on sat i posted evo psych in need of a little hbd? in which i tossed in my two cents worth about some recent research on the cinderella effect that dennis mangan posted about.
dennis mentioned what i said on sat in a new post on his blog:
“HBD Chick writes about the Cinderella effect, referencing my post at Alt Right on a recent challenge to the discipline of evolutionary psychology. The challenge is a recent study that showed that stepfathers are more likely to have records of criminal violence, thus casting doubt on the notion that the status of being a stepparent in itself makes stepchildren more likely to be abused.
“HBD Chick points out that the recent study was carried out in Sweden, where families are more likely to be ethnically homogeneous, as compared to the U.S., Canada, and England, where they are not. It might be the case that a stepparent who is of the same ethnicity as a stepchild is less likely to abuse that child….
“So, both the Swedish study on stepparents and Florida’s study on gun deaths omit any mention of race or ethnicity. This is the topic that many otherwise scientific observers won’t go near.”
yup. there’s almost no one who will rationally discuss race or ethnicity or genetic relatedness except for a handful of scientists (you know who they are) and another handful of bloggers and commenters who obviously have no social sense (you know who you are!). (~_^) that is where we are today in our looney pc world, alas, alack — but i’m not gonna rant about that now ’cause, well, we’ve been down that well trodden path plenty of times. another day perhaps.
no. i just wanted to try and clarify what i said in my previous post ’cause i’m a cr*ppy writer (so glad i took up blogging! *facepalm*) and one of my points may have gotten lost-in-translation (from my brain to the binary code zooming around on the interwebs).
in my previous post, i suggested two possible reasons for why a recent study from sweden found that step-kids were not killed at a rate greater than biological kids, in contrast to several previous studies.
1) the one that dennis mentioned: that in sweden, families may be more ethnically homogeneous (especially in earlier decades) than in the u.s. or canada or even the u.k. (where the previous research was done). i suggested that it would be less likely that a step-parent in sweden would murder their step-kid since they would both be swedish and, therefore, more genetically related than many step-parents/step-kids in the u.s./canada/u.k. where a step-parent might be italian-american and the step-kid puerto-rican-american, for instance — or a whole slew of other multi-cultural combinations.
less genetically-related ethnicity-wise = more likely to murder an unrelated kid. just a thought.
2) my second suggestion was more subtle and, therefore, more difficult for me to explain.
a long time ago
in a galaxy far, far away, when html coding was the norm on the interwebs, steve sailer wrote an article called cousin-marriage conundrum in which he explained that “democracy building” would never work in places like iraq and afghanistan because the people there inbreed (i.e. marry their cousins — a LOT) and, therefore, have these strong tribalistic sentiments because they are more related to their extended family members than to the extended family next-door.
i think of it this way. if you marry your cousin, your kids are not just your kids, they’re your cousins, too. so, imagine the sentiments you have towards your kids — and then imagine the sentiments you have towards your cousins — and add them together. yes, i know, it might not work out mathematically exactly like that, but you get my point. peoples who inbreed on a regular basis must feel more strongly attached to their relatives ’cause they are genetically more like them than most of us westerners are to our families.
anyway. so, back in sweden, they haven’t been inbreeding for a very long time (first-cousin marriage was banned in sweden in 1680 and required dispensation until 1844). and they certainly haven’t been doing it in such an institutional way as, say, the afghanis.
so, what do you get if a population inbreeds on a local basis, like in afghanistan? you get small-ish groups of people who are more related to each other than they are to their neighbors and, so, they (all the groups in the population) develop tribalistic sentiments.
what should you get if a population doesn’t inbreed locally, like in sweden? you get a large-sized group of people who are all quite related to each other and, so, they don’t develop tribalistic sentiments. they are all quite like each other genetically. at least much more so than in a place like afghanistan.
at least i think that’s what should be happening.
then, from a genetic point-of-view, all the individuals across this society are more alike — and kinda/sorta interchangeable (if you’ll pardon the expression).
sooooo, if you’re a low-life scum and you feel like killing a kid, it shouldn’t matter sooooo much if you kill your own kid or your step-kid — ’cause they and you are all rather similar. see what i mean?
this is just another thought and obviously i could be way off. but it would be interesting, for comparison, to know if the murder rates of step-kids was higher in another mono-ethnic society that was more inbred than sweden (italy? spain? ireland?).
but no. nobody’s gonna “go there” either.
(note: comments do not require an email.)