RSS
Unlike many commenters in this space, I don’t particularly lament the secular rise of “universalism” that has occurred in Northwestern European societies (and their derivatives). Indeed, as a Black man, this is especially important to me. Without universalism, slavery may never have ended in the West. Without universalism, my family may never have been able to come to the United States from Jamaica, and I would likely not exist. Without universalism, laws banning interracial marriage might still be on the books, and my marriage to my wife would not be recognized throughout much of the country, and quite possibly my son would not exist.
“Universalism” is, broadly, the belief that all humans deserve the rights and recognition that historically people would only reserve for their own clan, own tribe, or at best, own countrymen. The idea of “universal human rights” is a very foreign concept to most of the world (even if many pay lip service to the idea today). As we saw in my previous post (200 Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start): section Intraracial group variation and HBD Chick’s theory), this is the purview of Northwestern Europeans, a group of people who are distinct from all others in the world.
Many Northwestern Europeans unfamiliar with this fact assume that values found in WEIRDO societies are found across the globe. This has led some like Steven Pinker to conclude that all humanity is imbued with an “expanding moral circle.” That is, we posses an adjustable circle of morality, that can be expanded when we gain familiarity with those outside. If one confines oneself to NW European societies, it sure does look that way: we no longer keep people as slaves; we feel all have a right to participate in democracy; we don’t allow child labor; we feel that the disabled and the mentally ill deserve to live with dignity; Jim Crow has ended. We have enshrined a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations (a NW European invention). We even extend some of these ideas beyond the human species with certain segments pushing for animal rights.
The idea of a universal “expanding moral circle” was mocked by Staffan in his post The Myth of the Expanding Circle or You Can’t Learn How to Be an English Vegetarian:
if width of empathy is so large in most people, does it really matter if it’s a behavioral trait or not? Doesn’t growing awareness and the empathic inclusion that follows amount to the same thing as an expansion of our circle of empathy? Yes, you might say this is all semantics, weren’t it for one important thing: width of empathy is only large in Northwest Europeans and their descendants. People sometimes referred to as WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). This trait is intimately (inversely) linked to ingroup loyalty which is weaker among the WEIRD populations as well as among liberal/progressive people, as Haidt’s research has shown.
The rest of the world is not very impressed by Enlightenment ideals and it never was. To this day most of the world is not very into human rights. It’s something you do to make rich Western friends. And now with the rise of China many are abandoning this pretense altogether.
In fact, present day China makes an excellent example of how awareness and reason (this is a highly intelligent people) in no way has expanded the circle of empathy. The internet is full of videos from China illustrating cruelty and lack of concern for both humans and animals. This is a glaring contradiction that Pinker and Goldstein fail to address. Another friend of the expanding circle (who even wrote a book with that name), Australian philosopher Peter Singer has made an attempt to resolve this problem in his own TED talk. In it he shows very disturbing film clip (so click at your own peril) in which a 2-year-old Chinese girl is run over by a car and then left lying in the street. Other people look at her but walk by without helping in any way. He then goes on to compare this behavior with Westerners who can prevent child mortality by supporting UNICEF but fail to do so, at least sufficiently to eradicate the problem
Indeed, China is rife with awful tales, such animals being routinely skinned alive (WARNING: extremely graphic video – click here to view). Pakistan is known for “bear baiting” (where a declawed and detoothed bear is tied up left to be attacked by dogs), as well as the recent case of a married couple who were burned alive for blasphemy. Face-disfiguring acid attacks against women are common occurrences across South Asia. Human rights abuses abound in much of the non-Western world; the idea of a universal morality is clearly untenable.
Peter Frost discussed a trait that plays a significant role in universalism: affective empathy. From his post Feeling the Other’s Pain:
We like to think that all people feel empathy to the same degree. In reality, it varies a lot from one person to the next, like most mental traits. We are half-aware of this when we distinguish between “normal people” and “psychopaths,” the latter having an abnormally low capacity for empathy. The distinction is arbitrary, like the one between “tall” and “short.” As with stature, empathy varies continuously among the individuals of a population, with psychopaths being the ones we find beyond an arbitrary cut-off point and who probably have many other things wrong with them. By focusing on the normal/abnormal dichotomy, we lose sight of the variation that occurs among so-called normal individuals. We probably meet people every day who have a low capacity for empathy and who nonetheless look and act normal. Because they seem normal, we assume they are as empathetic as we are. They aren’t.
Like most mental traits, empathy is heritable, its heritability being estimated at 68% (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013). It has two distinct components: cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Some researchers identify a third component, pro-social behavior, but its relationship to the other two seems tangential.
Cognitive empathy appears to be the evolutionarily older component of the two. It is the capacity to understand how another person is feeling and then predict how different actions will affect that person’s emotional state. But this capacity can be used for selfish purposes. Examples are legion: the con artist; many telemarketers; the rapist who knows how to charm his victims …
Affective empathy is the younger component, having developed out of cognitive empathy. It is the capacity not just to understand another person’s emotional state but also to identify with it. A person with high affective empathy will try to help someone in distress not because such help is personally advantageous or legally required, but because he or she is actually feeling the same distress.
…
Is it possible, then, that this capacity varies among human populations, just as it varies among individuals? … I have also argued that this evolutionary change has gone the farthest in Europeans north and west of the Hajnal Line (Frost, 2014a). In these populations, kinship has been a weaker force in organizing social relations, at least since the early Middle Ages and perhaps since prehistoric times. There has thus been selection for mechanisms, like affective empathy, that can regulate social interaction between unrelated individuals.
We can see this global variation graphically, with women’s rights:
In child labor laws (from here):
With where slavery remains:
With vegetarianism (in Europe):
And of course (relevant to current events), in this (now a bit outdated) map of the legal standing of homosexuality across the world:
These patterns follow the global variation in values, captured by the World Values Survey:
Based on #WVS data: Welzel-Inglehart Cultural Map 2015. pic.twitter.com/EUQafiYnlX
— World Values Survey (@ValuesStudies) January 26, 2015
The countries closest to the upper right corner of the plot embrace universalistic values the strongest, and those furthest away are more clannish and kin-centric.
So why this rapid change in NW European societies? Indeed, it seems many of these changes have happened in an eye-blink. Nationally recognized same-sex marriage in the U.S. was unfathomable 25 years ago:
Now it’s the reality. But this shift in attitudes is only one such “secular change” we have witnessed in just the last few decades. Others include the rise in individuals claiming not to embrace a religion…
…as well as the blossoming movement for “transgender” rights (as per the previous post):
Much has changed in a pretty short period of time. Now, as we saw previously, views and attitudes are highly heritable. So how could they have changed so quickly? This brings me to an on-going point of confusion that I encounter on this topic. Such rapid changes couldn’t reflect genetic changes, since evolution doesn’t proceed that quickly. Nor can this be attributed to demographic changes. So what then? This illustrates that sometimes a change in the gross environment can lead to considerable changes in the expression of highly heritable phenotypes.
The nature of these changes are almost always poorly understood, since they’re incredibly difficult to research. I previously discussed this topic in my post Why HBD:
Rapid change can result when an idea receives widespread appeal among the people. Both components of this – the origin of the idea itself (a reflection of the heritable temperament of its progenitors) – and its reception among the masses (a reflection of the heritable temperament of adherents) are influenced by genes. In a way then, social revolutions can reflect pent-up genetic “potential” in a population, which may express itself when enough people accept that the idea is “OK” and hence can successfully overturn the established order. This is the essence of HBD Chick’s ideas, and Staffan’s remark on needing to “account” for the “history of communism” when looking at the current state of Eastern European societies (“We can’t adjust for their entire history”). The sexual revolution wasn’t the only revolution of consequence in relatively recent history. The American Revolution itself, the Protestant Reformation, the abolition of slavery in the U.S., the rise of communism in Russia, etc are as well. Historical revolutions are in essence, in many respects, a “changing of the genetic guard”, where the genetic dam “bursts” so to speak. More loosely attached individuals may convert if the idea attains a critical mass (see how much longer? | hbd* chick).
To be clear: this is not to say that “genetic potential” is the only factor. As mentioned, other realities, such as technology and the geographic/climatic landscape affect the viability of new ideas/behaviors, and facilitate or quench their dispersal.
However, I believe sometimes the environmental change that precipitates this behavioral change is the previous behavioral change. In other words, the secular change could be a rapid move towards realizing genetic potential. To illustrate what I mean, I’ll point out that Charles Darwin foresaw a good bit of this nearly 150 years ago!
Here’s a passage from his 1871 The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Vol. 1, pp 101-102):
As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets. How little the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their abhorrent gladiatorial exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as I could observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually through public opinion.
In short, the idea appears to be this: once sympathy (and hence rights) are extended to one group, what’s to stop it from being extended further? If it is wrong to enslave poor Englishmen, then why is it OK to enslave Blacks or Native Americans? If the wealthy are deserving of living decent, healthy lives, why not the poor? If men can have the right to vote and earn a living, why can’t women? If Whites can marry other Whites, and Blacks can marry other Blacks, why can’t Blacks marry Whites? If straights can get married, why not gays? If “cis-gendered” can have their own bathrooms, why shouldn’t transgendered?
The progress has carried us from the abolition of slavery all the way up to the “safe spaces” and “microaggressions” of today. NW Euro society aims to be more inclusive, as the expanding moral circle identifies more targets worthy of human regard. This means the process isn’t over, as it will likely continue to expand.
How could this happen? The ultimate reason is the nature of NW European regard for others. In most societies across the world (i.e., clannish ones), there are weak and highly conditional attitudes towards reciprocity. The primary targets of altruism are kin. Prosociality is maintained through various forms of social honor and shame or at worst, fear of reprisal from the aggrieved or by the state. Dealings between non-kin typically take place warily and with many measures to ensure honesty by all participants. Trust is very low and is not given freely.
By contrast, NW Europeans have evolved a sense of reciprocal altruism and can deal much more readily with non-related individuals. Trust is extended. The other party is presumed to act honestly. Indeed, favors will be extended to others because the recipient may one day return the favor (or at the very least, the helping individual may earn a reputation for generosity that may parlay into favors from others).
In clannish societies, there is typically low regard for those outside the clan, let alone those from social outgroups. Regard for outgroups comes through expediency or through fear. With little outgroup regard or sense of reciprocal altruism, little by way of universalism can appear. We can see this in measures of civic engagement, particular the kind directly involved in helping others:
As Misdreavus put it in his debunking of “ethnic genetic interests” (emphasis in original):
1) It is impossible for such a thing as a “race altruist gene” to evolve, because sacrificing yourself on behalf of strangers does nothing to increase the frequency of the gene under any set of circumstances. It doesn’t matter if the frequency of a such a gene “magically” originated with a frequency of 4 in 10 Chinese people. The Chinese who don’t have the gene, on average, would have a higher fitness, resulting in the frequency decreasing monotonically over time.
2) On the other hand, it is entirely possible for complex social arrangements to evolve between completely unrelated people — and the more that strangers have in common culturally (e.g. speaking a common language, sharing a common religion, etc.) the stronger such ties will be. But that has absolutely nothing to do with “altruism”, in the strict evolutionary sense. All participants in the social network either have something to gain (e.g. the help of one’s neighbours during a famine), or at least something terrible to lose (e.g. being sent to a prison camp for insulting Kim Jong Un). And all societies, virtually everywhere, have social mechanisms in place that penalize shirkers, cheaters, moochers, and all other people who do not uphold their end of the social bargain.
…
Once any such social bargains erode away, there is absolutely stopping individuals from betraying their “racial interests” [sic] to enrich themselves and their close kin, or any other people with whom they have arranged better social bargains.
When there are no natural seams (kin interests) in conferring human regard to others – as is the case with NW European societies – the social boundaries of who deserves regard are wholly “artificial.” Having a sense of reciprocal altruism (which actively seeks targets with which to trade favors) – along with a suite of other traits that co-evolved with this (such as a sense of fairness and a belief in the equality of all in-group members) – there is little to prevent extending the (soft) cognitive barrier those presently in an outgroup when new information serves to humanize this outgroup (by appealing to affective empathy). And since no outgroup is really any different from any other (being effectively equally unrelated), there’s nothing to stop this process from repeating once new outgroups become humanized. Runaway universalism was thus inevitable.
The conservatives (typically being more clannish) who lament the rise of same-sex marriage like to point out that redefining marriage such that individuals of the same sex may marry establishes a slippery slope. After all, if those of the same-sex may marry, why not more than two individuals, for example. On this, they do have a point. The nature of the expanding moral circle, bereft of inherent boundaries, makes the slippery slope argument somewhat valid in this case. (Indeed, there are now calls to legalize polygamy.)
(For those curious about my own view on these things, I don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage. I don’t see it causing any particular harm, even if it likely confers little benefit. Live and let live. For that matter, I have a similar view towards polygamy. I have said before that the main issue arises in only if the polygamy rate gets too high, which it’s unlikely to in the West. Society can – contra Peter Frost – easily tolerate low levels of polygamy, since indeed, it essentially already does. Though it will be interesting to see how attitudes towards homosexuality will be affected by knowledge of its pathogenic origin. I expect it will not be well.)
Many commenters on this matter like to blame Jewish influence for these shifts in social attitudes, and it is true that Ashkenazi Jews commonly hold and have promoted progressive agendas. But what these commenters ignore is this: why do people listen? Or more to the point, why have some people (and peoples) embraced these views and not others? A promoted agenda is only as good as the traction it gains. Clearly, the trend towards universalism has been the purview of Northwestern European societies almost exclusively. If Jewish influence has had any role, it is only in the form of a rush in a much larger prevailing current.
Indeed, Jews are a vanishingly small portion of the population in many of the most progressive countries, such as the Scandinavian ones. Sweden for example is known for being a foremost champion of progressive causes:
Sweden by far EU's most pro-immigrant nation. In other news, rain is wet http://t.co/UfWTjXwepi cc @Paradigmian pic.twitter.com/22TBYZkidn
— JayMan (@JayMan471) January 19, 2015
W hich they promote aggressively at home all on their own:
The Swedes … “are extremely liberal toward immigration, but they have a very authoritarian attitude toward debate about it. In Norway the idea is, open discussion is basically good. If there’s hostility, better to get it out.”
In America, there’s clear variation in enthusiasm for universalistic causes by regional population. This variation follows the American Nations lines (see here and here), and many examples of such were featured in my post More Maps of the American Nations.
Some of these include women’s suffrage:
As well as the aforementioned interracial marriage:
The most recent example, the Supreme Court decision establishing same-sex marriage across the country, is the culmination of a process that spread unevenly (though predictably) across the country:
We can see the clear American Nations lines by following the pattern of rates of adoption of the red equal sign on Facebook profiles:
�
Throughout history, certain peoples in certain American nations ave resisted progressive goals, most notably those in the Deep South, the Tidewater, and Greater Appalachia. The populations in these regions are more clannish – and hence less universalistic than those in other parts of the country (see A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and the The Cavaliers). To these peoples, there are is a natural division of and natural hierarchies and (and in this respect they are quite like most the peoples of the world) that run diametrically opposed to universalism and many progressive causes. Hence they are always pulled along for the ride (often reluctantly) rather than spearheading the charge when the more “core” European-derived populations in the rest of the country proceed down their genetically ordained path of universalism.
The problem however is that temperaments do not change. No amount of “progress” is going to completely rid American Southerners of their non-progressive views about the world. Rather, the residents of the South continue to feel slighted as they see their “proper” society perverted by the universalist northerners (click to play animated GIF):
http://twitter.com/Rosen/status/614443734743293952/photo/1
Tensions between the various American nations have recently been running high as of late, and may only continue to intensify. This was predicted by Peter Turchin, and discussed in my earlier post Mapping the Road to American Disunion. In short, in many societies, unrest seems to follow cyclical patterns (likely due to underlying generational negative feedback loops). Violence in particular follows a roughly 50 year cycle, and following the pattern, we are due for a peak in violence and unrest. Recent events have not been encouraging.
Despite certain key problem presented by it, there is no question that NW European universalism has been an enormous positive force for humanity. It has ended institutional exploitation, oppression, and marginalization. It has improved the quality of life for millions, or even has made those lives possible. I personally have benefited from it and continue to do so. Some may argue that progressive causes have run their course. Having achieved as much as they could hope to achieve, they now reach a point of diminishing returns – and there’s certainly some truth to that…
Report: Only 47,000 Social Justice Milestones To Go Before U.S. Achieves Full Equality http://t.co/CPsHchIXLn pic.twitter.com/HFd2pnztSl
— The Onion (@TheOnion) June 26, 2015
…but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water (if such were even possible), and remember the great gift to humanity that universalism is.
Please see my 
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The HBD-sphere attracts a lot of antisemitism, some of which is almost understandable, given the insidious role of Jews in US foreign policy, where US tax dollars are diverted towards arming and enabling a foreign state that doesn’t have US interests at heart. But antisemitism based on Jews’ role in domestic affairs: what kind of sense does that make? It was liberal WASPs that got the ball rolling on progressive ideology and the ever-expanding circle of empathy that dominates so much of the political conversation today, not Jews. And most of progressivism was beneficial to society, I would say, up until the early 1970s.
As far as American cycle in violence, the next high point seems to be coming up soon, with so many males on the fringes of society with low expectations in terms of economic and social status. Even if the average American loser is better off than most of the losers in the Third-world, the American loser still feels alienated because he compares himself to the winners in his own society. Eventually, a revolution is fomented if loser males can’t get what they want.
On the topic of male homosexuality: do you believe the pathogen can be contracted by youths through sexual contact with adult gay men?
Personally, the Jews I have known have treated me with kindness and decency at a higher rate than gentiles have. If they appear in SJW circles at a higher rate than non-Jews, I attribute that simply to their higher average IQs landing them in academia at a higher rate than non-Jews, where they pick up the dominant academic (some would call them “Cathedral”) talking points and run with them, just like everyone else in academia.
IMO, the arguments people make about Jews sound exactly like the arguments people make about “white privilege” and the like. Why are there more whites in academia, or men in math? Clearly it’s a big conspiracy of white men to keep out white women, because men hate their wives or something. Naw. People are sore losers; no one wants to be told, eh, looks like your group just isn’t as good at X as this other group. So people get testy about admitting that Jews are probably disproportionately represented in academia just ‘cuz they’re kinda smart.
Everyone wants to blame their personal problems on someone else.
Met a Pathak the other day. Absolutely astoundingly intelligent individual. Clearly part of a conspiracy to keep down non-Pathaks by being the smartest guy around.
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. 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. Horizontal transmission was much rarer; you could never, say, find youtube videos of everyday life in Bangladesh in 1800. The spread of mass-media technology (starting with the printing press, I suspect) has created a new environment for memes to spread in.
The horizontal meme-environment favors these “universalist” values, while the vertical environment favors more… clannish values. (for a longer explanation, see https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/mitochondrial-memes-part-1/ ) As our technological development has accelerated, I’d expect to see an acceleration of universalist values, (spreading preferentially/fastest, of course, among those most genetically inclined toward them.)
I see three potential downsides to this trend:
1. Since the meme-vironment is evolutionarily novel, I have no idea how sustainable the ideas are or if we’re doing weird things to our morals simply because everyone else is. Groupthink is powerful, but not necessarily correct.
2. Extending universalist treatment to people who do not treat you universalistically back leads to Prisoners’ Dilemma type failures. eg, https://occamsrazormag.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/racism-and-the-prisoners-dilemma/
3. Are we really focusing on the important stuff? Personally, I’m worried about things like Global Warming, which I think will affect a lot more people than gay marriage. I like gay people as much as I like anyone else on the planet, but I think it’s going to suck if the place becomes uninhabitable. It’s like we can’t prioritize. 🙁
I have a few questions:
Will the sphere of empathy ever extend to males?
Your example of acid attacks as being against women when they are near equal. Boko Haram killed many, many males in horrific ways. We only heard about the relatively few women harmed.
What happens when we NW Europeans are the minority in all counties where we were formally the majority? Will the new citizens who replace us have been successfully engineered to somehow act and think like NW Europeans?
This is true now where I live. You can see the various mass immigrant blocks flexing their political muscles now. Real estate agents tell me they would loose a Chinese client if they were to show them a home to buy when the seller is from India originally. When school gets out I see very few euro-descended children. This is true of all countries I have looked up, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia etc. I just saw a Twitter post celebrating that while children were now the minority of births. Is this good for the world?
Does the circle of empathy of NW Euros include their fellow European descended people? There are extreme double standards of behaviour for NW Euros vs other peoples.
I know there is one theory that all this ’empathy’ is status signalling for this group. What happens when this group finally figures out that perhaps, just perhaps more aggressive peoples regard them as prey to be taken advantage of? With their very weak survival threat recognition kick in or will they self immolate like that preacher I saw reported on to out of extreme white guilt?
I’m from NW Europe and recognize the traits you describe. Maybe WEIRD should be WIIRD white, indoctrinated, etc.
Great stuff (as always).
It got me thinking that the big weakness of this culture is its blindness to the fact that other people are different. Being trustful and viewing all as having an inherent worth makes critical thinking about outgroups very difficult. Perhaps this means that immigration and collapse are inevitable, and that fringe nations like Finland, Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia (due to a founder effect) will be those preserving this legacy (in a somewhat modified form) in the future.
Although these things are really hard to estimate. Even though genes underlie culture you have what social psychologists call “strong situations” that make for a uniform response. In Europe it does seem like otherwise WEIRD people begin to understand that not all immigrants are friendly and it’s beginning to show in the political climate. Few would have thought the Swedish nationalist party would become the biggest party. Now they are less than 2 percent from that in the latest polls.
And this party (and similar parties in Western Europe) cater to WEIRD voters. They oppose gay adoption, but not gay marriage, they think society should support transgendered people, and they are strong on animal rights issues. Half of their voters don’t even identify as nationalist.
“Being trustful and viewing all as having an inherent worth makes critical thinking about outgroups very difficult. Perhaps this means that immigration and collapse are inevitable, and that fringe nations like Finland, Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia (due to a founder effect) will be those preserving this legacy (in a somewhat modified form) in the future.”
I’ve done work in “human capital” planning and attended conferences. Conversations behind closed doors were strictly how to can keep salaries down, particularly for high education fields. Solutions were immigration, more immigration and getting women to enter fields they aren’t particularly attracted to. There was no altruism in the conversations.
The guilt tripping is for the newspapers to sell high levels of immigration to the population. Nations comprised entirely of minority ethnic blocks who can be manipulated for votes are a basic building block for globalism. There is no down side for politicians or business. We don’t have high immigration into developed nations for altruistic reasons. That message is strictly for the populace. As the nature of the population changes I expect the altruistic arguements will no longer be effective.
As to what will happen in developed countries of minority blocks? Who knows. I suspect development will halt and regress. The media attacks on NW euro culture are so intense now even a person like me who has difficulty recognizing an attack when it happens is starting to get it.
Some good points. Most of the Jew-hatred is pure jealously. On #2, I would like to see more research mapping HEXACO personality traits onto game theoretic decision making. On #3, I agree. Gay marriage is fine, but should really be one of the least of our concerns. Global warming is higher on my list of priorities also.
While I’m sure there is genetic group variation on these measures, these sorts of macro scale comparisons probably don’t tell us much since many areas, like Africa, are simply so poor and backward that they’re not in any sort of position to even begin entertaining certain sorts of women’s rights and child labor rights. I don’t find it that implausible that if there were some major calamity that reduced Western economies to a medieval level, that things like child labor, slavery, fewer women’s rights, etc. would return. These things are to a certain extent luxuries. Japan is one of the few countries outside of the West with similar levels of economic development, and it measures similarly on things like child labor above, but obviously Japan is genetically different.
@Anonymous:
Fair enough point. But how about looking at Black populations outside of Africa? How do their social views compare?
That’s the problem with the poverty argument, though you do have a point, it needs to be addressed for sticklers.
And then there’s Eastern Europe and China…
In this case, wouldn’t it be a genetic tendency for conformity, or going with the flow, or indoctrinability, etc., rather than for the particular historical revolution du jour?
There are some inconsistencies with this.
The expanding moral circle of universalism is not about an expansion of reciprocal altruism, but of generating and expanding larger degrees of fictive kinship. Reciprocal altruism is transactional cooperation that relies on detection of conformity or defection and cheating, enforcement, punishment. Altruism itself only evolves when directed at close kin. The expanding moral circle of universalism attempts to get people to view other people, animals, objects, whatever, as close kin or as indistinguishable from their actual close kin.
Since altruism only evolves when directed at close kin and reciprocal altruism is not runaway or unbridled altruism and cooperation but rather involves transactional behavior and detection and enforcement, there’s no reason to assume that runaway universalism was inevitable.
I’m not saying poverty or wealth determine these things. But I don’t think Japan’s similarity on some of these measures has anything to do with genetic affinity with Western populations, since there obviously isn’t any.
Black populations outside of Africa are underdeveloped as well. I’m not sure they tell us that much.
Eastern Europe and China are far more independent than any individual Western country.
@Anonymous:
Call it what you will. It still works.
No. Reread your own description of reciprocal altruism or click the links for HBD Chick’s discussion of it.
@Anonymous:
But they do. A lot, in fact.
Indeed.
This culture of the expanding moral circle of universalism seeks to expand the circle to things like animals, and obviously people recognize animals to be and behave differently from people. Furthermore, reciprocal altruism doesn’t involve trusting everyone, but having mechanisms to detect conformity, cheating, defection, etc. This culture is about viewing and treating other people, animals, as equivalent to or indistinguishable from close kin.
@Anonymous:
Read HBD Chick’s stuff on what she means by NW Euro reciprocal altruism, which is the meaning I use here. No more comments on that point until you do, please.
Can you expand on your disagreement of my description of the expanding moral circle of universalism? As I understand it, it’s not the same thing as reciprocal altruism.
Ok I was checking out the links to hbdhick but I don’t really see a clear and concise description or definition of reciprocal altruism. I’m using the conventional understanding of reciprocal altruism.
@Anonymous:
I’ll try to dig for one. But in the mean time, I think the thing you’re missing is generosity. In an individualistic, (not bound to kin), high-trust society, reciprocal altruists can afford to extend the first favor in hopes of repayment, as I described above. In societies populated almost exclusively by such individuals, the traits work. In other words, don’t get too attached to your definition of the term, but think of the traits of the people under discussion.
Thanks. I’d like to see more of that sort of thing, too. I remember a study that found prisoners tended to cooperate at Prisoner’s Dilemma more than non-prisoners.
The problem with global warming is that I have trouble thinking up any exciting arguments about it to keep people talking. (Most) people like talking about gossip, not statistical models…
Evolutionarily speaking, I suspect Euro males have an instinct to protect females, and females have self interest to protect themselves, but women and men have little instinct to protect grown men. Men are expected to fend for themselves; a man who can’t and needs to be cared for by women is a child who eats a lot.
In horizontally-spread morality (see my other post for explanation), everyone pressures everyone else to sacrifice their own self interest for the wider group’s. Take, eg, vegetarianism. Eating tasty animals is in my self-interest, but I might forgo my own self-interest in order to promote the self-interest of animals. Every animal I meet, could it talk, would try to impress upon me the morality of forgoing my own self interest in order to promote its interest. And the same with other humans. There is only one person advocating that you should care for yourself, and 7 billion people who think it would be far more moral if you gave them all of your money. So we call Mother Theresa a saint, and someone who eats animals ‘cuz they taste good is kinda greedy.
But the person who looks out for their own self interest gets to reproduce, and Mother Theresa has no descendants.
“Eastern Europe and China are far more independent than any individual Western country.”
What does that mean???
I’m not sure I get it. How does the moral circle expand any other way than reciprocal altruism?
The problem with runaway Universalism and the above views is that it offers opportunities for genetically different individuals to exploit those populations holding such genes.
Thus, I would expect a population with a genetic predisposition towards universalism to crash when it comes into contact with groups of exploitative clannish peoples, and there after I would expect a balance between such genes and possibly selection for being able to recognize exploiters on the part of the exploited and selection for deception on the part of the exploiters.
It’s all happened before!
It probably has happened before. We’ll see how far this one goes, however.
I was struck by this question from an earlier article of yours:
How should we treat someone who could destroy our reproductive success?
A different question. How should we treat someone who is a carrier of a disease that could kill us? That depending on age, could certainly destroy our reproductive success.
How should we treat someone (say, an ISIS member) who wants to kill us? That would certainly, depending on age, destroy our reproductive success.
Is a threat to our reproductive success any different than a threat to our lives?
Note, that my link to Cuckoos and their victims is relevant here.
The victim species have been selected for recognizing and countering threats to their reproductive success.
It was/is a classic arms race.
Do most gays carry such diseases?
This is speculation, but I would imagine that clannish groups would feign altruism, but once they are comfortable that the NW euro’s are a minority or soon to be, would throw off this particular disguise.
You can see this dual morality quite easily in various YouTube videos on the topic of ethnic and racial division, once you know what to look for.
It seems that we don’t know. I would look at any rise in the incidence of homosexuality during tolerant times, but we would have to be able to detect and eliminate social effects as well.
The is a precedent. The Shingles Virus seems to remain in the bodies of some people who contracted Chicken Pox as children.
Herpes viruses are interesting. It would be amusing if the mechanism were, say, mothers contracting herpes (non-sexual variety) during pregnancy. Why? Because then Guardasil might be the vaccine against Homosexuality.
Interestingly, this document on Rubella and congenital issues mentions both apoptosis and autoimmune factors.
This is the document:
http://www.sabin.org/sites/sabin.org/files/JennyBest.pdf
@Beyond Anon:
Gardasil protects against the human papilloma virus (HPV), not herpes.
As I see it there are essentially two options for the developed world: incremental collapse and eventual dissolution (which has happened many many times to human societies in the past, one might say collapse is the expected result) OR we have something similar to the Spanish civil war where the liberals, intellectuals, homosexuals, are culled en masse when the forces that created civilization: organized religion and hierarchical in group pro-socials (i.e. royalists) work together to push back the tide and reassert their dominance. As an intellectual and a relatively liberal person I am not looking forward to being first up against the wall when the fascists (or whatever they call themselves this time) come, but I’m failing to see the alternatives… We aren’t making our population better in anyway, we’re pumping out as much low quality food as we can to blow up the world population (or “end hunger” as the biotech corps tell us to think about it)… But what does that possibly net us other than greater human misery? Perhaps if we could start designing our children we might have a chance… But currently I doubt that’ll come in time and even if it did it would be restricted by one’s means to pay which is unfortunate given those most able to pay are those who benefit the least from designer children.
Interesting post. Some thoughts and comments/questions.
1) Some of the people who worry about NW euros and immigration /race mixing are concerned that the ‘universalist nature’ of NW euro societies will lead to there disappearing. Put more abstractly if those societies are nice because of genetic virtues, anything that might change those HBD tendencies might undermine those societies. For what its worth I think this is mostly exaggerated . but not completely ridiculous, you have even re-tweeted a comment by Dr. James Thompson saying something to the effect of ‘are those populations therefore to be replaced’. While I don’t oppose interracial relationships ( my last GF was Chinese-and people dating interracially are likely to be non clannish members of the other group also). I do oppose and have major concerns of mass immigration and the effects it might have. Elite , controlled immigration is probably ok and useful for a country. I am interested to see what a heterogeneous elite can do
2) In some ways China really does represent a contrary model to the progress in western societies. It seems to the only viable alternative, everything else is obviously inferior to the west in terms of its ability to deliver progress. While I think that populations might indeed vary on the traits that produce progressive values, I wonder how much. My Chinese GF was an animal rights activist, and I watch a fair bit of Anime. I know most media is produced by elites-and therefore isn’t directly representative of a populations values, still this media showed progressive trends in what the elites think, and that often foreshadows where the rest of society goes. So progress in Japan, and Korean on universalist values seems likely to me. Even India I think eventually we will see. You can witness he growth in women’s rights groups, and gay rights groups in these countries.
3) The progressive left has almost Jumped the shark now. And has dialed down its universalism and commitment to values like free speech. It engages in Censorship, has distrusted groups (privileged cis-white men), and encouragement of tribalism in non white groups etc. I think that since the radical left has more influence on the elites than the radical right it represents more of a threat to progress. The objective beliefs of the radical right are on average worse (cough, except communism), but the influence of the left is more pernicious. If the left really cared about progressive values, it would see much of the whites in the American south as an underclass in need of help.
-What do you think , is the progressive left its own worst enemy? and likely to grow in how much trouble it causes in the future. This isn’t a question regarding which beliefs you disagree with more, but who you think might be a more significant obstacle to progress with regard to HBD and society getting better.
4) I am not sure if u watched Jonathan Haidt’s talk where he outlines the metaphor of the elephant and the rider. I wont explain that metaphor but basically following its guidelines. Why couldn’t we use a culture or sub populations tribalism to create new Taboos. Like one brings shame on the tribe to cause animal suffering. Tribalism is not 100% content defined, there is room to shift those taboos to line up more with our own values.
5) Lastly, humanity really needs to just hold out and make it to genetic engineering. Opposed by the religious right and for some strange reason (hbd denialism presumably) almost all the left. The near universal in the literature on human suffering is the human condition. Engineering our genome could do more than anything else in history to boost the quality of life, the reduction of suffering. etc.
-Green eyes.
Great Post JayMan.
I was afraid that you had gone into a persistent decline. It is nice to see that it was only a slump, and short-lived.
Hasn’t worked out that way for my clan.
Trust has been declining in America (and presumably the rest of the west).
Americans’ declining trust in others, institutions: Underlying cultural shifts
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/ads-public-opinion/trust-others-institutions-declining-america-data-underlying-cultural-shifts
It’s absurd to attribute fads like “gay marriage”, pushed by a tiny minority and imposed from the top down through mass media and the judiciary, to some natural upwelling of trust or inevitable expansion of “moral circles”.
Nor is there any reason to believe NW Europeans are uniquely susceptible to propaganda of this sort. US hispanics support “gay marriage” at higher rates than whites.
The same goes for mass immigration, which was never asked for by the majority, and which has been pushed by a combination of minority interests and business interests.
@n/a:
Trust appears to cycle with inequality (which itself cycles with diversity/ immigrant fraction of the population, which is likely the driving factor) according to Peter Turchin’s double helix.
A look at the global map clearly shows where Latin America falls on this issue. The other maps clearly show were NW Euros stand (against most everyone else) on all these things.
Sure, but a significant number of Americans want immigration to remain constant or even increased, even if not the majority. Unfortunately, that minority includes the ones that get to decide the matter.
“A look at the global map clearly shows where Latin America falls on this issue. The other maps clearly show were NW Euros stand (against most everyone else) on all these things.”
As your own map shows, Argentina and Brazil recognized “gay marriages” before the US. And I specifically referred to US hispanics. You asserted “the secular change could be a rapid move towards realizing genetic potential”. By your reasoning, it would appear the “genetic potential” is higher in hispanics than NW Europeans.
“Sure, but a significant number of Americans want immigration to remain constant or even increased, even if not the majority. Unfortunately, that minority includes the ones that get to decide the matter.”
There’s nothing inevitable about this.
@n/a:
Yes. I never said otherwise. That doesn’t contradict anything said here. Indeed, are they not part European too, even (to a lesser extent) part Northwest European (defined as from inside the Hajnal line, hence includes northern Iberia)? (Of course, on this matter, I don’t know if the European component has anything to do with what we see with Latin Americans – it could easily be the Indigenous component.)
Sweden and various other Northwestern European countries would suggest otherwise.
“Sweden and various other Northwestern European countries would suggest otherwise.”
We were talking about America. Americans are not Swedes. A majority of Swedes (or at least residents of Sweden; I’m not sure what the polls look like when restricted to actual Swedes) evidently buy into pro-immigration propaganda at the moment. But there’s nothing inevitable about this either.
I’m also still waiting for you to acknowledge you continue to give incorrect definitions of “ethnic genetic interests” and promote unambiguously wrong arguments against the evolvability ethnocentric altruism.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/06/jayman-continues-to-talk-about-things.html
@n/a:
Because it’s a vast, international conspiracy by evil forces to make all the Northwestern European countries (and only NW Euro countries) have such views. Right…
@n/a:
I think Misdreavus has properly driven this nonsense (and it is nonsense) into the ground already.
If you think misdreavus has any idea what he’s talking about, you’re saying you believe that the level of genetic similarity “between a Swede and a non-related Swede” is the same as the level of genetic similarity “between a Swede and a black African”.
This is what you were arguing before with your confusion on coefficients of relationship, and what misdreavus is claiming in the thread you’re promoting.
Approximately ¾ of people in Britain favour reducing immigration.
Large majorities in Britain have been opposed to immigration since at least the 1960s.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
Dutch Poll: Most Say Stop Islamic Immigration
The Dutch equivalent of a Gallup poll showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with Islamic immigrants to the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, a new de Hond poll — the Dutch equivalent of a Gallup poll – showed that more than three quarters of the Dutch (77 %) believe that Islam is no enrichment for their country. More than two-thirds (68 %), say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands.
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/dutch-poll-most-say-stop-islamic-immigration
@n/a:
I think the key point is not that a majority of NW Euros favor immigration, but they have greater affinity for it than most anywhere else in the world, as the chart featured in the post attests.
And, even if a majority of the populace is not for immigration, but the leaders are (who are from the same populations, in general), that too is telling.
I’m sure you’ll find majority to stronger-than-elsewhere support in NW Euro countries for other universalist concepts.
I think if HBD varience in population sub structure became common knowledge, there would be less calls for mass immigration. Part of the reason people in NW Europe want it, is they think it has only an upside and those populations can seamlessly integrate. Very regretfully this isn’t true.
I think a lot of Europe is pro MASS immigration for the wrong reasons. They will learn the downside, hopefully before there societies become too ‘enriched’ by diversity. You are grateful for universalism because it has allowed you to live in a better society Jayman. But if society changes because of universalism the qualities you like about it might change as well.
Interesting we talking about Europe and immigration, a very current article from the atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/closing-european-harbors/395321/
Especially the part of learning that todays migrants are tommorows criminals.
@anonymous – “This culture of the expanding moral circle of universalism seeks to expand the circle to things like animals, and obviously people recognize animals to be and behave differently from people. Furthermore, reciprocal altruism doesn’t involve trusting everyone, but having mechanisms to detect conformity, cheating, defection, etc. This culture is about viewing and treating other people, animals, as equivalent to or indistinguishable from close kin.”
i have to confess that i have probably been using the term ‘reciprocal altruism’ in an unorthodox manner (and certainly not in the strict scientific sense), and that i have been using it inconsistently as well. to be honest, i’ve been struggling with defining clearly the idea of the sort of altruistic behaviors that i think we see in nw “core” europeans.
as you say, nw european culture seems to be about viewing and treating all others as equivalent to or indistinguishable from close kin. this didn’t appear fully formed in nw european societies, but has been ‘coming on’ since sometime in the medieval period (it starts to become apparent in ca. 1000-1200, i think). and this universalism has been expanding until, nowadays, some are arguing for human rights for chimpanzees.
i’ve been calling it reciprocal altruism in opposition to the more nepotistic or familial altruism that you see in long-term inbreeding societies — reciprocal because the man on the street in the west treats everyone the same with the expectation that they will all do the same toward him. (not sure what else to call it — if you have any ideas, please lemme know! srsly. this is something i’ve been wrestling with!)
this “reciprocal altruism” (for lack of a better term right now) is clearly tied to the universalistic attitudes of nw europeans, while the nepotistic altruism of clannish groups is tied to their more particularistic moral sense. also included in the mix are individualism vs. communalism and the presence or absence of family honor.
Here is a what seems to me to be rather tortured argument for epigenetic effects that mimic “blank slate” ideas. Don’t spank your kids and they will switch from r to K reproductive selection. Political lefties are favouring r selection and righties favour K selection. There appear to be some leaps in the logic, but they may be from studies that are referred to. Plus as far as I know Swedes aren’t a r selection population and are very left for the most part. Wanting to be a humanitarian superpower even if it bankrupts them. Maybe they are making some sort of long term investment? Change the world, fix others, like a Pygmalion project?
He trying to build an empirical argument against genetic determinism, or accept some genetic determinism but support the idea that this can be changed in a generation or so.
It seems like a good fit for your blog and how these ideas get popularized.
http://youtu.be/W8N3FF_3KvU Link
This recent era of mass migration has coincided with the predominance of blank statist, extreme nurturist viewpoints and of the idea that there are no genetic differences between populations. If you have an extreme nurturist viewpoint and believe that all populations are essentially the same genetically, then it becomes much less of a leap to support or acquiesce to mass migration. Indeed it can even seem irrational to oppose mass migration if you hold these views.
It seems that before these views predominated, racialist, nationalist, Social Darwinian, anti-immigration views and politics were much more common in NW Euro countries. Also NW Euros today who reject blank slatism and accept population differences seem to be more skeptical of or reject altogether mass migration and embrace or are more amenable to racialist, nationalist, and Social Darwinist politics.
Doesn’t Salter derive his notion of “ethnic genetic interests” from human behavior? He argues that individuals, from the biological perspective, do anything and everything for the ultimate goal or interest, the “genetic interest”, of perpetuating their “distinctive genes”. From this premise he argues that since copies of these distinctive genes exist in other individuals as well, and therefore things such as “ethnic genetic interests” exist.
Thus doesn’t his claim depend on how people or organisms do behave?
@Anonymous:
The problem is the coefficient of relationship between co-ethnics who aren’t close relatives is too low to make such an effort pay off through inclusive fitness, as these guys are trying to argue. Hence, such a preference could never have been selected for.
Right, but I’m trying to address n/a’s claim that ethnic genetic interests exist regardless of what was selected for or how people behave. Salter himself seems to found his notion of “ethnic genetic interests” on how people behave.
Doesn’t Salter derive his notion of “ethnic genetic interests” from human behavior? [. . .] Thus doesn’t his claim depend on how people or organisms do behave?
No. Read the book:
https://archive.org/stream/OnGeneticInterestsFamilyEthnicityAndHumanityInAnAgeOfMassMigration2006ByFrankKempSalter/On%20Genetic%20Interests%20-%20Family,%20Ethnicity,%20and%20Humanity%20in%20an%20Age%20of%20Mass%20Migration%20%282006%29%20by%20Frank%20Kemp%20Salter_djvu.txt
Salter’s overarching premise is that reproduction / genetic continuity is the ultimate interest, for all living things.
“In this essay I argue for the importance of genetic continuity as an end in it-
self, for humans as well as for other species. Conserving any species or one of its
races entails preserving its genes, in addition to a conducive environment; not
only because genes code for the properties that we value, but because we affiliate
with life for its own sake. And we know that life is not only dependent on ecol-
ogy but on phylogeny, the evolutionary experience of a species impressed on its
genes. If eagles could speak they would probably demand the right — or at least
the chance — to survive and flourish, as do we. That is life’s overriding goal, its
ultimate interest. [. . .]
Genes are not the ultimate rationale for any-
thing, of course, since only a proposition can perform that function. But the pro-
cess of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence. Individ-
ual humans are links in a chain of life stretching back millions of generations of
human and prehuman species that managed to perpetuate their genes.”
While he does go on to note that in general maladaptive behaviors will be selected against and discuss examples of adaptive, kin-directed altruism, nothing in his argument depends on humans having evolved to act adaptively in the modern world with respect to their genetic interests. Had he believed this to be the case, he would not have had any reason to write the book:
“On Genetic Interests is an attempt to answer the empirical question: How would an
individual behave in order to be adaptive in the modem world? I adopt the neo-Darwinian
meaning of adaptive, which is to maximize the survival chances of one’s genes. I begin
by describing humans as an evolved species and thus as creatures for whom genetic
continuity consists of personal reproduction or reproduction of kin.”
And:
“Humans can no longer rely on their instincts
There is nothing immutable or necessarily perfect about adaptations or the under-
standing, appetites and preferences they organize. Natural selection is con-
strained by evolutionary history and environment. It shapes bodies and behav-
iours in small increments by modifying existing species. Much in nature is badly
designed, if one examines it from an engineer’s viewpoint. [. . .]
Like adaptations that advance them, proximate interests can be imperfect in
promoting genetic interests. The main problem is the slowness of natural selec-
tion compared to the rapidity of technological and social change since the
Neolithic. The inertia of adaptations can cause them to continue to promote
proximate interests that no longer serve fitness. For most of humans’ evolu-
tionary history, adaptations tracked slow-moving environmental change, in-
cluding technological advances. In the species’ distant hominid and pre-hominid
past, proximate interests that reduced an actor’s fitness were valued less and less
as the genes that coded for such valuation failed to reproduce. For this reason, at
most moments in time proximate interests have correlated with ultimate interests
because the environment has changed so slowly that physiology and behaviour
could keep track with it. Proximate and ultimate interests have been in
equilibrium except where rapid changes in environment occurred. The
equilibrium applying to humans has been upset in recent generations, so that we
can no longer rely on subjectively designated proximate interests to serve our ul-
timate interest. We must rely more on science to perceive the causal links be-
tween the things we value and formulate synthetic goals based on that rational
appraisal.
Proximate interests, often reflected in consciously held values, have become
increasingly fallible guides to ultimate interests because modern humans live in a
rapidly changing world. Humans evolved in small bands consisting of a few
families, sometimes grouped into tribes numbering in the hundreds. For most of
their evolutionary history humans made a living by hunting and gathering in
largely natural environments. They lacked formal organization and hierarchy.
Adults coordinated activities by negotiating simple demographic role specializa-
tions — by age and sex — on an egalitarian basis with familiar band members.
Most information was common. Humans now live in societies numbering in the
millions where the great majority of interactants are strangers or acquaintances.
They make their living through a great diversity of occupations resulting in radi-
cal asymmetries in information. They live and work in largely man-made urban
environments. They are formally organized into states administered by extended
hierarchies of rank and resources actuated by authoritative commands, imper-
sonal contracts enforced by the state authority, and powerful forms of indoctri-
nation performed by universal education, centralized media and entertainment.”
JayMan,
“The problem is the coefficient of relationship between co-ethnics who aren’t close relatives is too low to make such an effort pay off through inclusive fitness, as these guys are trying to argue. Hence, such a preference could never have been selected for.”
Again:
(1) “Ethnic genetic interests” are not a preference. “Ethnic genetic interests” exist regardless of whether or not any particular preference evolved or could have evolved. “Ethnic genetic interests” is simply Salter’s term for “The number of copies of a random individual’s distinctive genes in his or her ethny”.
(2) You still don’t understand coefficients of relationship, despite having had months in which to correct your basic lack of understanding. The chart you hilariously believe “proves” ethnic genetic interests do not exist is generated with the assumption of no inbreeding. Humanity is obviously not panmictic. The probability of identity by descent between a Swede and another Swede relative to a sub-Saharan African is about the same as the probability of identity by descent between a Swedish grandparent and grandchild relative to an non-closely related Swede.
(3) You are not in any position to make pronouncements on how human genetic diversity was partitioned with respect to groups in the past. It’s likely that for much of human prehistory humans tended to live in relatively small, highly inbred tribes/band.
(4) Ethnocentrism exists. As do a variety of other apparent groupish adaptations.
Right, as I suggested, he seems to derive his notion of “ultimate interest” from biological behavior. He argues that all organisms, from the biological perspective, act in or for the ultimate interest or goal of perpetuating their “distinctive genes”. From this premise he derives the idea of “ethnic genetic interests”. He argues that since copies of these distinctive genes exist in other organisms as well, individual organisms have “ethnic genetic interests” as well. Regardless of what individual organisms think or how they behave, they have ethnic genetic interests.
His argument does seem to be premised on biological behavior, and it seems that you could just as easily take the behavior of individual organisms not acting as if they had ethnic genetic interests as a premise to conclude that ethnic genetic itnerests don’t exist.
Salter argues that individuals act in order to perpetuate their distinctive genes. Because they act this way, and because there are copies of individuals’ distinctive genes in other individuals such as the individuals of their ethnic groups, they have ethnic genetic interests.
Salter’s argument seems to be premised on a claim about how or why individuals behave in a certain fashion. To the extent that individuals also behave as if they don’t have ethnic genetic interests, his argument seems to be inconsistent.
“His argument does seem to be premised on biological behavior, and it seems that you could just as easily take the behavior of individual organisms not acting as if they had ethnic genetic interests as a premise to conclude that ethnic genetic itnerests don’t exist.”
No. Again, Salter does not claim organisms always act adaptively. His book is about how someone should behave if they want to act adaptively.
“Salter’s argument seems to be premised on a claim about how or why individuals behave in a certain fashion. To the extent that individuals also behave as if they don’t have ethnic genetic interests, his argument seems to be inconsistent.”
For a third time, Salter is well aware that people do not necessarily act adaptively in the modern world. He just points out that (by definition) organisms that consistently behave in a maladaptive manner will tend to eliminate themselves.
Individuals might choose any purpose in life, including ones that prevent their genes from being passed on to the next generation. However, maladaptive choices tend to eliminate genes that contribute to those choices within prevailing environments. Genes will not survive the organism in which they reside unless they launch the organism on an adaptive life course — avoiding predators, metabolising food, learning the local language, resisting parasites, finding mates and, in social species, nurturing offspring and defending the kin group. The individual phenotype is a survival vehicle constructed by a parliament of genes, each cooperating to perpetuate itself.
And one can disagree with Salter that ultimate interests are genetic interests. But Salter’s book is about how one should behave if one agrees / does wish to behave adaptively.
In this book I have argued that an overlooked interest possessed by all individuals is genetic reproduction. This has implications not only for self preservation and personal reproduction, but for the distribution of altruism between family, ethny and humanity. My primary aim has not been to explain human behaviour, but rather to offer social and political theory about what individuals should do if they want to behave adaptively. I have suggested strategies for defending genetic interests in a sustainable manner under various circumstances, and offered some thoughts on policy and ethical dimensions. Much of the argument is built on empirical and analytic assumptions that can be tested by: (a) the continued clarification of ultimate interests, including the relative importance of genes and culture; (b) the identification of kin, including ethnic kin, through genetic assays; and (c) the efficacy of strategies for defending genetic interests.
Salter is making a philosophical argument, specifically a metaphysical one: Biological organisms are beings with the telos of self-perpetuation. Therefore people and any kind of organism, by virtue of being biological beings, are beings with the telos of self-perpetuation, regardless of what they believe or whether they act adaptively. Metaphysically, biological beings are beings with the telos of self-perpetuation.
Individual biological organisms die, therefore the “self” of the telos of self-perpetuation must not be the individual organism istelf, but something else. That something else is genes. The “self” of the telos of self-perpetuation must be genes, since genes, unlike the mortal biological organism, can perpetuate. Furthermore, since individual biological organisms have this telos of genetic self-perpetuation, the genes of the “self” must be the “distinctive genes”. Finally, since genes in general and these “distinctive genes” in particular exist elsewhere in other organisms, the “self” exists elsewhere in other organisms as well. Individual biological organisms are beings with the telos of self-perpetuation, and this self exists outside the individual biological organism.
Salter’s argument is premised on a metaphysical theory of what biological organisms “really” are or are “really” doing by virtue of being biological organisms. No matter what biological organisms actually do, as biological organisms, what they are really doing is being beings with the telos of self-perpetuation.
His argument does seem to be premised on a theory of how or why individual biological organisms act (because they are beings with the telos of self-perpetuation). To the extent that organisms don’t behave according to Salter’s theory, or that genes don’t know or regard copies elsewhere in other organisms as themselves, it’s not clear what it has to do with anything. It seems to be just a metaphysical theory or a normative system of ethics.
I haven’t yet read Salter’s book, but Anonymous’ gloss (assuming it is accurate) is interesting, and I think there’s something to it.
As I understand Salter’s view (via the commenters above), it seems concordant with the view that the ‘ultimate’ rationale for biological life is for replicators to replicate and attain representation into the future. The paradigmatic replicators, of course, are sequences of DNA (as per the evolutionary gene concept, to a first approximation). (One could also extend this view to encompass other replicators, such as memes.)
Insofar as the ‘ultimate’ rationale for biological life is as sketched above (for replicators to replicate themselves and attain representation into the future), then it is adaptive to act in ways that conduce to ethnic genetic interests.
Crucially, this would hold even if humans have not evolved to have ethnic genetic interests, and regardless of whether some, many, or most actually currently act in their ethnic genetic interests. Assuming humans have not actually evolved (or at least not yet) to act in their ethnic genetic interests, then there are at least two ways to do so: (1) act in their ethnic genetic interests without awareness that they are doing so, or (2) come to apprehend that since the ‘ultimate’ rationale for biological life is for replicators to replicate and attain representation into the future, they should intentionally act in ways that conduce to their ethnic genetic interests.
(2) effectively is like seeing things from an Archimedean point – rationally seeing what the adaptive thing would be to do in the present, insofar as downstream replication consequences are concerned (the ‘ultimate’ rationale), and then doing that thing. Again, this would be in spite of humans putatively not having evolved to act in their ethnic genetic interests. Indeed, because the pace of environmental and technological evolution has so outstripped the pace of genetic evolution, it would seem that, in many cases, at least, the only way to currently act adaptively so far as ethnic genetic interests is concerned is to see things from such an Archimedian point – that is, via rationality and scientific investigation. Ditto given the fact that our sociocultural environments have become so epistemically opaque with respect to which memes are actually fitness conducing.
But there is one other important point to make about all of this. And that is that even if the ‘ultimate’ rationale of life pertains to the replication of replicators like macromolecules, nothing normative follows. The fact/value distinction, as always, holds. The fact that life exists because of, and in the service of, replicators is just another statement of fact. Physics and the second law of thermodynamics explains why replicators have evolved in the first place and continue to do what they do. As the philosopher Alex Rosenberg puts it, “The physical facts fix all of the facts”. That’s it. There’s no ‘point’ to any of it – to anything in the universe, for that matter.
So even if one chooses to act in one’s ethnic genetic interests – or even their own narrowly circumscribed inclusive fitness, for that matter – it is still just a normative sentiment, an expression of taste, like preferring strawberry ice cream to vanilla ice cream. To put it more poetically, regardless of what we do, if we could ask the universe whether what we are doing is ‘ultimately’ good or bad, right or wrong, the universe, if it could speak, would say in no uncertain terms: ‘Who gives a fuck? I give no fucks, because this is an intrinsically nihilistic universe’. So let’s not take all of this inclusive fitness and ethnic genetic interests stuff quite so seriously and just enjoy our short life in this odd (by human standards) reality.
Jayman, I think the inference (if I read you correctly) that the rest of the world won’t more or less close the ‘universalism gap’ with the west is a bit too quick. As Pinker showed in his book, even if there still is a gap, there in general has been quite a bit of moral progress on a global scale over time. I think the jury is still out: reason, science, and rational discourse needs more time to permeate through the globe before we make any solid conclusions. For instance, it may be that one critical factor, if not, for all we know, the critical factor, is the suite of traits that compose a given society’s elites. If a given society’s elites possess, for example, high IQ and other traits, they may be more likely to eventually subscribe to and espouse universalist values, and the rest of their society, in due course, regardless of their IQ and other traits, could very well inevitably imbibe those values. Recent work in evolutionary anthropology on cultural learning processes suggest that we have cognitive adaptations that are functionally specialized to learn cultural information in ways that are biased, such as via conformity-based learning and learning that attends preferentially to what highly prestigious people do and say (see recent work by Joe Henrich, Rob Boyd, Pete Richerson, and colleagues, for instance).
If we were able to magically juxtapose on the same planet America in 1800 with America in 2015, observers might very well erroneously conclude that differences in values and other sociocultural traits between the two societies were due primarily to genetic differences. So, I think the kind of argument Pinker and others make is still a very plausible one with respect to the rest of the globe. Even the sweeping changes in attitudes towards gays in American over the last two decades should give us a bit of pause.
If we look at high IQ, highly conscientious immigrants in western countries and their descendants, many of them hold political views that (at least by my lights) are effectively indistinguishable from the archetypal SWPL (but maybe someone has some data that speaks more directly to this). If the elites in other countries resemble these types, I’m actually optimistic that the so-called moral arc will reach these other places in due course.
Also, I think you’d be interested in this recent book by two evolutionary psychologists. To my mind, this book is rather profound and obvious at the same time. I think it is even more accurate than the book by Anonymous Conservative:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10309.html
“‘Universalism’ is, broadly, the belief that all humans deserve the rights and recognition that historically people would only reserve for their own clan, own tribe, or at best, own countrymen”
Sorry, but that’s just hopelessly vague. What are these “rights?” What is this “recognition?” of which you speak? What is it to “deserve” something?
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
“Universalism” comes in many different flavors and in many different strengths, ranging from the thoroughly reasonable (Judges in court ought to be impartial, regardless of the wealth, power, & status of the parties involved) to the totally insane (You’ve done wrong if you rescued your own child from a burning building instead of two strangers).
Making these distinctions is *so* important.
Eh. Spend a little more time thinking, and the party’s over before you arrive.
Many commenters on this matter like to blame Jewish influence for these shifts in social attitudes, and it is true that Ashkenazi Jews commonly hold and have promoted progressive agendas. But what these commenters ignore is this: why do people listen? Or more to the point, why have some people (and peoples) embraced these views and not others? A promoted agenda is only as good as the traction it gains. Clearly, the trend towards universalism has been the purview of Northwestern European societies almost exclusively. If Jewish influence has had any role, it is only in the form of a rush in a much larger prevailing current.
Are the French Northwestern Europeans? How about the Italians, whose government is currently encouraging the Camp of Saints situation in the Mediterranean? What about the ethnically Italian Argentinian pope and his fellow Catholic leaders?
In this country you can look at areas in “Yankeedom” and you’ll find that, among Whites, it’s Protestants(the “Yankees”) who are the least likely to vote Democrat. Most likely are Jews and following them are Catholics.
@jasonbayz
Yes. By “NW Europe”, HBD Chick and I mean the region enclosed by the Hajnal line.
The area received large numbers of (clannish) Scots. In any case, unless we apply the analysis discussed in the following post to New England, it’s hard to know how Yankees these folks are and so on.
My kids are demanding attention, so I haven’t read all of the comments, but if I understand the argument fully, it is that outbreeding’s ethnic empathy lead to extra-ethnic empathy due to an external catalyst (the first world war seems a likely suspect), and has since iterated outward. This seems to undervalue the power of conformity, amongst other social technologies (25 years ago, SSM was not even a thing, much less a foundational tenet of our national religion, heresy from which is punished with ostracization.
To my mind, the trait this data tracks is not empathy, but narcissism. Western Europeans are more atomized than other groups, and universalism can also be viewed as a constant drive to atomize European social structure. This is why extra-hajnal whites are always enemy #1 of universalists, often targeted for behavior that would not raise eyebrows when partaken by a non-white ethnic group. It also explains why other whites are rarely (never?) extended this supposed empathy. I still think the general thesis here is strong: rapid changes are a result of rapid environmental changes, but the insane speed and uniformity implies a trait other than universalism. Narcissism fits, because it is heritable, but also responds strongly to environmental factors (smaller families enhance narcissism in kids), and encourages fragile psyches prone to conformity.
Lastly, very few “universalist” ideals are terribly empathetic. They tend to favor individuals over communities, displaying a distressing *lack* of empathy towards those who might suffer as a result of change that primarily benefits the few.
@Jefferson:
Nope. The shared environment impact on personality (and other) traits is zero.
Also, NW Europeans are likely less narcissistic than other groups.
“Despite certain key problem presented by it, there is no question that NW European universalism has been an enormous positive force for humanity. It has ended institutional exploitation, oppression, and marginalization. It has improved the quality of life for millions, or even has made those lives possible. I personally have benefited from it and continue to do so. Some may argue that progressive causes have run their course. Having achieved as much as they could hope to achieve, they now reach a point of diminishing returns – and there’s certainly some truth to that…”
I do agree Jaymans, HOWEVER, the current social justice cause seems to be to varying degrees the disempowerment on Northwestern Europeans by more clannish people.
Of course, I am mostly referring to issues of immigration and tribal voting.
Is it not wrong that universalism seems to now be bent on liquidating those who made it? I doubt you’ll disagree that such a thing is wrong, more likely you will state that I am being overwrought so by all means any optimism would be welcome.
It’s the prisoner’s dilemma. Swedes have decided to be ultimate cooperators, on the assumption that everyone else will play by the same rules. But not all groups play by the same rules. Universalist societies must insist that their members act universalist, or separate themselves Amish-style, else universalist societies are lost.
Well, none of that makes me optimistic for the future sadly.
What irks me most is that there is a snowballs chance in hell that universalism and outgroup altruism will be seen as the cause of any coming white displacement, the narrative which exists is that white people are evil.
I’ve read some of MacDonald, and while he is a lot more antagonistic now, he seemed to be of the opinion that Jews thought what they were doing was good with idea like the Frankfurt School.
NRx’s Moldbug’s position is that Jews are converts to the progressive religion.
I think both are true, they care converts but they’ve definitely inserted their own interests.
There are some that believe that Christianity was created by jews as a slave religion to destabilize Rome. Martin Luthor who started the protestant reformation listed every financial scam known to man at the time in a book called “Jews & their lies” most of the scams are still done today. Everything said about white privilege is only true about them.
“On the topic of male homosexuality: do you believe the pathogen can be contracted by youths through sexual contact with adult gay men?”
I think if you found out a gay Hispanic PEDS nurse would be changing your boys diaper, you should request a woman do it or that he not be alone. I know someone who made that request.
“their higher average IQs landing them in academia at a higher rate than non-Jews, where they ”
Supreme court Kagen only appointed jews and a few token non Asian minorities to Harvard after she got hiring power. A better explanation of the long march through the intuitions is thus.
A few entryists like Kagen get in saying they will hire the best but only hire fellow jews/sjws. Then they start something like every year professors have to be a mentor for someone that just so happens to be jew+sjw that once non jews are purged they will fill the lower schools. I saved this explanation from before.
“This can work for a professor at Elite University, because the 25 replacements will get jobs at Big State University around the country. It does not, however, work for a professor at Big State University because his PhD students will have to compete against graduates of Elite University doctoral programs.”
I was going to follow up on this idea. This concept is why a small number of schools can remake the entire educational and judicial institution of 300 million people. Probably 150 law professors (those at the best 5 or so) educate the majority of law professors and federal judges throughout the country. Control those 5 schools, and you control the judiciary for everyone in the United States (and, as mentioned, this is how academia was remade as well). 25 mentors from a Harvard professor/law professor go on to teach at 25 schools. 25 mentors from Iowa State go on to be marginally- or un-employed
I had heard that the outbreak of meningitis after hurricane Sandy was traced back to a single gay bath house, but news coverage didn’t say so. This is the closest to what I have heard. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/meningitis-outbreak-accelerates-in-nyc-gay-and-bi-communities-6438087
@ Anbuis Kagan was dean at H Law for 6 years starting in 2003, and hired Lessig, who doesn’t appear to be Jewish and, IIRC, is one of their better profs. Jews have been prominent doctors, lawyers, and scientists for over a century (probably ever since the Code Napoleon rolled in.) Kagan is in the wrong place for the wrong time to cause the effects you want.
You’re basically arguing “Jewish privilege” to explain gentile underperformance, just like people arguing that “white privilege” explains why some people got home loans and other people didn’t (and somehow, these home loans explain the persistent racial IQ gap.)
For goodness sakes’, this is an HBD blog.
Also, I know too many unemployed Harvard grads to think that going to Harvard or being mentored by Harvard professors is some sort of magical career sauce that makes people have more influence over the world. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the employment rates of Iowa state grads and Harvard grads were quite similar. Having Harvard on your resume doesn’t get you a job in this economy.
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
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
The Japanese seem quite resistant to immigration enthusiasm.
There’s a lot of evidence against this assertion. http://works.bepress.com/david_lancy/133/
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.
Yes. But I think in-group favoritism evolved from a co-opting of kin favoritism, as ruhkukah described:
—
But I don’t think in-group favoritism evolved via kin-selection. Non-kin co-ethnics are simply too distantly related for this to work. It evolved more through a type of reciprocal altruism, one that’s narrow in it’s choice – limited to those who are similar.
So, can you explain the apparent counterexample that Nazi Germany poses to the theory that NW Europeans are genetically universalist?
See my post Germania’s Seed? and HBD Chick’s recent post on the matter (and my comments there).
What is the country you describe and are white children there now the minority of births country wide?
Have you read David Pearce?