linkfest – 06/03/12

Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability [pdf]

Memory training unlikely to help in treating ADHD, boosting IQ – h/t chris!

Corruption: The exception or the rule? – from m.g. @thosewhocansee.

Liberalism, HBD, Population, and Solutions for the Future – from jayman.

Is the Aboriginal (AUS) IQ really 62? – from chuck.

Nearly 1 in 6 Adult White Women on Antidepressants – from dennis.

Kin and Kindness

Monkey lip smacks provide new insights into the evolution of human speech“New research published in Current Biology by W. Tecumseh Fitch, Head of the Department of Cognitive Biology at the University of Vienna, supports the idea that human speech evolved less from vocalizations than from communicative facial gestures.”

bonus: A post-coital switch: Mapping the changing behaviors in the female fruit fly’s mind“Once successfully mated, a female moves from a highly sexually-receptive to a non-receptive state, actively rejecting further advances from males while altering her feeding and activity patterns…. Previous studies have shown that these behavioural changes are triggered by the male ‘sex peptide’ protein, a pheromone within the fly’s semen.”

bonus bonus: Earth took ten million years to recover from Permian-Triassic extinction“About 250 million years ago, pretty much everything died.”

bonus bonus bonus: Missing biologist surfaces, reunites with family – margie profet turns up! (^_^)

bonus bonus bonus bonus: Deeper Digging Needed to Decode a Best Friend’s Genetic Roots“[T]he DNA of modern dogs is so mixed up that it is useless in figuring out when and where dogs originated.”

bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus: For Some, Exercise May Increase Heart Risk – just the excuse i’ve been looking for. (~_^)

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

22 Comments

  1. Corruption: The exception or the rule? Interesting that China is very corrupt but Singapore, Hongkong, and Taiwan are not. Same people, different outcome.

    Reply

  2. @luke – “Interesting that China is very corrupt but Singapore, Hongkong, and Taiwan are not. Same people, different outcome.”

    same people, kinda-sorta. although those in singapore, hong kong and taiwan are kinda self-sorted … higher iqs? prolly.

    singapore is extraordinary, though. hardly corrupt at all — but not a liberal democracy by any means (not that that is necessarily a goal in itself).

    Reply

  3. @hbd chick:

    “same people, kinda-sorta. although those in singapore, hong kong and taiwan are kinda self-sorted … higher iqs? prolly.”

    Interesting. Would that be enough to override the clannishness that prevails in China. And if so, how? Good thing to research.

    Reply

  4. @jayman – “Would that be enough to override the clannishness that prevails in China. And if so, how?”

    well, you could be smart like lee kuan yew and know that democracy might not work very well in a clannish/tribal society and so make other arrangements. and check out his policies against corruption. being smart can definitely help fight clannishness, i think.

    i wonder how much of singapore’s success is down to just this one man. i mean, he was prime minister for absolutely ever! and “dictators” (i’m using the term really loosely here — like i’d include steve jobs as one) are often much more effective/successful than entities run by committees/groups, if the dictator is someone of quality. (don’t get me wrong. i don’t want to live in a dictatorship! unless i’m in charge. my nine year old self’s dream…. (~_^) )

    Reply

  5. Singapore, Hongkong, and Taiwan

    Singapore was a british colony since 1824.
    Hongkong was a british colony since 1842.
    Taiwan was a japanese colony since 1895.

    They have had cultural and economic contact with the West.

    With governments run by westerners they have an economy based on factories producing items invented by westerners.

    They are islands situated on trade routes.

    They can import food and raw materials from other countries and concentrate on high-value manufacturing without low-value farming and resource extraction dragging down your gdp.

    They also didn’t have a Communism.

    Reply

  6. @ Hbd Chick – ““dictators” (i’m using the term really loosely here — like i’d include steve jobs as one) are often much more effective/successful than entities run by committees/groups,”

    That’s why I think a return to one-man-rule is the only chance for democratic reform in mainland China. I think it will happen, too. Small committees with sovereign power are not famous for stability, especially in Chinese history.

    In any case I wonder if high intelligence and clan loyalties pull in different directions in so far as the possibilities of liberal institutions are concerned? I’d also think inbreeding quotients would be lower in places populated by recent immigration.

    Reply

  7. @luke – “I’d also think inbreeding quotients would be lower in places populated by recent immigration.”

    difficult to be sure about that. it does make an intuitive sort of sense that individuals/peoples would get all mixed up in a new setting. that’s certainly happened with lots of americans, but many of them came from european backgrounds where there were already traditions of outbreeding….

    otoh, there are examples like the chain migration of muslims today in the u.s. and europe where brides are imported from not just the old country, but the old village — they’re often cousins! or the chinese in the u.s. in the past — similar story. or even the germans in medieval gdansk. you never can tell.

    Reply

  8. I’m pretty sure there were no chain migrations in Taiwan. :) When the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan, did whole clans flee? Since I’m on a China kick I’ll make it a point to find out.

    Reply

  9. @luke – “I’m pretty sure there were no chain migrations in Taiwan. :)”

    no, prolly not. (^_^)

    and then there are some taiwanese natives, too, no? and there are hakka in taiwan, and they marry cousins or endogamously or something. at least they do on the mothership mainland.

    Reply

  10. Yes, there were six mlllion people living on Formosa when Chiang Kai-shek arrived with almost two million more. Some of those six million were Chinese already, descendants from immigrants in the 19th century and before. The majority were not.

    I’d forgotten that the Koumintang was a Leninist Party just like the Communists. Both were hatched with Russian money and advisers and worked together at first, then split, then worked together again (against Japan) and then split again. The main difference between them was that one was brutal and corrupt, the other just brutal. Well, there were other differences too. Mao decided to organize the peasantry, Chiang got most of his support from the new urban rich, including Shanghai mega-gangsters like Big Ears Du and Pock Mark Wong who, between them, controlled something like one sixth of China’s GDP. You can read about them here in the chapter on “Nationalists, Communists, and Crooks.” (Du was so rich that for his birthday present he gave Chiang 200 airplanes with “Opium Patrol” or something like that stamped on their sides. It was a joke.)

    Reply

  11. well, you could be smart like lee kuan yew and know that democracy might not work very well in a clannish/tribal society and so make other arrangements. and check out his policies against corruption.

    This really intrigues me. What I wondered in my post was, can a simple change in policy really reduce corruption? I’d thought the answer was likely no, as the many African countries I’ve studied who had to set up anti-corruption agencies in order to get IMF loans all had the same dismal results. Big government ministry building, big plaque on the door, newly minted inspectors out in the field–and every single one of them on the take. (Greece has similar problems, but smaller scale.)

    But the Singapore example really does look like one man came in, changed the rules, and people themselves changed their behavior. I will have to read up on it. If there really is a ‘secret formula,’ IMF types will want to know about it. (But if it requires ‘having a dictator,’ ‘fear of public caning,’ and/or ‘being Han Chinese’, well, maybe not quite up the IMF’s alley…)

    Reply

  12. Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew are a bit of a litmus test.

    If you assume for the sake of argument that
    – corruption is like friction in an engine – a general drag on efficiency
    – inbreeding creates instinctive family-first corruption
    – outbreeding reduces the corruption instinct
    – outbreeding eventually creates an instinctive anti-corruption mentality

    then you can imagine a situation where a high IQ population hits a level of outbreeding where they’re still inclined to family-first corruption but recognize its flaws and willingly accept an elite-led anti-corruption culture as a way of reducing it.

    even in a very endogamous high IQ population the elite might come to the same view through emulation of more successful cultures or the vision of an exceptional individual and try and impose an anti-corruption culture but in that case i’d assume the penalties would have to be very severe to have a chance of outweighing the people’s instincts (and would probably be ineffective through corruption in the justice system anyway).

    i think migration to the cities is key – in a way it’s basically a bigger, faster version of manorialism – combined with high average IQ meaning the threshold for people realizing anti-corruption is more efficient is reached at lower levels of outbreeding.

    Reply

  13. @luke – “Du was so rich that for his birthday present he gave Chiang 200 airplanes with ‘Opium Patrol’ or something like that stamped on their sides. It was a joke.”

    heh! that’s actually pretty d*mn funny. (^_^)

    Reply

  14. @m.g. – “But the Singapore example really does look like one man came in, changed the rules, and people themselves changed their behavior. I will have to read up on it. If there really is a ‘secret formula,’ IMF types will want to know about it. (But if it requires ‘having a dictator,’ ‘fear of public caning,’ and/or ‘being Han Chinese’, well, maybe not quite up the IMF’s alley…)”

    i think lee must be an incredibly intelligent man, and maybe even more importantly … wise. if wikipedia is telling the truth, lee was clever enough to figure out that if civil servants were paid well enough, they wouldn’t be so tempted by corruption. guess it worked! dunno how much credit we can give to the people themselves changing their behavior as lee changing it by a clever, positive reinforcement reward system. (one day when i’m in a positive mood, i’ll give the idea that the people themselves changed their behavior a chance. (~_^) )

    i have a bad feeling that ‘having a dictator,’ ‘fear of public caning,’ and/or ‘being han chinese’ are all key here … along with lee’s positive reinforcement things.

    Reply

  15. @g.w. – “then you can imagine a situation where a high IQ population hits a level of outbreeding where they’re still inclined to family-first corruption but recognize its flaws and willingly accept an elite-led anti-corruption culture as a way of reducing it.”

    this is what i’d LOVE to figure out — the inbreeding/outbreeding balance point. presumably it’s different for different peoples depending upon all those other hbd factors like iq, ability to delay gratification, etc., etc.

    @g.w. – “i think migration to the cities is key – in a way it’s basically a bigger, faster version of manorialism….”

    definitely migration to cities is important. changes — or can change — the social structures entirely.

    however, both manorialism and migration to urban areas seem to work either way re. inbreeding/outbreeding: early medieval manorialism in frankish territories seems to have helped to break down extended families/clans BUT in later medieval poland, manorialism seems to have reinforced endogamous marriages. migration to american cities certainly seems to lead to a lot of outbreeding — otoh, late medieval/early modern german migrants in gdansk kept right on mating with mostly each other.

    circumstances matter.

    Reply

  16. “Some experts, like Dr. Benjamin Levine, a cardiologist and professor of exercise sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, asked whether the adverse responses represented just random fluctuations in heart risk measures. Would the same proportion of people who did not exercise also get worse over the same periods of time? Or what about seasonal variations in things like cholesterol? Maybe the adverse effects just reflected the time of year when people entered the study.”

    That’s the part that gets to me. How do they know it was the exercise that caused problems in some people. If some people got a heart attack during the trial that wouldn’t mean the exercise caused the heart attack…

    Of course the researcher would want to know if more people got worse on the exercise regime than on a non exercise regime. The problem with this is that such negative effects could be compounded by positive effects in most others. So how do you test for a minority getting worse when the majority get better on the same measure?!?

    Reply

  17. @princenuadha – “How do they know it was the exercise that caused problems in some people. If some people got a heart attack during the trial that wouldn’t mean the exercise caused the heart attack…”

    no, you’re right. they’re gonna have to investigate this further, prolly. d*mn. does that mean i have to exercise in the meantime?

    Reply

  18. Singapore had the advantage of 100 years of British rule where they could see the advantages of relatively non-corrupt government.

    How do we know that Mao-era Communist government wasn’t corrupt? There were plenty of campaigns against corruption and against counter-revolution; is there evidence that they weren’t internal wars between different corrupt groups?

    Reply

  19. @anthony – “Singapore had the advantage of 100 years of British rule where they could see the advantages of relatively non-corrupt government.”

    absolutely! personally, i think lee kuan yew made a huge difference, too. in fact, i think he was the key difference (along with the history of the british rule).

    @anthony – “How do we know that Mao-era Communist government wasn’t corrupt?”

    i’m sure it — and lots of its members — was/were extreeeeemely corrupt. i would bet a LOT of money on that.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to hbd chick Cancel 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