where everybody’s fourth cousins

in response to the “people befriend their fourth cousins” study, smersh makes an excellent observation:

“You referenced some of this in your counter currents interview but this study makes things more clear.

Friends are as close to each other as fourth cousins.

Jews are also as close to each other as fourth or fifth cousins.

Therefore it is easy for Jews to make close friends by hanging out with other Jews.

Meanwhile, it is harder for gentiles to make close friends in mass societies, as people move around and no longer live in a village near a bunch of closely related people.

Certainly seems like it might explain a lot without implying a malicious intent on the part of certain parties.”

yes! maybe.

if it’s correct that people generally befriend their fourth cousins — and this is something that could vary between different populations (Further Research is RequiredTM) — then, perhaps, this could explain why places like iceland work so well, too. i don’t know what the average relatedness there is (does anybody know?), but presumably it’s something like fourth or fifth cousins as well. maybe then it IS really easy in such a place to have a — whatever — redistributive socialist system when it feels like almost anyone in your population could be your friend.

dunno.

btw, that counter currents interview was, in fact, originally a hoover hog interview that somehow got syndicated over on cc. just want to give credit where credit is due. (^_^)

previously: friendship and natural selection (and human biodiversity)

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

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. Well, first thing that comes to mind are cities, and the population of loners, the Left Coast. Cohesion might be harder in these places because there are no cousins to be found.

    I’d imagine people in inbred societies make friends with their actual cousins…

    Reply

  2. Also on that, this might help to explain the New Englander “PFA”. In many of these small New England towns, especially way out here in places that didn’t get tons of immigrants/new comers, all the people are cousins (I’d imagine 4th-6th at most). Outsiders are welcomed (sort of), but they’re all outsiders. My wife is known to remark about the PFAs coming in messing up her town…

    Reply

  3. @jayman – “Well, first thing that comes to mind are cities, and the population of loners, the Left Coast. Cohesion might be harder in these places because there are no cousins to be found.”

    yes. and we have seen that they don’t bother as much with their actual families, either — the people on the west coast that is. loners, like you say — especially someplace like los angeles, i’d say.

    anthony mentioned, too, how left coasters put up fences (they do!). not so cozy with the neighbors.

    @jayman – “My wife is known to remark about the PFAs coming in messing up her town…”

    heh! pfas. (~_^) so, are you still a pfa, or has your status now changed to an honorary native?

    Reply

  4. I had to Google it despite growing up in Vermont and living in Boston for a time. PFA = Person/People From Away. Called them flatlanders in Vermont, IIRC.

    Reply

  5. To answer my own question, now that I think about it, doesn’t 23-and-me give lists of people who are related by degree? Maybe that is the way!

    Reply

  6. @luke – “Going forward, what is the best, quickest, easiest way for people to establish fourth cousinhood? I have a life-long interest in intentional communities is the reason I ask.”

    and on the flip side, if this research is right at all, the implications of mass immigration to the u.s. of peoples quite unrelated (i.e. nowhere near fourth cousins) to european-americans are…?

    Reply

  7. @HBD Chick:

    “heh! pfas. (~_^) so, are you still a pfa, or has your status now changed to an honorary native?”

    Let me put it this way: my mother-in-law, who’s been a resident of the town since she was 15, may be considered a town’s folk, but she’s still definitely not a native… :)

    On that:

    Hehe…

    Reply

  8. @HBD Chick:

    “yes. and we have seen that they don’t bother as much with their actual families, either — the people on the west coast that is. loners, like you say — especially someplace like los angeles, i’d say.”

    Ah yes. Maybe another name for the Left Coast can be the lonely coast?

    The Left Coast: Peace, Pot, & Pure Atomization… ;)

    Reply

  9. One note, I had already told him this before.
    Neglecting this detail and having faith that you forgot or, because you nurtured a growing sense of anger for my abstract person, would not pay attention to my comment or did not want to make an effort to understand my comment …
    … then Ashkenazi Jews make their actions a little excessive, like pushing an genocidal mass immigration agenda to the host countries, invent ideologies like socialism and push bloody revolutions that eliminate the lives of millions of people, lying about a number of things very important, because it is written in the talmud that they can and should lie openly to the ”Gentiles” among other details (as well), the fact always help each other regardless of any reasons, fair or not, caused by their bio-sincere friendships, can deconstruct the pathos idea of the jewish ‘conspiracy’ invented by anti-Semitic lunatics , we all know, only fools believe. Did the Jews came from Mars? Are they reptilians? lol

    As you said yourself, the genes for clanishness not be dissolved immediately that patterns of inbreeding are broken. As a result, even though Ashkenazi by chance, had greatly diminished the number of consanguineous marriages, still could not stop the behavior tribalist and all that it implies.

    Reply

  10. Gottlieb, cite tractate and context on that, okay?

    Jayman put up the same video I was thinking of. PFA is more closely associated with Maine dialect. It is recognised in NH (not as initials), but is only one of several terms here. We also have our towns with few surnames, but my genealogical research suggests there’s a fair bit of mixing anyway. Spouses come from two towns over, brothers buy pieces of land twenty miles up the road, that sort of thing. So likely, even the inbred American locales are tight cousinages only in comparison to other American places, not the rest of the world. There are many relatives in Sweden in the same few little towns one of my branches left 100-150 years ago. The ones who came here spread all over the world, with only a few even close to where we started.

    I have blithely said that socialism is much easier in places where everyone is your fifth cousin, but looking at the FB sites of my actual cousins today, I’m not sure it’s all that easy even then. That punishments for betraying the clan are so intense suggests that it’s not that automatic to side with them. It is an arrangement of necessity in a dangerous world, perhaps, with rewards and punishments easier to deal out via informal networks. Less transation cost than in a nation. That sort of clannish behavior might still be difficult to sustain, persisting at high cost only because the cost of other arrangements are even higher. Organisation is difficult, destruction easy.

    Reply

  11. Assistant Village Idiot@ ”Gottlieb, cite tractate and context on that, okay?”

    Is completely in context!!!
    What…

    I was the first to suggest the Hbd Chick on the matter, except that, instead of using the term ” bio-friendiship,” I used the internal genetic variation and phenotype. It’s a way of saying the same thing. But she forgot to mention my name.
    However, I assume that it arrived quickly to conclusions about it, after all, all, if she just conclude that there is some preservation of tribal behavior among Ashkenazi, then it must mean that, as French-Canadians and Arab Muslims, Jews may also exhibit some behavior tribal, implying corruption, nepotism and extra-group hostility, including ”familiar altruism”.

    Reply

  12. AVI
    “I have blithely said that socialism is much easier in places where everyone is your fifth cousin, but looking at the FB sites of my actual cousins today, I’m not sure it’s all that easy even then. That punishments for betraying the clan are so intense suggests that it’s not that automatic to side with them.”

    I think the underlying decision-logic like the Arab proverb, is always three-sided i.e. ego, A and B, i.e. me, my brother and my cousin and the engine driving the decision-logic is level of threat to ego. So if the level of threat from B decreases then the need or desire to ally with A declines also.

    Reply

  13. @gottlieb – “One note, I had already told him this before.
    Neglecting this detail and having faith that you forgot or, because you nurtured a growing sense of anger for my abstract person, would not pay attention to my comment or did not want to make an effort to understand my comment …”

    you never said in any of your comments what smersh said above: that because jews are all as genetically similar to one another as fourth cousins they are able to easily befriend one another.

    if you did say that somewhere on this blog, pull up your comment and show me, because i don’t recall it.

    notice, too, that in my post i said MAYBE. maybe smersh is correct, but maybe he isn’t, because we don’t know if all peoples befriend the equivalents to their fourth cousins. it might differ in different populations.

    you obviously decided a long time ago before ever finding this blog that jews are clannish and that that accounts for their behavioral patterns that we see out there. that’s fine. carry on believing that. i do not, yet, know whether or not they are clannish, because i haven’t looked at their mating patterns or family structures or history or anything. i suspect that different groups of jews are different — eg. that hasidic jews are more clannish than other groups of jews — but i don’t know yet. i’ll let you know when i do.

    watch your manners, or i will ban you.

    edit: your comments are now going through moderation until you demonstrate that you can behave in a mannerly fashion. (hint: don’t be rude to, or about, your hostess.)

    Reply

  14. I will not argue with you, because it is useless.
    Just keep thinking, how long will continue to hide the obvious. If I were you I would update as news and growing hatred against these people still do not know why.
    As I said and will be the last time, Smersh was the first to say it this way, but I’ve said before, what he had not done was call the facts, because the news about friendship and pheno-genetic similarity that posted, it was only recently.
    At most, the Jews, especially because
    by low genetic variation
    and the high standard of consanguineous marriage, at least until the early twentieth century, remained closely related, especially if compared with the northwestern Europeans. result
    even when two Jews of different families marry, he will still be almost like a consanguineous marriage. The choice of similarity of phenotypes rather than genotype is the evolution of tribalism, which will never be totally eradicated from the human species, because it has evolved because of that, the intra-group cooperation.

    Although not deserving, I have inferred that testosterone levels may have some effect on duality clanishness versus civilism, because we know that men over masculine, are more competitive and territory-dominant nothing more macho-man than the Sicilian mafia, for example. Other interesting data that I saw was the size of the testicles and parental care. Everything fits in the theory of Rushton.

    I just think your inference as to the behavior of the people of the Middle East was a mix of precipitation and unilateral interpretation, I would say, bio-deterministic, without taking into account environmental factors that have a recent example, resulted in civil war in Syria but also successes, observing the obvious, Arab Muslims (and others) in fact, so tribalistic behavior and certainly there is some reason. It is clear that there are foreign elements disturbing that solidly instigated the conflict and not just one more facet of tribal competition.

    I do not mean and I will not spend my poor english to discuss their guidelines, but I hope you consciousness to understand their attitudes. No more all come down to, even when the elite hbd will connect the facts so obvious these people’s behavior? I assume that the over representation of them (as well as left-handed, asperger and socially extinct people), even among the most important figures of the movement hbd, influencing, the old dialectic of seeking escapist explanations, not centered with a magnifying glass, so obviously the behavior tribalists these people.

    Do what you want, it’s your blog after all, but I suggest you think a lot about what kind of moderation you want to use, so you do not fall into contradiction.

    bye!!

    :/

    Reply

  15. @gottlieb – “…and the high standard of consanguineous marriage, at least until the early twentieth century…”

    HOW do you know this? WHERE are your references?!

    (edit: COMO você sabe que os judeus ashkenazi casado suas primeira e segunda primos até o início do século XX?!)

    @gottlieb – “I will not argue with you, because it is useless.”

    ditto.

    Reply

  16. That’s funny, you don’t look Jewish. The nose knows. :) sorry, couldn’t help myself

    We do know — or, rather, it is reported, there was a relatively small founding population of Ashkenazis in Eastern Europe (around 10,000?). What kind of relatedness would this produce? Aren’t there genomic studies already that would help us answer this question? I really don’t know.

    Reply

  17. @luke – “Aren’t there genomic studies already that would help us answer this question?”

    well, yeah. jews are all related to one another as though they were fourth or fifth cousins (h/t to smersh for that link!).

    but, two questions remain (afaiac):

    1) do other/all peoples befriend the equivalent to their fourth cousins? the study that was published the other day was done on european-americans — maybe that included some jews, i don’t know — but do those results apply to other populations, including jews?

    2) did ashkenazi jews regularly marry their first and second cousins? the little that i’ve found about this suggests that maybe southern (iberian) and eastern european (russian) jews did, but that central european (french and german) jews didn’t. but i really don’t know (and i’m pretty sure that gottlieb doesn’t know either).

    Reply

  18. @luke – “Incidentally, are nose shapew similarities correlated with olfactory ones too? Smell buds I mean.”

    ooo, i dunno! you would think that bigger would mean (a) better (sense of smell)! (~_^) look at dogs and their big snouts and their incredible sense of smell. dunno!

    Reply

  19. Anecdata incoming…One of the biggest issues for Jews today is that high rates of intermarriage (ie: to non-Jews) is leading to demographic collapse. From what I’ve read recently, there was a bottleneck for the Ashkenazim ~800 years ago; I suspect that there was less by-design cousin marriage than accidental cousin marriage on account of that. Jews tend to be cultural mirrors, trying to fit in with the culture that they are a part of (which is why there were prominent Jewish fascists, as well as the constantly cited Jewish communists). Many American Jews are living the “diversity is strength” culture by intermarrying.

    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