circumstances? Answer that and I think we’ve settled the issue.

What was likely selected for was an instinctive ability to compare two people and favor the one who looks or acts more like you or the people you grew up around (a proxy for genetic relatedness).

This instinctive ability may have evolved for the purpose of distinguishing very close kin from slightly less close kin (siblings vs cousins) because humans originally lived in small bands of extended families, but once humans encountered distant races, it would likely cause them to favour their co-ethnics over other races, and the degree to which ethnic favoritism is genetically adaptive depends on 1) your definition of genetic fitness, and 2) the cost of the ethnic favoritism (you can help someone without hurting yourself).

I don’t think you’re exactly strawmanning these folks, as their arguments seem to be simply exactly as dumb as you say. But often an ostensibly smart person isn’t nearly as stupid as they seem to be. If we remove giant chunks of stupidity from their argument, there might be a kernel of reason left over.

So for example I can imagine a pretty simple but ugly version of the argument which may not be sheer idiocy. If we accept that in black Americans genes are driving the triforce of single mommy, feral child and abandoning dad, and you find out your daughter is dating a black man who was the child of a single mother, and you forbid her from dating him or any other black man who’s the child of a single mom, that’s racist as all hell by any definition. However what justifies calling this irrational?

A second attempt to throw these people a lifeline would be to ask if maybe they don’t mean genetic fitness but are rather referring to something we might call socio-political fitness? Liberal creationism, the dominant belief system in the country, is based on obvious BS but people believe it anyway. They like to talk about how white people may have power in society now, but it’s going to go away, and they seem to be enacting many laws with that goal in mind. It’s most fervent adherents alternate between wearing Che Guevara t-shirts and those with slogans like kill all white men.

Maybe in that situation the fact that evolutionary biology has no place for a concept like white collective interests isn’t actually the pertinent fact you’re making it out to be? In fairness I think I may be strawmanning your position here.

But there’s nothing rhetorically powerful about saying, “Defend an abstraction for its own sake! Defend an arbitrary hinge of civilization because we need some sort of hinge, and the others have failed!” I get that saying, “Our race wants to survive, and we ought to help it do that” is basically mythological, but I don’t think anyone takes it as literally as you might think. When people participate in mythology, it’s like empathizing with a character in a film. If you can reduce your ideology or race to an individual, then you want to work harder to help it, since it’s like a friend. But there’s always some distance in doing this sort of thing.

At any rate, political discourse and scientific discourse will probably always be doomed to speak past each other. I think I see this as a good thing.

You’re arguing that there are fitness consequences to the race of unrelated mates.

Indeed.

Is a White person going to have more descendants if they mate with an unrelated White person over a Black person?

That’s entirely orthogonal to the issue at hand.

Like I said, think about it.

Think unit of selection. Think fitness impact at the level of the gene. Feel free to assume no difference whatsoever regarding number of individual descendants.

I’m not sure what happened to my quote tags. Sorry.

,

Just the same, the inclusive fitness impact to a White American is the same whether he focuses his altruistic act on an unrelated White American or on a Namibian; it is zero in both cases. If you adopt children rather than have your own, the fitness hit to you is the same whether your adopted children are White, Black, Chinese, or Venezuelan.

This cannot possibly be true if a white American shares more of his genes with an “unrelated” white American than with a Namibian. As, indeed, he does.

Regression to the mean is a family effect, not a “whole race� effect. Children regress to their family’s mean. The children of a Black man whose family is well above average will be themselves well above average.

Most black children don’t belong to families which are well above average. Hell, most black children don’t even belong to families! A single mother does not a family make. But I know what we’re really talking about is your “black” family, so I’ll say this: Children regress to the family mean, and families regress to the population mean. Your children have some seriously loaded dice, but they’re not quite as loaded as yours were. Regression is inevitable.

The relationship coefficients means it doesn’t matter, if said mate isn’t actually a close cousin.

How can my genetic overlap with my sixth cousin be no greater than my genetic overlap with a Namibian? This defies comprehension.

The fitness impact to a White man’s genes if his daughter marries a Black man is the same as if she married an unrelated White man (again, fitness from gene function notwithstanding).

I already quoted this, but I missed something the first time: sexual selection. The relative statuses of the parental “races” affects the future reproductive success of their descendants. An example of this is the 80/20 African/white admixture in African-Americans today. A child with 50/50 blend of African/white looks black, so he’s stuck with the status of the African-American population, and likely stays in that gene pool. Similarly, a child with 50/50 blend of Asian/white looks Asian, so he inherits the status of the Asian population, although he’s probably not as limited to that gene pool, as white people don’t seem to be nearly as averse to miscegenation with Asians. Now that I’ve typed it out, it sounds racist, but so is HBD.

The prevalence of such nonsense beliefs in this space speaks to the mindset of some in it. Most humans have some sort of agenda, and it is fairly normal behavior to selectively interpret/acknowledge fact in such a way that suits such an agenda. But no, you can’t excuse your racism by appealing to ethnic genetic interests. Nor can you excuse your misogyny and other hatred by appealing to specious claims about the sexes, children, or other classes of individuals. One feature of these individuals is a visceral opposition to “race mixing�.

One can’t excuse one’s racism by appealing to ethnic nepotism, but one can excuse one’s racism by acknowledging racial differences in IQ, violence, poverty, education, altruism, and so on. Similarly, one can excuse one’s sexism by acknowledging sexual differences in IQ, violence, poverty, sexual behavior, divorce, and so on. More often than not, the why it is matters less than the what we’re going to do about it.

Jayman: Thank you for your reply and the clarification. It sounds like you aren’t making as sweeping of a criticism as I thought.

I guess on the question of whether “race-cuck” or “cuckservative” or anything like that depends on the belief in group selection, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I can see your logic, here: since a married man has genetic interests for his own seed, the “cuckservative” meme seems to imply that the white race also has such interests for itself as a race. But here’s the thing: metaphors don’t have to be 100% logically transferable. They aren’t like blankets that tarp over a mess of objects and cover everything down to the last edge and contour. I’m familiar with group selection, but I never thought “cuckservative” had anything to do with that, not even for a second. The thought hadn’t even crossed my mind until I saw this blog post.

Misdreavus:

If the gene manages to successfully replicate more copies, it INCREASES in frequency.

Um, yeah. Which is of course precisely what we’re talking about, a gene’s probability of successfully having “more copies” in a vehicle’s descendants. And we found that when comparing potential fathers, race can influence that probability. If one choice offers consistently lower probability, taking that choice is fitness reducing for affected genes.

This interacts with cost per child. Misdreavus:

Every time a man mates with a female, his chromosomal fragments get broken up and re-assembled into unique patterns that are (more or less) randomly. And it doesn’t matter if the other half genetic half of his offspring comes from a member of his own race […]

He’s right for the case of costless drive-by insemination. That man’s child would be pure win, no matter who the mother happens to be, because no trade-off decision had to be made. Not so when a child has high cost, which forces to choose, trading off potential mates because not all can be used. (In the wild, the race factor would be one trade-off among many, and no argument is offered on relative weight.)

Misdreavus:

Any competing allele at the same locus that reproduces itself less often, but keeps itself within a “purer� gene pool of other loci found most commonly among members of a single race, would be an evolutionary loser.

Sure, reproducing less often to avoid black fathers wouldn’t work out. I think nobody has proposed that. On the other hand, for high-investment parents–who already don’t pump out offspring like little machine guns–mate choice has consequences.

The coefficient of relationship is an approximation that works well analyzing initial spread of new mutations because usually only a direct line descendent of the carrier of the original mutation will have the new gene. Without inbreeding, the approximation will hold up very well for a few generations.

In this case we’re not talking about new mutations but about old ones already mixed into the population. Close relatives may obtain an additional boost of likelihood of sharing a given gene, above a (nonzero) base rate. The base rate is specific to a given gene. In the limit, a gene has gone to fixation and relatedness doesn’t matter at all. For our example’s woman, this base rate expectation of sharing a gene with her child (and the child’s children) does depend on race of the unrelated father and should tend to be lower for a black father.

If you do get time, I’d love for you to explain what’s false about it.

There’s no problem if reproduction is essentially free–in that case, the daughter would simply have both children. With costly reproduction the basic premise of Salter/Harpending holds. (For simplicity’s sake I’m pretending that every gene is affected.)

For a gene that makes it into a woman’s child, a black father reduces the chance of homozygosity, which would have been a guaranteed ticket into the following generation. For a gene that doesn’t make it directly by descent from the mother, a black father reduces the “second chance” of being present anyway by descent from the father.

From the gene’s point of view, it matters that a vehicle’s limited resources are spent raising new vehicles that contain copies. A systematically reduced expected number of copies per costly offspring vehicle is a fitness reduction.

Seems you want to repeat what Cochran tried in his Brotherhood of Warmblood post: Ethnic altruism can’t evolve ex nihilo via kin selection, so yadda yadda yadda, you’re all stupid.

However, Cochran was careful not to wander off claiming things outside a very narrow scope. To my knowledge he never made this false claim:

The fitness impact to a White man’s genes if his daughter marries a Black man is the same as if she married an unrelated White man

As food for thought, note that both daughter and marriage are important. The fitness impact to a Black man’s genes if his son spritzes his load into a White girl and leaves is clearly positive.

Since I’m out of time, a quick quote from Dawkins:

[The coefficient of relationship] is a good approximation provided the genes concerned have no better way of ‘recognizing’ copies of themselves in other individuals.

‘Your unrelated co-ethnics aren’t your kin’

Ancestral tribes were highly inbred which would surely raise the relationship coefficients quite a bit so I don’t think racial differences were the driving force of ethnic conflict but that even much smaller genetic differences (European ancestry testing can nowadays point to a pretty exact nation or even location for your ancestors) are the cause of the existence of some kind of ‘we like us, we hate them’ instinct. Being an instinct and therefore emotional it can’t be expected to be really sophisticated and it probably relies on simple ‘clues’ as to who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’. Language, culture and religion historically would have been pretty reliable markers because these have a tendency to mutate over time, just like genes. A individual can of course acquire language, culture, religion and pass for a member of the other ‘tribe’ and probably that would work, because instincts are stupid. If racial features are however made part of the in-group definition that doesn’t work anymore because you can’t change the way you look – and you get racism.

Kin altruism might by the way be enough for you to want to sacrifice your life in a war for your group against an enemy because if your group perishes, so does your close kin (Genocide has been a reoccurring phenomena historically and so has slavery or raping and abusing soldiers).