race & iq debate – cui bono?

so apparently there’s another discussion about race and iq out there in the blogosphere. i’ve only been following it out of the corner of my eye really — via steve sailer‘s posts and some others (dennis, the one).

but it’s something that roissy said that made me realize (again) that folks just ain’t asking the right question about all this (politically correct thinking). what needs to be asked is cui bono?

first, what roissy said:

“But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

“The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.”

yes … but, emphatically, NO!

the human-all-too-human drives of greed and desire for status symbols (ipads, etc.) did NOT just pop up out of thin air. they have been selected for via natural selection. evolution by natural selection is the name of the game, and we humans are part of it whether we like it or not.

greed and cravings for status and aaaall the other human foibles you can think of are here today in our world because certain individuals in the past (our ancestors) possessed those traits and successfully left descendants behind (you and me). greed and cravings for status, etc., etc., worked in the past to enable some people to pass on their genes. any individuals who didn’t have those winning traits (or who accidentally got hit by a train) didn’t leave any (or enough) descendants behind, so there are a LOT of people out there who are greedy, shallow, etc., etc.

people today are not politically correct just because they want to live a life “filled with wonder and glee and gadgets” — they only want those things because they are driven to reproduce their genes successfully. anyone who isn’t — well, those genes just won’t be around in the coming generations.

in “Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Vol. 1”, william hamilton wrote about how he was part of a series of discussions on population control (it was the 1960s, you see), and he was struck by the strong emotions that came out during the discussions amongst otherwise rational academics (at lse), and at the very strong reactions against his ideas of human altruism and genetics. here’s what he concluded — and with a little editing, you could say exactly the same thing about the race & iq debate — or, indeed, any other politcally correct debate — today [pgs. xxxiii-xxxiv, my emphases]:

“As I listened in silence I drew one general conclusion: for us to be so passionate about a topic we must be close indeed here to that centre of my actual and hoped-for expertise — biological fitness. It must be because of such a proximity to the deepest evolved roots of our psyche that no one seemed able to address the subjects of reproduction and population in a dispassionate way (I could tell from my own feelings as I listened to some of the points that ready-made passions and lack of objectivity were present in myself). Well, wasn’t this all just as I should expect; wasn’t it indeed a topic in which I should expect our deepest urges to be concealed almost from our very selves only in order that, in our everyday commerce with others, we would avoid being forced to expose ultimate objectives in ‘everyday’ discussion — not expose, that is, personal, family, class, or racial ultimate biases, rather to put on view an agreeable and softened version, a general hypocrisy, something to the effect that it doesn’t matter who reproduces, that we treat all people and groups with equal favor? That we all hold, whatever our specific denomination, a pan-religious view to the effect that ‘all men are brothers’ when actually we know very well, deep down, it isn’t true?”

uh huh.

so, who benefits biologically from this idea that the races are equally endowed when it comes to smarts?

the most obvious groups here in the u.s. are blacks and other minorities. if the reason you do poorly in society has nothing to do with how smart you aren’t — ’cause everyone is just as smart as everyone else — then it must be because The Man is keeping you down. waaaaycism. or something like that. (note that i do not discount the obvious fact that blacks were, in the past, and even to some extent today, discriminated against. but that is simply not the whole story.) then you need, and get, affirmative action programs and/or lots o’ welfare, which is obviously a plus in helping you to reproduce (which is what it’s all about — biological fitness). pretty much the same argument can be made for women.

so blacks and other minorities have very good reasons to support pc thinking.

less obvious is how politically correct thinking benefits people at the top of the iq totem pole — whites and asians.

well one benefit is simply that you get society’s permission to rip off not-so-smart folks. instead of society protecting lower iq people — maybe have some laws against subprime mortgages — it lets the sharks go after them. steve sailer wrote about this here. this is a win-win situation for many whites/asians: they get to financially gain by scamming lower iq minorities, therefore likely increasing their own personal fitness (again, what it’s all about), AND at the same time they get to decrease the fitness of some of their competition — some low-iq minority folks.

the shark behavior can be more subtle though — those from higher-iq groups don’t have to directly financially rip off those from lower-iq groups. they can just set them up to FAIL.

take whiskey’s favorite group — white women. actually, take a sub-group of them — the nice white ladies steve sailer talks about who teach nams and generally run the education system. what do they get out of claiming that all groups of people are just as smart as one another (even though they’re the ones who are probably most exposed to the glaringly obvious completely opposite truth)? what’s their payoff? well, every five or ten years or so they get another grand federal program to make all kids everywhere above average. they get jobs — money — moolah. wealth which can go towards their own personal fitness — i.e. raising a family.

at the same time, they are also shafting the competition (nams) because no one bothers to find a real solution to lower-iq blacks’ problems, like maybe we shouldn’t insist that they learn advanced algebra in high school which just makes them drop out and not even get a high-school diploma. or like maybe we shouldn’t import more mexicans/guatemalans to directly compete with blacks for jobs. those nice, white pc schoolteacher ladies? sharks.

and, of course, there are the whites vs. whites in the pc, moral status games (as steve sailer has described it, but gosh-durnit i can’t find a link right now). there’s all of the swpl peoples poopooing the lowbrow beliefs of those who don’t buy into all of the pc cr*p (not many of us like that nowadays) — poopooing from their nearly all-white enclaves like portland or their gated-communities.

but they’re not just winning in the moral status game against their “fellow” whites — they’re also economically shafting their “fellow,” mostly working class whites who are now almost completely ignored by both the democrats and republicans. think of how white firemen are treated nowadays — or how ALL of us have had to bailout financial institutions (partly) because some great white sharks ridiculously gave loans to nams. they managed to screw BOTH nams AND their “fellow” whites. impressive.

how can whites be so heartless to other whites? well, we’ve been in competition with each other for such a long time that we’re just in the habit of thinking of other whites as the competition. plus we’ve outbred for so long that we’ve prolly watered down the type(s) and amount(s) of altruism genes in our population. our genetic ties are so loose that, on many levels — the levels that count — we just don’t care so much about our “fellow” whites. not enough anyway.

there are a lot of vested interests out there keeping thoughts of human biodiversity at bay — the most important vested interests there are — those related to increasing biological fitness. those are tough drives to beat — possibly impossible. to be honest, my hopes for an hbd-realistic world are not lookin’ too bright….
_____

(i know some of you are going to object and say: “but hbdchick! white folks are only having 1.2 kids per couple, so none of this can having anything to do with reproducing!” answer: white folks have a long history of having not-so-many kids. i think we’re more k-selectionist than many other populations; and these reproductive behaviors have, no doubt, been selected for. this is, of course, a problem when we share territories with other peoples who have more kids, although many of their birth rates are now dropping, too. just ’cause we have few kids, though, doesn’t mean that belief in the pc ideology doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction. it has EVERYTHING to do with reproduction.)

(note: comments do not require an email. iq matters.)

42 Comments

  1. I’m going to object now and say: “But hbdchick! white folks are only having 1.2 kids per couple”. So, having been selected for maximizing the number of descendants, why are we not doing anything of the kind? Something very powerful is killing us off.

    Reply

  2. White and East Asian people look at new technology and understand that the world will not need as many people to run it as it once did. More primitive people haven’t caught on to this trend — and may never do.

    The “smart fraction” theory is becoming crucially important. How many “smart people” does a society need — as a proportion — in order to support a high tech infrastructure capable of advancing modern science and technology into the future?

    With new and potent technologies, a little smartness can go a long way. Unless the artificial womb is perfected, advanced technology and hyper-potency may be the only defence that smart people will have against the Idiocracy.

    Reply

  3. @alfin – “White and East Asian people look at new technology and understand that the world will not need as many people to run it as it once did.”

    you think so? i think a lot of people i know look at their bank accounts and figure they just can’t afford another kid. steve sailer just posted the other day how recent mexican immigrants to the u.s. have a lot of kids, but eventually their birth rates do drop because, like everyone else, they just can’t afford so many kids — not if they want to keep up an american lifestyle. when resources are low, few creatures can afford lots of offspring.

    that’s what i was going to answer, j. (^_^) plus what i said in my post — europeans (maybe even european jews, i don’t know for sure) have a long history of having not-so-many kids.

    plus, perhaps fertility has gone down ’cause we outbreed so much? dunno.

    Reply

  4. @hbd chick – “their birth rates do drop because, like everyone else, they just can’t afford so many kids — not if they want to keep up an american lifestyle. when resources are low, few creatures can afford lots of offspring.”

    Actually, in biological terms, that’s completely wrong! – in the sense that keeping up an American lifestyle is irrelevant.

    The fact is that nowadays in the US you can have as many children as you want – five or fifty, and the chances are they will all – every single one – survive to reproductive age when they can in turn do the same.

    Biologically speaking, that is all that matters to increase your representation in the gene pool.

    Happiness, comfort, peace and prosperity – education, housing, status, lifestyle – all these are completely irrelevant!

    For example, Australian Aborigines have a very short lifespan, high child mortality, high rates of disease, and what sounds like a horrendous lifestyle – but their representation in the Australian population is increasing – so the Aborigines objectively have a higher fitness than the European descended population:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Demographics

    Modernity has (at least for the present, this cannot be permanent!) made fitness almost-purely a matter of sheer fertility – popping as many babies out as possible – ‘society’ will make sure that every last one of them survives and is reared to adulthood!

    Reply

  5. so, who benefits biologically from this idea that the races are equally endowed when it comes to smarts?

    YKW.

    the most obvious groups here in the u.s. are blacks and other minorities.

    … or not.

    Reply

  6. @bgc – “Actually, in biological terms, that’s completely wrong! – in the sense that keeping up an American lifestyle is irrelevant.”

    well, it seems like it should be completely irrelevant, but it’s not.

    with what most americans can afford in their lives today — compared to what just about anybody in the past could afford — yeah, we should all be having 8 or 9 babies. but we’re not.

    and that’s because americans (and people who move to america) feel that in order to compete — which is a crucial key here — they need to have a mcmansion and 3.2 cars and all the gadgets that roissy mentioned — AND be able to afford to send their kids to the right schools and colleges and all that.

    all of that is expensive.

    the competition in the social world for successful reproduction seems to be limiting the number of babies we have. what people view as necessary to raise a family in the right way has put a limit on their resources, so they don’t have more kids.

    this is partly it, anyway, i think. and it’s a pretty big part of it.

    Reply

  7. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe IQ is not “hugely” important for the individual so much as it is for the group. That is, the correlation between individual iq and individual socio-economic success is only around .4.

    On a scatter plot a .4 correlation looks not too unlike a shot gun blast at a turkey shoot, but with some slight elongation along a tilted trend line which you can easily pick out. (Maybe hbd* chick can post one.)

    Thus while the trend line is clear, there are so many exceptions, not outliers, but inliers, that hope springs eternal.

    But when it comes to average group outcomes the effects are starker Steve Sailer once pointed this out.

    Reply

  8. > Modernity has (at least for the present, this cannot be permanent!)

    I’m thinking maybe two or three more weeks.

    Reply

  9. well, we’ve been in competition with each other for such a long time that we’re just in the habit of thinking of other whites as the competition. plus we’ve outbred for so long that we’ve prolly watered down the type(s) and amount(s) of altruism genes in our population. our genetic ties are so loose that, on many levels — the levels that count — we just don’t care so much about our “fellow” whites. not enough anyway.

    This is really just a variation of the “suicide” meme:

    http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/search/label/suicide%20meme

    White racialism and strong ethnic identity are only a couple generations in the past and within living memory for many people. A relatively sudden change suggests external influence as the dominant or sole culprit. It’s absurd to claim that, say, the Germans today are that way because of competition with whites and out-breeding when they were Nazis a couple generations ago. Or that Southern whites, who were George Wallace supporters a couple generations ago, are different today because of competition with whites and out-breeding. And so on for all the other white groups.

    Reply

  10. @luke – “Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe IQ is not ‘hugely’ important for the individual so much as it is for the group. That is, the correlation between individual iq and individual socio-economic success is only around .4.”

    that i don’t know. you may very well be correct. i definitely think that personality traits are also very, very important when it comes to individual socio-economic success, not just iq. you’ve got to be able to work well with others and not lose your temper quickly, etc., etc. unless you’re someone extraordinary like steve jobs. (~_^)

    but even with the most winning personality, if you haven’t got the smarts, you ain’t gonna go far.

    Reply

  11. @tebow – “This is really just a variation of the ‘suicide’ meme…. White racialism and strong ethnic identity are only a couple generations in the past and within living memory for many people. A relatively sudden change suggests external influence as the dominant or sole culprit.”

    no. what i’m saying is not a variation of the suicide meme. don’t get me wrong. i don’t believe for a second that europeans/whites are commiting suicide.

    yes, there has been a very strong influence from … heh … YKW (yes, jews). what i’ve been interested in is why their influence — and the influence of other left-wingers — should take hold amongst westerners. why do we have this achilles’ heel? none of these politically correct ideas will work for a second in, for instance, arab countries. why do they work on us?

    macdonald thinks it has to do with westerners’ ethics and proneness to guilt. to a large extent i agree — but i want to know how we got all this guilt.

    i addressed this question directly here in this post — and it has been the general, although perhaps subtle, running theme of this blog for many months now.

    Reply

  12. @hbd chck – my point is that it is *something* about the dominant ideology which is objectively biologically unfit. The biological unfitness has been obvious for more than a century (going back to Galton, at least).

    In the past average fertility was always and reproduction was constrained by high child mortality rates – it is likely that the average peasant had nearly zero surviving and reproducing children despite high fertility.

    But only in modernity has fertility been brought below replacement – this is quite extraordinary behaviour: it is reproductive suppression (like mice in a cage next to rats), presumably brought about by a high stress environment (including the social environment).

    Who is exempt? Well, the unintelligent and feckless – they still have high fertility as an accidental by product of sex.

    But the traditionally-religious are the only modern group *choosing* high fertility (Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Devout Muslims, Amish etc). These are groups which emphasize the importance of the transcendental and the group, more than individual gratification, more than an affluent and free lifestyle.

    There is the answer, in outline; it is atheism/ non-orthodox religions which is the cause of chosen sub-replacement fertility in all modern societies without exception.

    (Apparent near-exceptions are when the fertility of non-moderns such as recent immigrants and indigenes is conflated with the averages – as in France or New Zealand).

    Reply

  13. @bgc – “But the traditionally-religious are the only modern group *choosing* high fertility (Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Devout Muslims, Amish etc). These are groups which emphasize the importance of the transcendental and the group, more than individual gratification, more than an affluent and free lifestyle.

    “There is the answer, in outline; it is atheism/ non-orthodox religions which is the cause of chosen sub-replacement fertility in all modern societies without exception.”

    possibly. but all of the groups you mentioned there — mormons, orthodox jews, devout muslims, amish — are all groups that practice some degree of inbreeding — which naturally (i mean by natural, biologcial means) increases the levels of altruism in a group — which, by definition, means the members of the group will place more emphasis on the importance of the group rather than the individual.

    i tend to think that ideologies are reflections of the natures of peoples — so a lot of what it means to be “mormon,” for instance, has to do with the genetic make-up of that population. on the other hand, i acknowledge that ideologies can have a profound impact on the nature of a population.

    what i have a hard time seeing is how you’re gonna get a whole bunch of people who aren’t inclined to be mormon-like or amish-like in their belief systems to adopt such a religious system. i don’t think it’s in their nature, so i don’t think it’s a workable solution to the problem.

    i could be wrong, though.

    (note that there are other possible reasons why so much outbreeding might have lead to smaller family size.)

    @bgc – “…it is reproductive suppression (like mice in a cage next to rats), presumably brought about by a high stress environment (including the social environment).”

    this is very insightful. thnx for sharing that. iirc, birth rates have tended to go down in all sorts of urban settings, even in the past. am i right or wrong about that? i’m not sure. what you’ve said here could explain that.

    @bgc – “…my point is that it is *something* about the dominant ideology which is objectively biologically unfit.”

    again, i don’t think ideology is something free-standing. i think it’s a reflection of underlying biology. of course, ideological notions can be introduced from elsewhere, which can be a problem.

    it could be that there’s something about the current, dominant ideology/gene pool that is biologically unfit. it’s certainly looking that way. in which case, it’ll all just be de-selected for eventually and then there won’t be any more problem to discuss. =/

    Reply

    1. The Mormons would be a test case wrt idea about inbreeding.

      They have been going since about 1830, which is only 7-8 generations – and (after exponential growth with a doubling about every 15 years – see Rodney Stark – the rise of Mormonism) currently number about 8 million in the USA.

      On the face of it, it seems unlikely that a religion built on converts could have a lot of inbreeding, but it is possible – given that these converts come substantially from among family and neighbours (according to Stark) – and that much/ most of the growth was in fact due *not* to completely new converts but to higher fertility from a relatively small founder population.

      In the first decades inbreeding may (?) have been assisted by polygamy among the leaders.

      Nonetheless, the religion is probably the main factor, since – according to my own unpublished research – there is also a large family size among British Mormons – probably a mode of about 4 children, and these were Mormons with a high level of education (about half had bachelor degrees) and relatively high status middle class jobs – so the families were at least twice the size you would expect in this class.

      Another factor about Mormons is that higher status/ education = higher fertility – and this is *chosen* fertility because almost all use contraception.

      So, I think religion can overcome biology, at least in the case of Mormons.

      Reply

  14. I WILL NOT LISTEN to live White male financial genius Kyle Bass! You heard me! Non serviam… so take a hike Ky! He might even be straight but it’s hard to say. Seriously, you can’t miss this boy – he’s the wisest and best of all these guys by head and shoulders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3kpKzd-Yw

    Reply

  15. @rs – “Seriously, you can’t miss this boy – he’s the wisest and best of all these guys by head and shoulders….”

    tl;dw. maybe tomorrow.

    but, yeah — none of this is going to end well, is it? g*dd*mn*t, i hate being part of kondratiev (and other) cycles.

    Reply

  16. h, check this out youll surely like it http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/02/17/the_return_of_patriarchy?page=0,0

    If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

    Man, o man… he’s so right on… i couldnt say enough if I began. I’m kind of attached to my ex from school………. she loves me like a bag of leaves. I’m seeing heartiste for private instruction monday…………………………. level: ……………………………………………………….REMEDIAL BELOW AVERAGE

    Reply

  17. @rs – “I’m seeing heartiste for private instruction monday…”

    are you really? well, good luck! i mean that. (i just wish there were more nice, normal girls around for you guys today. sorry, i’m spoken for. and i don’t know how normal i am anyway…. (~_^) )

    tell roissy i said hey — and that i like/appreciate a lot of what he has to say. but he needs to think about evolutionary theory just a little bit more. (~_^)

    edit: well, he doesn’t need to — but i think then he’d understand things even more than he already has.

    Reply

  18. Not really, he’s too expensive for me. I don’t think he does any teaching. I agree that his bio mistakes are consistently a riot – you can’t master everything. I laugh and laugh, but I can’t really say I wouldn’t trade lives with him. Pretty cool guy, honest, crack stylist (however vulgar), gets out a lot of practical information. All of which is true in my experience, yet sometimes I go against it quite consciously, ’cause I feel like going my own way. But I can’t say I like the results, so there you have it. That’s the risk you take.

    Reply

  19. @bgc – “So, I think religion can overcome biology, at least in the case of Mormons.”

    well, i would agree that it can certainly push biology in certain directions (e.g. roman catholic church in europe in the middle ages).

    the mormons would be a good case study for inbreeding and altruism. i’ve also been thinking about the amish. have you written about british mormons on one of your blogs?

    the thing is, though, that i still think the nature of a population affects its ideologies. think of christianity amongst the germans — or even christianity amongst various third world populations today (and going forward). it’s not one thing — ideologies take on the flavor of whatever population happens to originate or adopt them.

    in other words, it’s complicated! (^_^)

    Reply

  20. @hbd chick

    I would agree that biology constrains – there may be a de facto upper and lower population IQ limit for orthodox religiousness below which you get animism and above which you get atheism or non-orthodox religiousness that are equally low in fertility (under modern conditions)

    – so that a mid-range IQ (mid range by modern global standards I mean – that would be in the low nineties – half an SD down – calibrated against the UK) is probably optimal for fitness in the medium to long term.

    Modern industrial economic growth based societies would obviously be unsustainable without high IQ people to run them and innovate, and the most powerful societies would again be agricultural.

    Bottom range IQ is at present also high in fitness, but this is very recent – the past few decades – and will be temporary, once the high IQ have eliminated themselves, then the mid range IQ societies would (again) be the fittest.

    This isn’t really speculation – it seems very obviously to be happening over the next few decades when you look at world demographic trends, median age in specific societies etc.

    Reply

  21. I must agree, largely. And I too have very high respect for Eastern Orthodoxy… what a lofty faith. I’ve known a few Mormons, all fine people; I’m even acquainted with a convert. But I agree with h: they must have had certain traits from the first. They had the ability to change to a new sect – of, I think, very low repute at first, hence the double or triple exodus. They must have had that psychological intensity, as well as resistance to the opinions of outsiders. Though today, over here, one mainly thinks of them as extremely polite and kind. I definitely do think culture has some effect on their fecundity.

    Reply

  22. @bgc – “This isn’t really speculation – it seems very obviously to be happening over the next few decades when you look at world demographic trends, median age in specific societies etc.”

    yup. what you’ve outlined there seems pretty right to me. i would just throw in some stuff about inbreeding/outbreeding & altruism, but that’s just me. (~_^)

    @bgc – “– so that a mid-range IQ (mid range by modern global standards I mean – that would be in the low nineties – half an SD down – calibrated against the UK) is probably optimal for fitness in the medium to long term.”

    so, most of my extended family (luv ’em to death!) ought to do pretty well then! *whew!* some of my genes have a shot, then. (^_^)

    Reply

  23. “This is really just a variation of the “suicide” meme”

    in-breeding -> cohesion through close blood-ties -> strong cohesion but limits maximum size of cohesive group**

    (** because you only have two parents, four grand-parents, eight great-grandparents etc so the number of people you can be closely enough related to for blood-cohesion to work on its own is limited by arithmetic)

    out-breeding by definition leads to a reduction in the closeness of blood-ties and therefore a reduction in simple blood cohesion. so how would an increasingly outbred group maintain cohesion?

    culture

    they’d use culture to reproduce the effect of close blood-ties. cohesion through culture can be just as strong as blood-ties e.g. nationalist europe 1910, Wallace South, NS Germany etc, but with the advantage that a much larger number of only moderately related people could be combined into a cohesive whole.

    the more outbred a group the more reliant it is on having a culture that promotes cohesion.

    so how would you destroy a group that relies on culture for cohesion?

    you transform the culture. by switching the polarity of the culture from positive to negative you switch the effect of the culture from promoting cohesion to promoting disintegration.

    ###

    the destruction doesn’t even have to be intentional. if you have a population that requires culture-based cohesion and subgroups who don’t like some aspect of the dominant culture e.g. sexual restrictions, and those subgroup are overly represented in culture-producing arenas i.e. media, schools, universities, then in undermining cultural cohesion they inadvertently help to cause social disintegration.

    Basically in an outbred group where cultural more A is supported by 95% of the group then people who want to change it to B need to change it in such a way that the 95% consensus is maintained throughout the whole transition from A to B. any who want to change things faster than that are enemies even if they don’t intend to be.

    Reply

  24. Are Mormons an example of inbreeding?

    Mormons are largely the descendants of English New Englanders and some other Northern Europeans. They are basically an ethnic group.

    Do they marry their relatives? Or is “inbreeding” here used to refer to Mormons marrying other Mormons i.e. other people in their ethnic group?

    If it’s the latter, then it doesn’t make sense to claim that Europeans have been “outbreeding” for a long time since what the Mormons do now (marry within their ethnic group) is what Europeans in Europe and America have been/had been doing.

    Reply

  25. @bub – mormons are (or, maybe, were) a relatively small group, hardly an ethnic group. more like a sub-group of an ethnic group (or two). since their group is (or was) so small (they started off with just 11,000 members), and they practiced polygamy for a time, they probably have a pretty narrow gene pool.

    must not be as narrow as the amish, though, who really do marry very closely, ’cause i haven’t heard of genetic problems amongst the mormons like i have about the amish. which is why i was thinking the amish might be a good group to look at for inbreeding/altruism.

    Reply

  26. @bub
    “Are Mormons an example of inbreeding?”

    i’d say Mormons (and Amish) are examples of out-bred populations who have maintained a high level of cohesion through retaining control of their culture.

    Reply

  27. actually i suppose it might be more accurate to say they were originally descended from out-bred north european populations. they may have become more inbred since then because of the religious barrier. given they would have originally been far more outbred than most other populations in the world at the time i’d still expect them to be quite high on that scale even if they’ve been going into reverse since then.

    interesting thought actually. how much of their cohesion relative to others from the same ethnic base is due to their rejection of the current toxic culture and how much is due to inbreeding caused by rejecting the culture i.e. marrying within the religion.

    Reply

  28. > ’cause i haven’t heard of genetic problems amongst the mormons like i have about the amish.

    I have. Terrible neurological stuff, congenital. Seizures every hour, or something. Some of them were refusing to counter this with genetic screening. However, I think this was only the fundies. The fundies are a pretty small group not recognized by the LDS church, indeed they find them pretty embarrassing; they carry on polygyny, which the church barred in maybe the 70s.

    Reply

  29. @rs – “I have. Terrible neurological stuff, congenital. Seizures every hour, or something. Some of them were refusing to counter this with genetic screening. However, I think this was only the fundies.”

    really? that’s interesting. that makes sense, tho, if it’s just amongst that hard-core fundamentalists — presumably a small group who stick to marrying each other — and with the polygamy, that makes the gene pool even narrow.

    Reply

  30. Inherited Fumarase deficiency (avg. observed IQ “25 points”) has emerged in the twin border communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, polygamist LDS communities. There are only about 13 known cases worldwide outside the tiny cross-border communities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/14/us-usa-mormons-genes-idUSN0727298120070614

    This is the type of thing that will happen when small groups of procreating people are isolated for various reasons from larger breeding populations. It is currently politically correct to zero in on the religious aspects of the situation, but isolation is the salient feature.

    Reply

  31. @alfin – “Inherited Fumarase deficiency….”

    oooh yeeeeeaahhhh. that rings a bell. a very distant, not-very-loud bell … but still, it’s ringing.

    thanks! (^_^)

    Reply

  32. Here, spin this. You’ll become a giant snob in about three minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn3JV3GHRE

    I can’t get over Kyle Bass, that man is amazing. (I decided not to be racist or heteronormative against him anymore.) But I guess he’s really nothing more than a consummate scholar. Certainly nothing less.

    Reply

  33. “plus we’ve outbred for so long that we’ve prolly watered down the type(s) and amount(s) of altruism genes in our population. our genetic ties are so loose that, on many levels — the levels that count — we just don’t care so much about our “fellow” whites. not enough anyway.”

    I would disagree on this point. Obama had to reassure his wealthy white backers that all those nasty low status proles are just racist(clinging to god,guns, and bigotry) for complaining about open borders-globalism, and that it isn’t actually hurting them. Instead thanks to the work of the glorious leader their chocolate ration will be 30 grams.

    They do care, especially if the issue intrudes on their monkey sphere, and no specious argument can be put forth to dispell the matter.

    Reply

  34. mormons are (or, maybe, were) a relatively small group, hardly an ethnic group. more like a sub-group of an ethnic group (or two). since their group is (or was) so small (they started off with just 11,000 members), and they practiced polygamy for a time, they probably have a pretty narrow gene pool.

    Population size doesn’t determine whether it’s an ethnic group or not. There are more “classic” Mormons than Danes or Finns.

    A small founding population followed by endogamy is generally how ethnic groups form.

    A “narrow gene pool” is arguably what an ethnic group is.

    How “narrow” is the Mormon gene pool? Is it any or much more narrow than those of other Northern European ethnic groups?

    Scholars have argued that they are an ethnic group, so it isn’t a very controversial notion: http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Le-Pa/Mormons.html

    I think the endogamy that has generally been practiced by the Mormons has also generally been practiced by other European groups (Irish Catholics tended to marry Irish Catholics, Bavarian Catholics to other Bavarian Catholics, etc.) and still is to a significant degree among many of them (Finns tend to marry other Finns, Danes to other Danes, etc.). I would think that if Mormon endogamy qualifies as inbreeding (or outbreeding), the same would probably have to apply to many of these other cases.

    Reply

  35. @anon – “They do care, especially if the issue intrudes on their monkey sphere, and no specious argument can be put forth to dispell the matter.”

    yeah, but the wealthy whites don’t seem to care about working-class whites. that’s my point. i see people in the blogosphere wondering over and over again why whites can’t get it together and stand united. that’s what i’m trying to figure out.

    Reply

  36. @bub – “Population size doesn’t determine whether it’s an ethnic group or not. “

    ok. it doesn’t matter, though, if mormons — or any other group of people — are an ethnic group or not. that is beside the point. what i’m interested in are breeding populations, that’s all. do the people in the group mate exclusively with one another, or do they marry out of the group? if they marry out, is it a lot or just sometimes? when they marry in, do they marry uncles/nieces, cousins, further out? are there lots of them or just a few thousand? i want to know the mating patterns, that’s all.

    @bub – “I think the endogamy that has generally been practiced by the Mormons has also generally been practiced by other European groups (Irish Catholics tended to marry Irish Catholics, Bavarian Catholics to other Bavarian Catholics, etc.) and still is to a significant degree among many of them (Finns tend to marry other Finns, Danes to other Danes, etc.). I would think that if Mormon endogamy qualifies as inbreeding (or outbreeding), the same would probably have to apply to many of these other cases.”

    well, the one thing that’s different about mormon endogamy and all these other europeans you mentioned is that mormons, for a couple of generations anyway, practiced polygamy. it’s been a very long time since the irish or bavarians or finns or danes married polygamously (and i don’t know if the finns ever did or not). polygamy narrows the gene pool, that is for sure.

    otoh, the mormons started out as kind-of a diverse group, drawing people with anglo and welsh and, i think, other ancestry. so they started off, perhaps, with a bit of a broad gene pool. i don’t know. i’ll have to do a little reading on the matter.

    with 14 million church members today, they’ve got a lot of potential mates to choose from. i don’t know how many live, say, in utah though and if mormons marry locally or not. another thing to research.

    the interesting mormon groups from an inbreeding perspective, though, are the ones that are obviously marrying close ’cause their numbers are so small AND they’re still practicing polygamy. like the ones that alfin mentioned above that are starting to have some unfortunate genetic conditions (’cause of the inbreeding). these are the ones i’d prolly be interested in, ’cause like you say, the rest are prolly not all that inbred anymore. still, they might still have quite a few “genes for altruism” in their population since they were inbreeding (the polygamy & the small original population size) not that long ago.

    Reply

  37. @bub
    “I would think that if Mormon endogamy qualifies as inbreeding (or outbreeding), the same would probably have to apply to many of these other cases.”

    It’s less about marrying within a fixed group as the closeness of the relatedness of the individual couples. If you have two equal-sized populations and one culture marries their 1st cousins and the other culture doesn’t then the first group will become more in-bred. However if the total size of a group is very small then it becomes difficult to avoid close relatedness even if you’re trying to avoid it as 2nd cousins in a small population might be as related as 1st cousins in a larger group anyway.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s