Archives for posts with tag: reader requests

sorry for the slow posting lately. yes, i’m still slacking off. (~_^) regularly scheduled programming should resume this weekend. (^_^)

in the meantime, i thought i’d steal a blogging idea from peter frost, and give ya’ll an idea of what to expect from this blog during 2014. (tl;dr: more of the same, really. (~_^) )

- more on mating patterns: long-term inbreeding and outbreeding practices in human societies and why some peoples go for inbreeding and why others do not. also, the relationship(s) (if any) between mating patterns and family types (think emmanuel todd). also, more on the connections between mating patterns and clannishness (or not) and behavioral patterns like civicness, corruption, and nepotism.

- i hope to explore further how different long-term mating patterns and family types create/affect selection pressures for various innate social behaviors in populations.

- individualism/collectivisim vs. familism/non-collectivism

- universalism vs. particularism

- democracy: including the contrasts between liberal vs. consensus democracy and the idea that there are democratic tendencies in a lot of societies — probably the majority of societies — but very few places where you’ll find liberal democracy and even fewer places where liberal democracy works.

- i want to look further at how renaissances and reformations happen, and why human accomplishment has most definitely not been uniform across the globe.

- violence: mostly the differences (if any) between societies where feuding is common vs. those that engage in large-scale warfare (thanks, grey!).

- also, i’ll continue to ask (in a hopefully annoying, gadfly-like way): where does culture come from?

- i’ll also be asking: how does assimilation happen? and i’ll be asking/looking for evidence for if/how it does.

this past summer, i started posting about the history of mating patterns in europe, and i had a plan all worked out, but i got (seriously) side-tracked. typical! i’m going to pick up that posting plan!…right after i post about the history of mating patterns/family types/social structures in the nordic nations…right after i post about the mating patterns/family types/social structures of the franks.

got all that? good. (^_^)

p.s. – oh. i also take reader requests! (^_^)

previously: top ten list 2013

(note: comments do not require an email. keep calm and… (^_^) )

mr. rational points out that part two of The Truth About the HBD Cult has been posted @nexxtlevelup (thnx, mr. rational!) — and that it’s as sad as part one was.

i only had a quick look at it, but i have to say i agree. again, afaics, nothing about what human biodiversity (hbd) is — or what might be wrong with any hbd data (i’m sure some of it is wrong) — just a lot of stuff about “shame” from self-help gurus. -?-

maybe i’ll take a closer look at the post later in the week — then again, maybe not — i’ll prolly have better things to do with my time. but if you’ve read it and want to offer an evaluation of the piece (not just mockery, please), here (in the comments ↓) is the place for you (since some comments don’t seem to be getting through @nexxtlevelup)!

previously: the first rule of the hbd cult is…

(note: comments do not require an email. cone of shaaaame.)

*update below*

luke asks: “How important is friendship — between-non relatives that is — in highly inbred societies?”

good question.

there are two questions that relate to this on the world values survey (2005-2008 wave):

- For each of the following aspects, indicate how important it is in your life. Would you say it is: Family.
– For each of the following aspects, indicate how important it is in your life. Would you say it is: Friends.

i’m assuming that “friends” means non-relative friends to all of the respondents.

possible responses:

1 Very important
2 Rather important
3 Not very important
4 Not at all important

i looked at just those that responded “very important” to each question. i haven’t sorted any of the nations by ethnicity, so … you know … some nations (like the u.s.) are kinda mixed up ’cause they’re multi-ethnic.

here are the nations sorted by those who responded that family was the most important to them. all five father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marrying societies in this world values survey wave (in red) are above the global average, four of them towards the top. of my “core” nw europeans (in blue), the netherlands, germany, france, and norway are all below the global average. the anglo nations scored, for the most part, below the fbd nations, but above the global average. i’m surprised at how low china and hong kong score:

wvs - family very important

and here are the nations sorted by those who responded that friends were the most important to them. the “core” europeans are all above the global average, but so are jordan, iraq, and morocco. again china and hong kong score very low:

wvs - friends very important

finally, here’s the data sorted by the difference between the “family” responses and the “friends” responses (family responses minus friends responses). towards the top are the societies with the widest difference between how important they feel family is versus friends — so they, presumably, value family much more than friends. towards the bottom are the societies with the smallest difference between how important family and friends are. all of my “core” europeans are below the global average, most well below. great britain, the netherlands, norway, and sweden are in the lowest quarter of the table, showing how — comparatively speaking — there’s not a very great difference in how these populations view family and friends. three of the five fbd marriage societies are above the global average. hong kong scores surprisingly low — as does ethiopia! maybe i shouldn’t be so surprised at that:

wvs - family friends very important - difference
_____

update 12/29: i took a look at the documentation of the values surveys for some of the countries for which i or someone else thought the results were kinda surprising (china, ethiopia, georgia, cyprus). here’s what i found:

- china: seems to be a pretty good quality survey. the researchers (from the Research Center for Contemporary China, Peking University) did conduct surveys in all regions of the country (i was concerned that maybe they only focused on beijing or something). two things that are a little concerning to me: 1) the sample size is 1,991. is that representative for a population of 1.3 billion? seems to me like it wouldn’t be, but what do i know about stats (not much)? 2) they interviewed more older people than younger people (aged 18-29). they figured that’s ’cause so many younger people are migrant workers and so just weren’t at “home” when these surveys were done. which is interesting given the results ’cause i would’ve thought that family would be more important to older generations in china than to younger ones, but perhaps not.

- ethiopia: there was a big problem with the ethiopia survey. i’ll just quote from the report [pg. 13]:

“Respondents (and interviewers) had IMMENSE difficulty interpreting scales with opposing statements on either side of a 10 point scale. They tended to give an answer of agreement or not for either statements separately rather than selecting a number to indicate their answer on the continuum between the two statements. A large amount of time had to be spent in each interview explaining (over and over again!) that a score below 5 indicated agreement in varying degrees of strength with the statement on the left, 5 and 6 meant a lack of agreement or neutral feeling towards both statements with a forced preference to one, and a score between 7 and 10 indicated varying degrees of agreement with the statement on the right. Attempts at utilising the ‘counting stones’ scale assistance technique AND attempts at adapted show card representations failed as respondents were too confused by the fact that there were two statements involved in each question.”

the friends and family answers were not on a ten point scale, but they were on a four point scale (very/rather/not very/not at all important). perhaps that confused the respondents as well?

also, the report says that the interviews were conducted in amharic. well, iwitbb** only 29% of the ethiopian population speaks amharic. hmmmmm.

**if wikipedia is to be believed.

- georgia: seems to be a pretty good quality survey, except — abkhazia and ossetia were NOT included (*sigh* — well, what can you do?) — neither were some regions that were occupied by the russians at the time (are they still?).

- cyprus: the respondents in cyprus comprised 550 greek cypriots and 500 turkish cypriots [pg. 24 of report]. however, iwitbb, ca. 80% of cypriots are greek while only ca. 18% of cypriots are turkish. having said that, i would’ve thought that the presence of so many turkish cypriots in the survey would’ve made the difference between the “family” vs. “friends” score higher. it would be interesting to know — which i don’t — the areas of turkey from which the ancestors of today’s turkish cypriots hailed.
_____

(note: comments do not require an email. “I have no friends, only relations!”)

jayman says/asks:

“Theoretically, Red Staters are more able to depend on extended family. But here’s a question on the matter: is that true *today*? Are Whites in the South and West *today* more kin-centric? My (somewhat limited) experience in those parts of the country seems to indicate that they’re just about as individualistic as Blue Staters. I understand that kin-groups are still a major feature in Appalachia, but how about the rest of red America?”

**ALERT, ALERT!: READER REQUEST!** (^_^)

ok. so i looked at the “behavioral familism” related questions in the 2002 gss to see how whites in the different regions of the u.s. responded to the following questions:

- “How often do you contact your uncles/aunts?”
– “How often do you contact your nieces/nephews?”
– “How often do you contact your cousin(s)?”

the possible answers were:

- “More than twice in last 4 weeks.”
– “Once or twice in last 4 weeks.”
– “Not at all in last 4 weeks.”
– “I have no living relative of this type.”

as before, i collapsed the first two possible answers together to make a sorta “yes” repsonse (“yes, i’ve contacted that person in the last 4 weeks”).

here’s what i found (sorry, you might need your glasses to read these — wordpress has fixed it so that you can’t see a LARGER image in a new tab/window anymore. grrrrrr!):

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact uncles & aunts

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact newphews & nieces

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact cousins

the patterns i see are:

- east south central (alabama, kentucky, mississippi and tennessee), a consistently red state area, comes in twice with the highest ranking — and is above the national average on those two questions.
new england, a consistently blue state area, comes in once with the highest ranking — and, in fact, is above the national average on all three questions. so no one can accuse the new englanders of not being oriented towards the extended family!

the above average scorers on the three questions were (map of regions here):

new england – above average 3 times
east south central – 2 times
east north central (wi, il, mi, in, oh) – 2 times
west south central (tx, ok, ar, la) – 2 times
west north central (nd, sd, ne, ks, mn, ia, mo) – 2 times
south atlantic (de, md, dc, va, wv, nc, sc, ga, fl) – once

- the pacific states (ak, wa, or, ca, hi), a mostly blue region (with the exception of alaska), came in twice with the lowest ranking.
– the mountain states, a mostly red region, came in once with the lowest ranking.

the below average scorers on the three questions were (map of regions here):

pacific – 3 times
mountain – 3 times
middle atlantic (NEW YORK! nj & pa) – 3 times
west north central (nd, sd, ne, ks, mn, ia, mo) – one time
south atlantic (de, md, dc, va, wv, nc, sc, ga, fl) – one time
east north central (wi, il, mi, in, oh) – one time

to me, it seems like there’s an east-west divide — white familism decreases around the rocky mountains and gets even lower on the west coast. i should’ve made some maps. maybe i’ll work on that.
_____

so, back to jayman’s question: “Are Whites in the South and West *today* more kin-centric?”

yes, whites in the south are pretty kin-centric, but not so much in the west. and new englanders are very kin-centric — so there! (^_^) new yorkers are not.

i’ve got the data for african-americans, too, so i’ll check them out in another post.

previously: familism in the u.s. of a. and hispanic family values

(note: comments do not require an email. baby polar bear!)

luke says/asks:

“It is interesting to compare world maps of consanguinity and murder rates…. Incidentally, someone who is proficient in computing correlation coefficients could use the country tables in the two links above to compute an actual number.”

here at hbd chick, we take reader requests! (^_^)

so i plotted the consang.net data as compiled by woodley & bell — just to be consistent — against the intentional homicide rates as compiled by the united nations office on drugs and crime and got … *drumroll please!* …

…nuthin’. zip. zilch. nada. a correlation of -0.0758. in other words, there is noooo correlation between modern consangunity rates and known intentional homicide rates. i love non-result results! they’re some of the best. (^_^)

here’s a chart for you — x-axis=consanguinity rates, y-axis=intentional homicide rates (as bob would say: that’s a scatter plot!):

consanguinity and intentional homicide - scatter plot

and here’s a table of the data sorted by homicide rates:

consanguinity and intentional homicide

like i said, though, i think there are problems with using the modern consanguinity rates when we are (i think probably/possibly) talking about the evolution of behaviors — and steven pinker thinks that there are probably some problems with the collection of homicide rates in certain countries. still — no correlation is no correlation.

previously: consanguinity and democracy

(note: comments do not require an email. one of the immortals.)

reader request (we take requests!), from ogunsiron:

“Could you perhaps discuss or encourage discussion about Julian Saluvescu’s latest? He’s the infanticide happy ethicist who’s saying that it’s a moral obligation to genetically modify embryos so that they develop into children who are ‘ethical’. By that he means that it’s an ethical obligation to stamp out among other psychological traits, an inclination for groupness. I suppose that he leaves the option of infanticide for kids for whom the genetic enhancement didn’t work out after all.”

i linked to a story about savulescu’s pronouncement in this past sunday’s linkfest.

i don’t have a whole lot to say about eugenics really. i tend to think more about the past than the future — not because i’m not interested in the future (i think), but because i can’t see how we can decide how to shape our future if we don’t know how we got to where we are today in the first place. we need to understand how things (i.e. biological things) work before we start fiddling with them. (having said that, there are some obvious dysgenic practices i think we should quit right now like paying welfare mommas to have lots of welfare babies. that’s a no-brainer, i think.)

eugenical ideas and practices don’t make me squeamish. i don’t recoil in horror at the thought of people designing better babies. principally, it sounds like a great idea to me! practically is another matter.

two seemingly contradictory caveats from me: 1) no forcing people to adopt eugenical practices (except for stuff like the welfare babies example above) — i don’t like the GUBMENT interfering in private lives/choices (prolly an example of my own hamartia, but what can you do?); and 2) having said that, i do think eugenical practices might have to be regulated in some ways — to avoid certain pitfalls. for example, lots of people might be happy to deselect all sorts of genes for autism in their designer babies — but then we’d wind up with no engineers or mars rovers.

i would’ve suggested just making sure people were well-informed before they make their choices — which they should be in any case — but most people are so stooopid that there will probably have to be some regulations. we’d need to avoid situations like they have in china and india today where there are too many boys ’cause families are opting not to have girls. one could wind up with a similar situation only with no engineers or artists or creative thinkers or whatever.

for the record, not that my opinion really matters, i don’t agree with savulescu that going forward we should necessarily screen out “genes for psychopathy” (whatever they may prove to be) because that would be the most “ethical” thing to do. i would take a more pragmatic view and ask what, if any, benefits do “genes for psychopathy” provide (i’m sure they provide some) — and then i’d ask if we really want to get rid of them.

i’d guess that the good(?) folks at sociopath world might have some thoughts and opinions on all of this. (~_^)

(note: comments do not require an email. hello there!)

readers (luke & jayman) request: what about the japanese? well, we aim to please… (^_^)

the japanese definitely have a history of cousin and endogamous marriages. i’m not sure, yet, how far back it goes (although i’m going to guess pretty d*rn far), but between 1912 and 1925 the consanguinity (first-/second-cousin) marriage rate for japan was 22.4% [pg. 29]. compare that to italy toward the beginning of the twentieth century or to some of the arab countries today. compare it also to the first cousin marriage rate amongst rural english folks in the 1870s: 2.25% (4.5% for the peerage).

but it’s been decreasing ever since (looks like a stock market crash – pg. 30):

by wwii the rate was only about 12.3%, and nowadays it’s like 4% (3.9% in 1983).

imaizumi, the author of the article to which i’ve linked above, also found in the early 1980s that 27% of recently married japanese folks had married endogamously, while amongst the oldest folks studied, 40% had married endogamously [pg. 39]. so endogamous marriages have also declined in japan over the course of the twentieth century. still, more than 1 in 4 japanese entered into an endogamous marriage in the ’80s (or maybe the late 1970s).

seems like the shintoists practice cousin marriage most frequently, followed by buddhists, and is lowest amongst catholics. farmers/fishermen, blue collar workers, the self-employed and people working in services (like transportation) inbreed the most, whereas white collar workers, salesmen and professionals inbreed the least.

note: the type of cousin marriage practiced in japan is mostly mother’s brother’s daughter (mbd) marriage as in china. more on that in the next post on japan. that’s important because mbd marriage amounts to less inbreeding (i think) than the arab type of cousin marriage (father’s brother daughter or fbd marriage) since all of the marriages do NOT occur exclusively in one lineage. in mbd marriage, at least more than one other lineage is involved.

the events of the meiji period obviously shook up the social structures in japan a LOT, but i wonder if cousin marriage/endogamy was officially — or even unofficially — discouraged in any way during that time period. i’m wondering if what happened in europe starting in the early medieval period regarding mating patterns has sorta been repeated in japan, only starting in the nineteenth century. -?-

goes to show, too, how rapidly cousin marriage rates can drop — within one generation in japan cousin marriage rates halved. maybe this could happen only amongst east asians who are big into conformity, but it’s something to keep in mind when trying to imagine what happened in europe in the medieval period, i.e. that things could’ve moved pretty quickly.

more anon!

previously: on the non-violent japanese of today

(note: comments do not require an email. hi there!)

anonymous asked if i could work up a bibliography (good idea!). here’s a partial list of some reading material on both altruism and human mating patterns (particularly for europe). please feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments! especially if you can recommend some good stuff on reciprocal altruism — i’d like to read more about that myself. thnx!

you can also find more references related to specific populations down in the left hand column (down there ↓) under the different “Mating Patterns in…” series. and see also the “Everybody Does It!” series in the middle column down below (↓) for real world examples of altruism in action.
_____

altruism | the evolution of altruism | inbreeding and altruism

- Cousin Marriage Conundrum by steve sailer – good layman’s introduction to altruism, inclusive fitness and kin selection.

- The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness – read the chapter on bill hamilton … and then read the whole thing.

- Human Biological Variation – if you don’t know anything about population genetics, chapter 3 — Population Genetics and Human Variation — is a good introduction. not too math intensive (*whew!*).

- The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II [pdfs] by william d. hamilton – if you’re good at math, these are the papers for you! you can also find the papers in this volume (thnx for the link, luke!). there’s also this paper: Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics [pdf].

- Grandma plays favourites: X-chromosome relatedness and sex-specific childhood mortality – for an example of how relatedness affects altruistic behaviors even within families.

- The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding – read the chapter by richard michod … and the one by bill hamilton just for fun! the rest of the book is good, too.

- An Experimental Study of Kin Selection – if you like beetles, this is the paper for you! also deals with how inbreeding affects altruistic behaviors.

- Effect of Inbreeding on the Evolution of Altruistic Behavior by Kin Selection – more math. important paper, tho (given the metatopic of this blog).
_____

human mating patterns | kinship | family types

- Family structure, institutions, and growth – the origin and implications of Western corporatism [opens pdf] by avner greif – greif discusses how the roman catholic church’s ban on cousin marriage in europe did away with kinship-based clans and opened the door for a more “corporate” society based on individuals rather than extended families.

- The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe by jack goody – never judge a book by its cover … except this one! offers great background on how the mating patterns in europe changed radically during the medieval period.

- Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path by michael mitterauer – especially chapter 3 — The Conjugal Family and Bilateral Kinship: Social Flexibility through Looser Ties of Descent — but the whole book is terrific, too.

- A Millennium of Family Change: Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe by wally seccombe – another terrific book summarizing the changes to mating patterns and family structures in europe from the middle ages until today. it’s so good, i might even read it myself! (~_^)

- The Tribal Imagination: Civilization and the Savage Mind by robin fox – especially chapter 3 — The Kindness of Strangers: Tribalism and the Trials of Democracy — but the whole book is good, too.

- Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective by robin fox – a good introduction to all the different cousin marriage forms.

- Parallel-Cousin (FBD) Marriage, Islamization, and Arabization by andrey korotayev – korotayev offers an explanation for why the highly unusual fbd marriage is found where it is found.

- The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems by emmanuel todd – some good stuff from emmanuel todd on how family forms affect ideology. i don’t think he got it quite right (the references to freudian ideas are really far out, for instance), but he still noticed something very interesting.
_____

previously: european consanguinity bibliography

(note: comments do not require an email. books, books, books. (^_^) )

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers