from geert hofstede‘s national cultures, we have the individualism versus collectivism (IDV) dimension:
“The high side of this dimension, called Individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. Its opposite, Collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society’s position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of ‘I’ or ‘we.'”
here i’ve made a great, big table for you! — high scorers (the individualists) at the top — low scorers (the collectivists) toward the bottom. the anglo nations i’ve highlighted in blue text — they’re mostly at the top; the father’s brother’s daughter’s (fbd) marriage practitioners are in red — mostly between 25 and 40; and the east and southeast asians are in green. all of the anglo nations are in the top ten wrt to individualism (79+), and, with the exception of israel, no non-european nation scores above 50 — and israel’s population includes a good portion of european jews, so … so there. greece, croatia, bulgaria, romania, portugal, slovenia, and serbia (a lot of balkan nations there) are the european nations that score below 50 (between 25 and 35). nearly all the latin american/caribbean nations clump towards the bottom, and many of the east/southeast asian nations are down there, too. (the asterisks refer to nations that have their own entries as well as being part of hofstede’s group categories.)
remember that it’s the individualists who seem to work together best towards the collective — the BIG collective — society as a whole — a nation, for instance. meanwhile, the “collectivists” (as hofstede calls them) — or the clannish groups (as i call them) — don’t manage to handle, or even to create, commonweals hardly at all.
most of my “core” europeans — my longest outbreeding europeans — appear in the top ten of european nations in this list: uk, netherlands, (northern) italy, belgium, denmark, france. i’m surprised germany’s not in that top ten, though — the germans come in at number 12 amongst the europeans. three populations which started outbreeding slightly (or much in the case of ireland!) later than the “core” europeans also appear in the top ten: sweden, norway, and ireland.
i’m also surprised to see hungary there! although to be honest, i don’t know anything about the history of hungarian mating patterns. i will endeavor to find out!
_____
someone calling themselves maciamo created a map of europe using these figures, although i believe he used numbers as they stood in 2011 which have since been updated on the hofstede site — especially those for the arab world and other non-european nations — so the middle east, arab peninsula, and north africa parts of maciamo’s map should really be ignored, since many of the numbers are simply wrong (for instance, maciamo only had a general score of 38 for the arab world when he made the map, but now there are new scores of 25 for saudia arabia and kuwait).
i like this map a lot! but i think we should be a bit cautious about it, since maciamo’s methodology was a bit … involved. from what i can tell, he attempted to overlay the hofstede scores onto y-chromosome haplogroup distributions (his explanation of what he did is here). yeah … hmmmm. still, going by my gut instincts, his map looks really right! still — caution! caution. here it is. ‘sup with hungary?! [click on maps for LARGER views]:
and here is macaimo’s map with the hajnal line on it (like i like to do):
have a look at the thread @eupedia, ’cause there were a lot of interesting points brought up there! and i’m liking this maciamo fellow (^_^):
“I believe that individualism is an innate (hence genetic/hereditary) trait of character. It’s opposite is collectivism…. I believe that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy is responsible for many fundamental cultural differences between European countries.”
btw, if you’re looking for something good to read this evening, check out jayman’s latest post!: How Inbred are Europeans?
(note: comments do not require an email. i’m hungry!)
hbd chick 
[…] EDIT: Also, HBD Chick has recently posted a table of ranking nations of their individualistic vs. collectivist tendencies, from Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions. Here, the pattern in the same, Northwest European countries rank highly (with Anglos ranking highest), with more inbred countries, particularly Latin American and Muslim countries ranking lowest (see national individualism-collectivism scores). […]
Hurra! I’m sooo glad you’ve hooked up with Maciamo / Eupedia data – he has done such a lot of work, just like you and Jay, and it’s great to see the merging of it all.
Here’s another Hg based map, which again seems like a perfect match with the ‘core’ idea, but it isn’t, and that is interesting in itself. Rb is not the whole story at all, this sexual selection theory is definitely onto something, but the underlying Rb-ness is hard to ignore. http://oceanfield.ca/index.php/y-dna-primer/r1b1a2a1a1a
“I’m also surprised to see hungary there” – so am I, and I live there. Hungarians, due to repeated population collapse and state sponsored immigration, are significantly outbred, but individualism as a moral and political outlook is not established here. People rely on personal connections to get things done, but the connections are client-patron type rather than familial.
I am not sure about whether the map has sense for Poland. Whole western Poland was resettled after 1945; most of “autochtones” i.e. former German citizens who declared themselves as Polish and were allowed to stay left anyway after the war.
Most of settlers came from former “Kresy” that is, “borderlands”, what is now Belarus and Ukraine and Lithuania.
How to explain high individualism there? One point could be forced outbreeding, were people were literally rooted out and thrown into totally different environment with people totally different. E.g. i have part of family from what is now Belarus, part from Greater Poland. But still, the nice east/west gradient here is very suspicious.
I know you’re an anglophile but one reason they may rank so high is the lack of Muslims. Germany has plenty of those as well as other Arabs and Kurds. Perhaps Hofstede should look at groups rather than nations as the latter are becoming increasingly diverse.
The list matches inbreeding stats pretty well for Europe but not of Latin America. Have they recently given it up of something? Perhaps congenital diseases is a better measure of inbreeding as a biological status.
“it’s the individualists who seem to work together best towards the collective”
Yes, but there are so many exceptions. Iran’s supposedly way more individualistic and in extension more civic-minded than Slovenia and Portugal. Chile less individualistic than Saudi Arabia? I wonder if that goes for women too.
It seems to me that this measure has a Western bias and doesn’t apply so well to the rest of the world.
I wish India had been split up into groups. Might as well collect all of Europe under one ‘EU’ label….
Mild surprise at the dropoff in the Anglosphere for Canada and NZ. Perhaps something in their status as little brother nations.
@ Staffan. I had the same thought, but there are large populations of other minorities.
additionally: Hungary is surprising, and that section bleeding into Romania has a lot of Hungarians in it. Is it a small sample size? Some oddity of translation of the questions? I haven’t found Hungarians to be that different from the countries it borders when I have been there. And the borders haven’t always been there, either.
Israel??
To me, they are almost equal to the Arabs, but with iq, close to 100.
I do not agree with the score of Israel as well as the idea that there are two types of singularly different Jews, secular and religious.
To start with, if Judaism was only a religion (as they love to chatter), then there exist secular Jews, because there are no Christians atheists or secular Muslims, or you are religious or not.
As I said, but I guess I’m outvoted, certain populations are not applicable to analysis with other populations, because of their historical, genetic and cognitive uniqueness.
Should be analyzed as a case apart.
It seems that Hungary is one of the main points of international pornography. It seems that in most tribalist societies, certain types of behavior (dishonorable) sexually new as pornography, are not tolerated and Hungarians do not seem to care much about that. There seemed, because it has a far-right party that aims to change that and they have broad popular support. Do not ask me how I know this.
Gottlieb
“As I said, but I guess I’m outvoted, certain populations are not applicable to analysis with other populations, because of their historical, genetic and cognitive uniqueness.”
I don’t think anyone would suggest you could explain everything on one axis – although it’s worth trying imo as an exercise to see how far it can go.
Personally i think population marriage form (combined with population size) is looking like it could be one of the most important axes but it won’t be the only one so won’t explain everything.
The divide of individualism in Poland is likely to be a socio-economic in cause.
Most of the population of western Poland was resettled to the region from Belarus and Ukraine in the 40 and 50’s. These people were fiercely clannish and to this day remain much more hostile to outsiders than in the Polish east.
Thee cause of the split in Poland is likely less about breeding patterns and more by the fact that the western (former German lands) were/are more economically developed and the increased wealth of the Polish west reduced the need for closely knit social structures.
Poland’s Divide between east and west in this manner also appears in terms of Politics (the West supporting the right wing “Civic Platform” while the East supports the also right wing “Law and Justice Party”)as well as in terms of educational achievement with eastern Poland outperforming the more Industrialized west most likely due to economic incentives of education being higher in the east.
– here’s an interesting study on the Polish East-West educational divide for anyone interested.
Herbst, Mikolaj and Rivkin, Steven (2010): Divergent historical experiences and inequality in academic achievement: the case of Poland.
Click to access MPRA_paper_34802.pdf
Like I said, I think to analyze the behavior and general characteristics of human populations before we have to understand how these fit populations genetically. For example, I cited the example of sub-Saharan Africans. Besides being more genetically distant from other human populations, they are also more diverse. They were, in my opinion, older compared to the rest, I believe that different types of sexual selection happened there, divergent compared to the other, assuming that all non-Africans share a common origin.
I believe a strong marker of intense sexual selection is little genetic variation, demonstrating that the hypothetical population, for epigenetic reasons selected a smaller number of phenotypes.
I think there are many factors that can explain a phenotype, because you see, a phenotype is not a gene but a combination of several genes.
I think it would be interesting if the smarter russians, for example, would be less tribalist. If this is true, then intelligence, yet only for comparisons among Caucasians, is a strong factor influencing tribalism or individualism.
This would also mean that the Russians selecting the most intelligent, they tend to become less clanish.
It seems to be a pattern between the Indo Europeans.
Here in my country, when I would or not, the smartest people on average tend to be more individualistic and left than the others. We know that here in Brazil, there is a political configuration, much like Sweden, with a non-virtual existence of a right-wing party hard, ie, where the political spectrum is much more to the left than to the right .
Ashkenazi Jews are another example. I see they are still as tribalist as their brothers Semitic Middle East, however they are very smart, obviously. Like, smarter people are more successful at hiding their racist perceptions in everyday life, the same can be said about the Ashkenazi, who are smarter at hiding their true motivations and perceptions everyday than others.
I do not want bad Ashkenazi Jews, but I think you are stupid to deny that they are very close to each other, which until recently have high standard of consanguineous marriages and even today, still marrying very close, because almost all are cousins.
I think that all the problems they suffer as excess incidence of genetic diseases and mental problems, occurs precisely because of their weddings inside. However, they also seem very smart, a very high level, the average Ashkenazi Jew seems to be a lot smarter than the average white, the average joey.
The secret of genius and creativity on this among them, also happens because they keep their genes with each other. I think the super selection of them for intelligence, resulted in all these problems they exhibit today.
The duty of the HBD is not hide this fact, but it is to expose it (also) and help them solve their problems so they can live in peace and harmony with other people, without hostility.
Galton had already said that to keep the genius, you must marry within the family. Just as aggression, mental disorders (many related genius) among other deleterious effects, weddings next can also result in advantages.
Geniuses and criminals have more things in common than ordinary people.
Greying Wanderer ^^
Sorry!!
Lively discussion on Poland, and the effects of forced population migration.
Another intriguing piece is the low (very collective) scores for the industrialized nations of East Asia: Japan (46), Hong Kong (25), Singapore (20), South Korea (18), Taiwan (17). Strongly suggests that there’s more than one pathway to success!
Like Poland, Taiwan may be an interesting special case. It’s got two populations — the ‘native’ Formosans who have lived there for centuries, overlain by the mainland Nationalists (KMT), who fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese civil war, circa 1950.
I’ve never been there, and don’t know how much cultural influence the presumably cosmopolitan, urban, outbred mainlanders have had. And my ignorance of Formosan kinship is complete… maybe a more knowledgeable commenter can offer some sensible context?
@amac78 – “Another intriguing piece is the low (very collective) scores for the industrialized nations of East Asia: Japan (46), Hong Kong (25), Singapore (20), South Korea (18), Taiwan (17). Strongly suggests that there’s more than one pathway to success!”
yes!
and i’d like to add, too, that there’s probably also more than one pathway to collectivism, too — i mean beyond my inbreeding/outbreeding theory (if it’s at all right!).
lots of inbreeding — according to the working theory — ought to get you high collectivism scores, and it does. but my most extreme inbreeders (if i’ve understood the historical mating patterns correctly) — the fbd marriage practitioners (marked in red) — do NOT rank the highest in collectivism. those spots are actually reserved for the east/southeast asians and latin americans.
i would guess that the high collectivism amongst the east/southeast asian has to do with cochran & harpending’s nails that get hammered down. an interesting thought is that, perhaps, that set of traits — strongly enforcing conformity amongst members of the group — is really old in east asians — so old that it went across the bering strait to the new world. -?-
(see?! i DON’T think that EVERYthing is connected to inbreeding/outbreeding! i really don’t! (~_^) )
@gottlieb – “I do not want bad Ashkenazi Jews, but I think you are stupid to deny that they are very close to each other, which until recently have high standard of consanguineous marriages….”
do you have some references for that? ’cause i sure don’t — and if anyone around here would have them, you’d think it would be me!
@bnk – “Hurra! I’m sooo glad you’ve hooked up with Maciamo / Eupedia data – he has done such a lot of work, just like you and Jay, and it’s great to see the merging of it all.”
i’ve only read that one post by maciamo, but i definitely need to read more of his! is he still active, do you know?
@adrian buck – “‘I’m also surprised to see hungary there’ – so am I, and I live there. Hungarians, due to repeated population collapse and state sponsored immigration, are significantly outbred, but individualism as a moral and political outlook is not established here. People rely on personal connections to get things done, but the connections are client-patron type rather than familial.“
interesting. thanks!
from what i’ve seen, that’s not uncommon in populations that gave up inbreeding in the recent past (say within the last 200-300 years). ireland is a good example. but further research is required!
@adrian buck – “‘I’m also surprised to see hungary there’ – so am I, and I live there. “
@avi – “Hungary is surprising….”
hmmmm. i’ll have to go back and check to see what hofstede’s data is for hungary.
thanks!
@szopeno – “Whole western Poland was resettled after 1945…. Most of settlers came from former ‘Kresy’ that is, ‘borderlands’, what is now Belarus and Ukraine and Lithuania.”
@kuba – “Most of the population of western Poland was resettled to the region from Belarus and Ukraine in the 40 and 50′s. These people were fiercely clannish and to this day remain much more hostile to outsiders than in the Polish east.”
ok! thank you! (i really need to read more polish history….)
@szopeno – “How to explain high individualism there?”
keep in mind that there AREN’T separate scores from hofstede for different regions within countries. hofstede’s score for poland is just a flat 60 — light blue on maciamo’s map.
maciamo tried to combine hofstede’s scores AND y-chromosome haplogroups — perhaps not all that successfully. it was a nice, artistic sort-of attempt, but maybe not all that accurate. (maybe i should make some maps using hofstede’s scores….)
@adrian buck – “‘I’m also surprised to see hungary there’ – so am I, and I live there.“
omg — PÁLINKA!! it’s flowing from the taps there, right? i’m so envious. (~_^)
@kuba – “here’s an interesting study on the Polish East-West educational divide for anyone interested”
thanks! (^_^)
@t.greer – “I wish India had been split up into groups. Might as well collect all of Europe under one ‘EU’ label….”
absolutely! in fact, i’d like to see regional scores for all sorts of countries — including the u.s.
@staffan – “I know you’re an anglophile…”
oops! is it that obvious? (~_^) (and i’m not even one! an anglo, i mean.)
@staffan – “…but one reason they may rank so high is the lack of Muslims.”
possibly. i don’t discount it, and it would definitely be better to have numbers just for the natives, i agree.
but, if we were to count all the south asians in britain (pakistanis, indians, and bangladeshis), we’ve got 3.9% of the population — and that was in 2001.
in germany, the middle easterners (including turks) are 5.2% as of 2010.
not that far off, really.
wrt the germanics — and the germanics on the whole — there is a very strong push for conformity there (i know — i grew up in the midwest and have been to both wisconsin and minnesota! (~_^) ) — a push for conformity that i don’t think necessarily has to have come out of the inbreeding/outbreeding patterns (see my comment above re. the east/southeast asians). could be down to something else — some other selection pressure(s). and this conformity might also push down the individualism levels amongst the germanics. dunno.
@staffan – “The list matches inbreeding stats pretty well for Europe but not of Latin America. Have they recently given it up of something?“
yeah, i think so — but i’m not certain. the catholic church exempted latin america from the cousin marriage bans in the 1500s in order to get native americans to convert, so presumably they were marrying cousins (otherwise why exempt them?). i’m not sure when they actually quit marrying close relatives (presuming that a lot of them did — but it seems to have been more of the east asian variety of cousin marriage in latin america — maternal cousin marriage, not paternal like the arabs), but it’s definitely post-1500s — which is very late compared to many europeans, of course.
@HBD Chick:
So for the inbreeding thing, and in general of how it affects clannishness, G.W. left this idea over at my blog:
“It’s not about the total population. Its about whether or not the total population is sub-divided into thousands of mini populations who marry their own close cousins.”
This got me thinking. Technically, this should make sense. We often use a metric of inbreeding, especially looking at it from genetic perspective, that a “small” population, like say that of Iceland, should be very inbred, since a degree of cousin marriage was unavoidable.
But, I think that that might be looking at it the wrong way. If we think of inbreeding the way you would, that is, actually marrying cousins, it would produce an effect markedly different from one resulting from isolation or small population.
Sure, the Icelandic are all closely related to each other, and thanks to centuries of isolation, more closely related to each other than they are to anyone in the world – but there are no Icelandic clans. They are all one big family, so to speak. By contrast, in a clannish society, where they have been marrying cousins, the individual is more related to his/her family more than he/she is to others in their group, even if their group is generally more related to each other than they are to the outside.
Indeed, because of the degree of genetic diversity in recently admixed population, this probably might be more acute in such groups than in one that is generally homogenous.
Now, this might mean that IBD is a bad way of measuring inbreeding, because you compare at least two random individuals in a population, who might not be related to each other more so than two random individuals in a non-inbreeding population.
ROH might be a better method, because then you get to see how little their particular family tree branches.
This could explain, BTW, at least certain paradoxes, like say Finland or Japan. While not technically outbred, they are both genetically isolated: the nation is one big clan. I think we really do need to get our hands on some ROH data to flesh this out.
Some things to think about. ;)
@jayman – “Indeed, because of the degree of genetic diversity in recently admixed population, this probably might be *more* acute in such groups than in one that is generally homogenous.
Now, this might mean that IBD is a bad way of measuring inbreeding, because you compare at least two *random* individuals in a population, who might not be related to each other more so than two random individuals in a non-inbreeding population.”
yes — i think that you and grey are right. i think this is the “problem” with the italian ibd data (if you remember, the italians don’t share a lot of ibd) — which is an idea which grey originally suggested to me (he’s really got the hang of this genetics stuff now! (~_^) ) — and that is that italy is, or italians are, like a collection of many, many pockets of different populations — all those settlements from greece and anatolia, not to mention the langobards, and who knows from where else in italy? — of course italians don’t share much ibd!
so roh are probably a better measurement — but i think the ibd data is nicely complementary. (^_^)
@jayman – “Sure, the Icelandic are all closely related to each other, and thanks to centuries of isolation, more closely related to each other than they are to anyone in the world – *but there are no Icelandic clans*.”
no, there are no icelandic clans. but there were icelandic clans! and the place nearly fell apart in the 1200s due to inter-clan fighting, until the norwegian king stepped in and put an end to it. and i suspect (suspect — still have no info, dr*t!) that cousin marriage wasn’t actually banned in iceland — or the bans weren’t enforced — until the norwegian crown took over the place.
a possibly interesting side note: phillpotts’ said that kindreds were comparatively unimportant in ninth century iceland, shortly after it was settled — but then there were these outrageous clan wars in the 1200s. did the icelanders go from being relatively outbred to much more inbred in those four hundred years? — and, therefore, began fighting between themselves more? no idea. just a thought.
there must be something about population size here, too, that’s important. it seems as though there are enough icelanders that, when they avoid close cousin marriage, they aren’t clannish anymore. at some smaller size, you’d think a population would inevitably become clannish because it would be just too difficult to avoid mating with very close cousins (the yanomamo?).
@jayman – I think we really do need to get our hands on some ROH data to flesh this out.”
check your email! (^_^)
@jayman, @hbdchick
Which brings me back to may tongue-in-cheek comment from some time ago – maybe this is just about kin recognition? In many separate families it’s easy to subconsciously (maybe) recognize the kin, while when everyone is mixed, you cannot differentiate as easiyl between who is your kin and who’s not? In other words, it’s not that outbreed people do not have the genes for being clannish, or inbreeding do not have potential to be “patalogically altruistic”. It’s just they differ in their environment: one in which they can easily spot kin, and one in which everyone seems related.
Maciamo – yes, still active. He posts on the forum and I think he writes the pages of maps and analysis. I think his work incorporates empirical data as it is published, but he also postulates about ancient civilisations, I think. dunno!
HBD chick@ ”do you have some references for that? ’cause i sure don’t — and if anyone around here would have them, you’d think it would be me!”
The evidence tell me this story.
You know that the Ashkenazi Jews are genetically very close to each other (in fact, all Jews are very close, so imagine the Ashkenazi?)
All evidence of a quasi-inbreeding depression are shown in the Jews, with a high incidence of genetic diseases and mental disorders, as well as many Muslims.
If the Jews are all very close relatives and still married, then this is an evidence that they maintain a standard of marriage, almost consanguineous.
Jewish encyclopedia in which it indicated clearly shows that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Jews intermarried predominantly within the community.
Even if the number has decreased over the years, I believe (yes, I can believe, too, am a child of God) that Jews, being very close to each other, still married almost within family, even if a Levy marry Miss Shlomsky.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0018_0_18459.html
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8137-intermarriage
@Jayman
Yes, this is what i think of as the pushme-pullyou effect which i’ve never been able to explain clearly but which somehow reflects the conflict within a total population between those members who are highly related to each other and those they’re not.
Example
1) Imagine a 4×4 grid of villages, 16 in total.
2) Say relatedness comes in four levels and give a point score to each
– highly related 4pts
– hi-medium related 3pts
– lo-medium related 2pts
– low related 1 pts
and say the pushme-pullyou (pimpy) score for a population is the sum of the first three *minus* the sum of the last.
Option 1
Each village marries within itself so each village is highly related to itself and low related to the other 15 villages
pimpy score = 4 – 15 = -11
option 2
Each 2×2 quadrant of four villages outbreeds among themselves so they become a foursome of hi-medium related but still low related to the other 12
pimpy score = (4 x 3) – 12 = 0
option 3
The whole 4×4 grid of villages outbreed among themselves in the process all 16 becoming lo-medium related.
pimpy score = (16 x 2) – 0 = 32
option 4
Imagine four of these 4×4 grids joined together into an 8×8 grid and say that if all 64 villages outbreed together the end result is each village becomes lo-medium related to itself and lo-related to the other 63.
pimpy score = 2 – 63 = -61
The higher the pimpy score the more cohesive the population is as a group. The lower the score the more crumbly they are, clannish crumbly at one end and individualist crumbly at the other.
#
So there’s two parts, the structure of the population relatedness, whether it is a clannish lattice or a smooth lattice – but also, even if a population has gone down the exogamy route because there is a fixed mathematical constraint on outbreeding i.e. 2 parents, 4 grand-parents, 8 great grand-parents etc, that means that even in a maximally exogamous population the size of that population will determine how much double-duty there was on average among the ancestors and therefore how related the descendents are.
@G.W.:
Interesting idea!
I think option 2 generalizes to nationalistic (or should we say “closed”) populations that don’t show internal clannishness but show strong ethnic cohesion (e.g., Japanese, Finns, and to a lesser extent, Icelandic and Puritans of way back when).
I’d say isolation is one factor. I’m tempted to say that size is another, but I keep getting thrown off by the Japanese (who’ve had a large population for some time now).
Also i’m sure there’ll be an obscure bit of mathematics used for materials science describing different kinds of carbon lattice or something obscure like that which will fit this perfectly.
szopeno
“maybe this is just about kin recognition?…It’s just they differ in their environment: one in which they can easily spot kin, and one in which everyone seems related.”
I think that is a large part of it although as with any other environment if it changes then *over time* trait frequencies should change to suit the changed environment e.g. traits that make you violently distrustful of people who don’t look like kin.
Seems to me this would give the endogamy-exogamy thing a third axis i.e. the length of time a population has had to develop those outbred trait frequencies.
So
Step 1) Either clannish marriage-form or exogamous marriage-form.
Step 2) If a population goes down the exogamous route then population size would decide how much double-duty was involved determining the final average relatedness of the population.
Step 3) How long the exogamous process has been underway determining the extent to which traits suitable to that morphed population have developed.
So conceptually the categories might be something like
1) Clannish
— along both lines (FBD)
— along single line
2) Exogamous
– small population
— recent
— long time
3) Exogamous
– medium population
— recent
— long time
4) Exogamous
– large population
— recent
— long time
@Jayman
Yes, it’s not quite right but it’s something along those lines imo. Pushme-Pullyou.
@szopeno – “Which brings me back to may tongue-in-cheek comment from some time ago – maybe this is just about kin recognition? In many separate families it’s easy to subconsciously (maybe) recognize the kin, while when everyone is mixed, you cannot differentiate as easiyl between who is your kin and who’s not? In other words, it’s not that outbreed people do not have the genes for being clannish, or inbreeding do not have potential to be ‘patalogically altruistic’. It’s just they differ in their environment: one in which they can easily spot kin, and one in which everyone seems related.”
your idea’s not a completely crazy one, but i do think that that some peoples behave in more clannish ways than others, even when you take them out of their clannish settings. you put italians and irish people in the u.s.a. for a very long time — away from their traditional communities where they would be surrounded by their extended families — and they still are more family-oriented than other peoples (english, scots-irish). they can’t help themselves.
modelling suggests that “genes for altruism” (whatever they may be) ought to increase in a population that practices inbreeding. i’m sure that kin recognition must play a HUGE part in all this, but i think that there are clannish behaviors that are being selected for here, too.
@bnk – “Maciamo – yes, still active. He posts on the forum and I think he writes the pages of maps and analysis.”
cool! thanks. i definitely need to check out the eupedia forum further. (first i need to clone myself in order to have more time to do all these things i want to do….)
@gottlieb – “The evidence tell me this story…. If the Jews are all very close relatives and still married, then this is an evidence that they maintain a standard of marriage, almost consanguineous.”
i don’t want to know if they were “almost consanguineous,” or if you imagine that they probably married cousins (first or second). i want to know if they actually did and at what frequencies.
your surmises don’t help me any. the FACTS will.
@grey – “…the pushme-pullyou (pimpy) score….”
the pimpy score?! (^_^)
Push Me Pull You (pmpy) i added an “i” to make a word. pimpy was probably a bad choice.
@grey – “pimpy was probably a bad choice.”
no! i like it. (^_^)
i’ve only read that one post by maciamo, but i definitely need to read more of his! is he still active, do you know?
Another big Maciamo fan checking in. I got a real bee in my bonnet once about the origins of the Indo-European migrations to Europe, and when I found his article about it, it was like arriving in the promised land. His haplogroup maps made me look at the history of Europe in a totally new way. Fantastic researcher, and the ‘Eupedia’ forum has loads of interesting stuff on it, I check it out regularly.
Hbd chick @ ”i don’t want to know if they were “almost consanguineous,” or if you imagine that they probably married cousins (first or second). i want to know if they actually did and at what frequencies.
your surmises don’t help me any. the FACTS will.”
I thought these statistics were Jewish encyclopedia a good source to say what I’m suggesting partially. Removing it, the facts are all present in your face and for those who want to see more honestly.
I wonder why the Ashkenazi are full of genetic problems while Parsi, which are much less numerous definitely has less problems.
How to explain this?
The Ashkenazi resemble elephants in Thailand, I saw a documentary on television, where the Thai elephant population after a large reduction in its population, has obviously to marry within the family, resulting in a number of deleterious problems. I see the same in Ashkenazi, a founder population of them was very small remnant of a probable large reduction in their numbers, resulting in inbreeding and deleterious genes. Are more generations and generations of Jews marrying each other, resulting in a genetically isolated population. European Jews are more similar to the Jews of the Middle East and the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Again, I just hope it’s entirety as Ashkenazi Jews, because I’ve seen many scientists HBD community, trying to seek answers” alternative” behavior noticeably tribalistic (and therefore dishonest) the vast majority of them.
@m.g. – “Another big Maciamo fan checking in. I got a real bee in my bonnet once about the origins of the Indo-European migrations to Europe, and when I found his article about it, it was like arriving in the promised land. His haplogroup maps made me look at the history of Europe in a totally new way. Fantastic researcher, and the ‘Eupedia’ forum has loads of interesting stuff on it, I check it out regularly.”
ok! cool. thanks for the recommendation. i’ll definitely have to check his stuff out further! (right after i get myself cloned…. (~_^) no! i really will check him out! (^_^) )
@gottlieb – “Removing it, the facts are all present in your face….”
no, they’re not. i want DATA. actual numbers. either actual genealogical info on the history of mating patterns in ashkenazi (and other) jews and/or genetic data that would indicate it.
i don’t want to play guessing games here. (i already make enough inferences as it is.) and, i’m sorry, but your suggestions are just not very helpful to me.
Hbd Chick ”no, they’re not. i want DATA. actual numbers. either actual genealogical info on the history of mating patterns in ashkenazi (and other) jews and/or genetic data that would indicate it.
i don’t want to play guessing games here. (i already make enough inferences as it is.) and, i’m sorry, but your suggestions are just not very helpful to me.”
I will not be stubborn about it. But I definitely can not see Jews as liberal as liberal whites, because they are not the same thing. I will not agree you happen to find data that show that most Jews do not marry within the family, and most of them are closely related. I’m inferring yes, well, you should have inferred about his theory, before starting work on the compatible data collection.
Finally.
Now, on another topic, I posted a link that shows that men with smaller testicles have a tendency to be most better parents. I inferred upon it is possible that there is a relationship of tribalism with typical behavior of male domination and protection of its territory and that men less masculine, beta nerd, would be less aggressive about it and could also explain the success of societies north European as well as Asian societies.
@gottlieb – “I will not agree you happen to find data that show that most Jews do not marry within the family, and most of them are closely related.”
well, if you want to ignore evidence, that’s fine. that’s your business. i’m not going to, though.
@gottlieb – “I’m inferring yes, well, you should have inferred about his theory, before starting work on the compatible data collection.”
what are you saying? that i should guess how much inbreeding or outbreeding has been going on in any given population before collecting data for that group? i could do that (and i actually do do that sometimes), but what use would that be? that wouldn’t tell us ANYthing.
i could sit here and speculate right now that the burmese have avoided anything closer than second-cousin marriages for two thousand years, but how the h*ll would i know that? i DON’T — until i manage to get my hands on some data for the burmese.
Hbd Chick @ ”well, if you want to ignore evidence, that’s fine. that’s your business. i’m not going to, though.”
I will not ignore it, but I may have the right to disagree, especially when it seems that fits with the story since the 30s. You should take a little more seriously blogging hard right that you let available into your blog
Some conspiracy theories, removing some exaggeration, can be totally certain.
Hbd Chick@
”what are you saying? that i should guess how much inbreeding or outbreeding has been going on in any given population before collecting data for that group? i could do that (and i actually do do that sometimes), but what use would that be? that wouldn’t tell us ANYthing.
i could sit here and speculate right now that the burmese have avoided anything closer than second-cousin marriages for two thousand years, but how the h*ll would i know that? i DON’T — until i manage to get my hands on some data for the burmese.”
No dear, I do not said guess. The science is not done only for datas, but perhaps more importantly, by inspiration, inferring something is not the same as guessing. Guess is close to bet on roulette, infer something is based upon logic.
To have some knowledge about Burma or Myanmar, first of all, you’ve probably had collected basic information about the country. From this we can infer that something, suggest something.
I do not understand why they would not comment on” my” inference regarding research on testicular size and paternity … and its probable connection with his theory clanishness and universalism.
@gottlieb – “Some conspiracy theories, removing some exaggeration, can be totally certain.”
only if they’re based upon facts and data. testable facts and data at that, my dear.
@gottlieb – “To have some knowledge about Burma or Myanmar, first of all, you’ve probably had collected basic information about the country. From this we can infer that something, suggest something.”
yes. and as i keep telling you, i haven’t collected any basic information about the mating patterns/family histories/social structures of the jews yet (well, barely). nor of the hungarians. nor of any sub-saharan african group (well, the ethiopians, a bit). nor of australian aborigines. nor of north american indians. nor of … all sorts of populations!
so i CAN’T infer or suggest anything about them. yet.
“only if they’re based upon facts and data. testable facts and data at that, my dear.”
You mean testable hypotheses and theories, right?
“modelling suggests that “genes for altruism” (whatever they may be) ought to increase in a population that practices inbreeding.”
Doesn’t outbreeding increase altruism? Or is the altruism for the commonwealth from outbreeding not altruism but actually individualism?
@jw – “You mean testable hypotheses and theories, right?”
yeah, sure, that’s what i meant. (*^_^*)
i also meant, though, that one needs to gather actual data — facts — not just base theories on hunches or inferences or guesses, which gottlieb seems to be ok with. i like hunches, too — but i wouldn’t want to actually draw any conclusions from them.
@jw – “Doesn’t outbreeding increase altruism? Or is the altruism for the commonwealth from outbreeding not altruism but actually individualism?”
i think that different degrees of long-term inbreeding or outbreeding set up different selection pressures for different sorts of altruistic behaviors in populations — either being more altruistic to family members or more willing to be altruistic towards non-family members.
modelling has shown, though, that “genes for altruism” ought to increase in a population that inbreeds over the long-term.
@ hbd chick ”only if they’re based upon facts and data. testable facts and data at that, my dear.”
I think you ‘re trying to paint me as a schizophrenic ( You’re right, heeeee), it is evident Cherrie !
I think I’m expressing myself badly ( do not think , I’m sure , because English is not my mother tongue ) .
Remember, the name” conspiracy theory” was coined in order to give the impression it absurd and ridiculous and as a result, continue to ignore them, is an ingenious psychological mechanism. It is true that some theories are without rhyme or reason, but you can not generalize them.
I clearly understand that their role here is not the politics, as a result, you can not induce heated discussions on certain subjects, should be carefully scientific. I understand perfectly.
What I tried, unsuccessfully, to tell you is that the data collection compatible, are part of the scientific process, which in turn starts by building conceptual and theoretical ideas which often relates to with inferences based on small and disconnected information, we have put together to create something new. I call the creative process. You did it, all those directly or indirectly related, do it.
So I wonder why this thread if I’m not disagreeing with you about this.
I do not agree with Israel’s position on the map that you built. Ok, missing data, but only by the behavior of the country and its population, gives to infer something, even if it can not be considered 100% trustworthy.
Like I said, I can not see the Israelis the same way that some European populations. Yes, I clearly see tribal behavior among Muslims, see the universalist environmentally extreme behavior of Europeans (I said environmentally extreme because there are local populations and foreign pushing a universalist agenda against the rest of the natives).
@ hbd chick
”yes. and as i keep telling you, i haven’t collected any basic information about the mating patterns/family histories/social structures of the jews yet (well, barely). nor of the hungarians. nor of any sub-saharan african group (well, the ethiopians, a bit). nor of australian aborigines. nor of north american indians. nor of … all sorts of populations!
so i CAN’T infer or suggest anything about them. yet.”
You can infer, because it does not mean that you have completed something. You inferred something about Muslims and Europeans by all the disconnected informations that was digested in the same way that inferred some semblance of clan behavior among middle and eastern Europeans in the Balkans, for example, according to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia 90s.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Do you believe that it can not be inferred, but I think I can always based on logic. The risk is much higher, but I like it.
Anyway, do not want to stun your work.
Collecting basic information, some prior knowledge of the subject (biology versus nurture), logic, etc.
@ hbd chick ”yeah, sure, that’s what i meant. (*^_^*)
i also meant, though, that one needs to gather actual data — facts — not just base theories on hunches or inferences or guesses, which gottlieb seems to be ok with. i like hunches, too — but i wouldn’t want to actually draw any conclusions from them.”
We are really talking in different languages.
I never would take conclusions or inferences about insides that perhaps I have. Even if you finish something, still could not be 100% sure about that.
I just follow the logic of the facts, it makes sense but it can not be right.
As I stated before, the whole process, you need to believe that their initial inference may be true. Again, that’s what I’m arguing.
Collect data can be a very arduous and costly, and in the past, not far, the vast majority of scientists in the past had no data and no money for it.
“i think that different degrees of long-term inbreeding or outbreeding set up different selection pressures for different sorts of altruistic behaviors in populations — either being more altruistic to family members or more willing to be altruistic towards non-family members.”
So are you saying that both inbreeding and outbreeding increase altruism? What about individualism, then?
“modelling has shown, though, that “genes for altruism” ought to increase in a population that inbreeds over the long-term.”
What about outbreeding?
@jw – “So are you saying that both inbreeding and outbreeding increase altruism?”
different sorts of altruistic behaviors, yes.
it seems to me that inbreeding increases what i call “familial altruism” in which people favor their extended family members/clan members/tribe members — OR, if you take them out of their natural familial context, they strongly favor whatever narrow in-group that they find themselves in (think: the janissaries).
outbreeding, at least as it happened in parts of northwest europe, resulted in the creation of selection pressures for altruistic behaviors that are directed more towards neighbors and friends and even strangers (along with nuclear family members, that is). imagine what sort of selection pressures you’d get if you stripped people of their extended families/clans — who will get along best in life and reproduce most successfully? those individuals who are able to ally with the unrelated guy next door? i think maybe so.
@jw – “What about outbreeding?”
well, you can see for yourself here (or in the orig. research paper which is available online here) — “genes for altruism” were not selected for in wade and breden’s models.
keep in mind, though, that they were looking at “genes for altruism” which would direct altruistic behaviors towards kin (kin selection). they didn’t look at the scenario that i’ve described of a bunch of outbreeders left to fend for themselves in a brave new world. what would happen then?
I’m pretty sure South Africa is a non-European nation. There are also some non-white countries that are not represented on that list (that are also probably pretty individualistic).
Pseudo science.
1)Individualism/collectivism: most likely picked up from old Hofstede research,which has been discarded ages ago.Besides it has only old data on many countries,f.e. Eastern Europe (from USSR times mostly) and the methodology is wrong.Russia nowadays is considered more individualistic than the Netherlands for example.
2)Hajnal line is also a pseudo science as it was “discovered” in 1965,post WW2.it does not take into account the socioeconomic changes in Europe,such as communism and massive demographic crisis post WW2 in Eastern Europe.
3)Inbred/outbred is a serious joke.Made me laugh.Read on genetics at least something.Russians for example are the most OUTbred people of Europe,being a finnougric/slavonic mix.While the national like the Netherlands or some scandinavian countries are the most INBRED.They also have higher number on inborn genetic deficiencies and narrower genetic pool.
@dr lol – “Inbred/outbred is a serious joke.Made me laugh.Read on genetics at least something.Russians for example are the most OUTbred people of Europe,being a finnougric/slavonic mix.While the national like the Netherlands or some scandinavian countries are the most INBRED.”
nope. please read the definitions of inbreeding and outbreeding here. inbreeding or outbreeding in the context of the evolution of altruistic behaviors has nothing to do with being a mix of different peoples (or not).
see also the runs of homozygosity in western vs. eastern europe, and the “mating patterns in europe series” below ↓ in left-hand column, particularly the entries for russia/eastern europe.
@dr lol – “Hajnal line is also a pseudo science….”
you’re insane. but thank you for your input.
Just some constructive criticism.
1) You’ve got to look at Eastern European geography/genetics with a few caveats.
a)There were literally wholesale ethnic migrations post WW2 which completely altered the genetic history of that region. If you really want a quick overview of the scale of the migration I recommend Keith Lowe’s Savage Continent. 12 million Ethnic Germans were forcibly “cleansed” from Poland and Central Europe. Interestingly, Hungary did not suffer the savage shifts in population.
b)The line through Poland roughly corresponds to changes in its post war boundaries. The western bit of Poland used to be the old Kingdom of Prussia. Poles, who lived in that region and remained after the expulsion of the Germans from there, would still have been strongly influenced by German culture and hence the western portion of Poland still has a considerable second order German influence.
c) I’m not a fan of the European New Right, but I reckon Tom Sunic may be onto something. In trying to explain the low Croatian IQ post WW2 he posited that reason was because the “Hi IQ caste” were physically destroyed by the Communists. Communism may not have had only economic and political consequences but the scale of the killing may have had population genetic consequences as well.
2)Looking at the map, it appears to me that culture has a far more profound influence on individualism than Genetics.
The Catholic/Protestant Catholic/Orthodox divide would appear to be far more influential than the genetics of the region. What’s really interesting to note is the ‘gradient” between Hungary and the formerly Ottoman bits of the Balkan Peninsula
None of this is really clear cut and it’s all a bit fuzzy.
I don’t deny the influence of ‘hardware” but the “software” is important as well.
@slumlord – “There were literally wholesale ethnic migrations post WW2 which completely altered the genetic history of that region. If you really want a quick overview of the scale of the migration I recommend Keith Lowe’s Savage Continent.”
yes. big weak spot in my personal knowledge. (i know peoples shifted around — a LOT — but i don’t really know who went where.) i definitely have to fix that. thanks for the reference!
@slumlord – “In trying to explain the low Croatian IQ post WW2 he posited that reason was because the ‘Hi IQ caste’ were physically destroyed by the Communists.”
oh, interesting (and awful, if true!). thanks again.
@slumlord – “Looking at the map, it appears to me that culture has a far more profound influence on individualism than Genetics. The Catholic/Protestant Catholic/Orthodox divide would appear to be far more influential than the genetics of the region. What’s really interesting to note is the ‘gradient” between Hungary and the formerly Ottoman bits of the Balkan Peninsula.”
yes. the religious divide.
i have to tell you that i was one of these annoying kids who, when given an answer to a question, would always follow up with another question (usually an endless series of “why” — yes, i was THAT kid). i’m afraid i haven’t grown out of that, only my new question is: “but where does X come from?”
so, in this case: why are some regions of europe catholic, others protestant, and even others orthodox? yes, there are some historical reasons for this — but why the differences between those religions? (if your answer is culture, i’m just gonna ask but where does culture come from? (~_^) )
i’ve explored a little — a very little — about the protestant reformation — mainly the radical reformation. i think that there are underlying biological (hardware) reasons for these differences (in software).
yes, the software is absolutely important, but mainly in that it affects the running of the hardware. and remember, you can’t run all software on every type of hardware! (~_^) (there — i think i’ve beaten that analogy to death now. (^_^) )
The following is an example of recent white endogamy. I assume this is an acceptable location to post this.
Tristan_da_Cunha wikipedia page quotes:
“It is the most remote inhabited archipelago in the world, lying 2,816 kilometres (1,750 mi) from the nearest land, South Africa, and 3,360 kilometres (2,088 mi) from South America
…
The islands have a population of 264. … The current population is thought to have descended from 15 ancestors, eight males and seven females, who arrived on the island at various times between 1816 and 1908. The male founders originated from Scotland, England, The Netherlands, the United States and Italy and share just eight surnames: Glass, Green, Hagan, Lavarello, Patterson, Repetto, Rogers, and Swain. There are 80 families on the island. Tristan da Cunha’s isolation has led to an unusual, patois-like[citation needed] dialect of English.
…
There are instances of health problems attributed to endogamy, including glaucoma. In addition, there is a very high incidence of asthma among the population and research by Dr. Noe Zamel of the University of Toronto has led to discoveries about the genetic nature of the disease. Three of the original settlers of the island were asthma sufferers.”
My theory, just hope really, is there is zero genetic tendency among whites, including Nordic whites, towards individualism. We seem to have a tendency towards morality and sensitivity to negative feedback, but that’s not the same thing. If I can find a book I have on the Faroes, I’ll add another quote. The Faroes only works if we assume they’re Nordic and that Nordics are the most genetically individualistic as some assert. The quote I want, if i can’t find it I’ll at least describe it, is simply that a very small island population split into 2 over a claim of heredity. My goal is plausible deniability that we have a genetic tendency towards individualism.
[…] – a curious paradox?: – individualism-collectivism – national individualism-collectivism scores – kandahar vs. levittown – universalism vs. particularism – universalism vs. particularism […]
good to see my country India geting highest score among Asians, Latin Americans and Africans. Just for ur information, India collectively scores 48, but if only Hindu population is taken into consideration (app. 80% of Indian population), the score will be somewhat near 56-57. In South Africa’s case, I think only the population with European ancestory has been taken into consideration.
[…] az individualizmus és kollektivizmus mértéke, […]
[…] https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/national-individualism-collectivism-scores/#comment-33643 […]
[…] Here is how different nations score on the most widely used measure of individualism: […]
Thanks for this most excellent work, which is illuminating my perspective on this world!
Regarding the “Hungary question”: I recall being told (while flying FinnAir) that the Finns and Hungarians were descended from the same people and that their languages were quite similar to one another while dissimilar from their present-day neighbors.
e.g: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2073,00.html
[…] https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/national-individualism-collectivism-scores/#comment-33643 […]
I’m about two to four years late to the discussion. When was this data collected? I’m surprised to see Canada scoring nine points behind the UK. Most of Canada’s pioneers, and settlers; came from the United Kingdom. Our number should approximate their eighty-nine percent. Why the drop? Our census numbers began to change around 1970. Before then; Canada was ninety-four percent Caucasian; or White. Not a “dirty” term; although our traitorous (White) political elite have tried to make it one.
What happened in 1970? That was the “introduction” of enforced; third world immigration. More precisely; the “extreme makeover” Canada has suffered since Trudeau Sr, and exacerbated by most of his “Prime minister of Canada” successors. Therefore; The drop is artificial, and also unsurprising.
One slight correction to my “…ninety-four percent Caucasian” statistic: The “Caucasians” arriving in Canada until 1970–Were from the UK.
[…] An explicit, or more explicit, example is the outlawing of incest. The case for doing so is easy to make. Incest can lead to inbred children, and this is probably, in part, responsible for the neuroses that afflict the Islamic world, for theirs is a hyper-consanguineous culture. In recent times, I have come to think that the only chapter in the history of the European Church that one can praise without a dozen or more extensive caveats was their prohibition of inbreeding. As HBD Chick has discussed, this was instrumental in the evolutionary trajectory of (especially north-western) Europeans and the development of uniquely European traits such as individualism. […]