Open thread

if you’d like to comment on a specific post, click on the title of that post to open it. you’ll find the comments at the bottom of the post. (^_^)

– open thread backup for comments from 02/19/11 through 06/30/12.
– open thread backup for comments from 07/01/12 through 12/31/12.
– open thread backup for comments from 01/01/13 through 12/31/13.

179 Comments

  1. hbdchick: I searched unsuccessfully for references to David McClelland’s ‘The Achieving Society’ (1961) on the site. Are you not familiar with his work, or have I missed something? McClelland must have had a gazillion grad students generating data that largely confirms some of the theses here. It’s worth plowing through, if you can find it. Happy New Year.

    Reply

  2. How does “race realism” compare to HBD? They are related, but not the same. My thoughts:

    The correspondence between folk theories of race and actual genetics is often questionable (the one drop rule for African Americans, compared to race conceptions in Brazil, where siblings can be different races), leading some to argue that race is socially constructed and not a natural kind.

    HBD is a more general field which is Exactly What it Says on the Tin. It does not necessarily commit to the idea of race as a useful or natural category. (Granted, I bet 99% of HBD-ers would call race a useful concept with greater-than-zero explanatory power.) HBD can analyze propose instances of gene-culture coevolution without invoking race as part of the explanation.

    Reply

  3. @jim – “I searched unsuccessfully for references to David McClelland’s ‘The Achieving Society’ (1961) on the site. Are you not familiar with his work, or have I missed something?”

    oh, thanks! no, i am not familiar with his work — thanks for the reference! i shall look into it. happy new year to you, too! (^_^)

    Reply

  4. @laofmoonster – “HBD is a more general field which is Exactly What it Says on the Tin. It does not necessarily commit to the idea of race as a useful or natural category. (Granted, I bet 99% of HBD-ers would call race a useful concept with greater-than-zero explanatory power.) HBD can analyze propose instances of gene-culture coevolution without invoking race as part of the explanation.”

    yes, exactly!

    i saw this comment of yours over on reddit. well done! (^_^)

    Reply

  5. I was wondering if your general framework, which I understand at a high level is driven, if not solely, but some, by the interaction between biology and geography, considers the ease of access to potable water or water for irrigation as a variable driving family and political structure.

    A superficial example of the way this could work is that in the Middle East, water is difficult to come by, so one needs to solidify already solid brother to brother connections to maximize the opportunity for obtaining it, whereas in Europe, and maybe especially in the parts of Europe where universalism emerged, water is relatively easy to get, so people are more willing to trust strangers to form alliances to get it, because even if the alliance ends up being temporary, the pressure to find useful water is not so great.

    This isn’t an original idea from me, but the basis of Wittfogel’s ‘hydraulic civilization’ hypothesis, applied in a new context. In places, where a different family structure shows up than the biology and geography would suggest, perhaps water availability is the omitted variable?

    Just a thought. Good blog.

    Reply

  6. @sudden clarity clarence “A superficial example of the way this could work is that in the Middle East, water is difficult to come by, ” Here’s another way to look at it. Civilizations develop where there is little water. Might have something to do with not having to compete as much with the jungle, but maybe the very difficulties promote family loyalty, family marriage and thus high enough fertility to survive as a society long enough to make a civilization. The Industrial Revolution started in England where, for some reason they had the loyalty even though they had water. Oh, you thought Europe had a civilization? It’s just a temporary excrescence on the real civilizations, which are farther south. Europe’s just a dream. History is waking up. Look for “Western” power in a hundred years or check the birth rates now.

    Reply

  7. @anonymous

    ” Here’s another way to look at it. Civilizations develop where there is little water. Might have something to do with not having to compete as much with the jungle, but maybe the very difficulties promote family loyalty”

    It seems to me that there is generally a continuum from “the jungle” where water is over abundant and no individual needs any help in finding enough (although there you may have an opposite effect, where individuals have to band together to keep water out), and “the desert”, where it would be so scarce that it could prompt the loyalty behaviors you mention. You seem to be assuming that civilization only started when the dry far end of that “fully wet to completely dry” continuum was reached by our primate ancestors, but that seems like a stretch. What were they doing during the time period spend in more moderate zones with sufficient, but not over-abundant, water? Weren’t the Middle Eastern civilizations founded at a time when there was more water in the area than now, anyway?

    There are many different ‘birth rates’ in the West, depending on what sub-segment of the population you are looking at. The ones with the highest birth rates might also be called the most “Western” in outlook, while those with the lowest have sympathies with cultural relativism, multi-culturalism and an overall “irrational” outlook on life. What happens in the future as a result of this is anyone’s guess.

    Reply

  8. @anonymous “You seem to be assuming that civilization only started when the dry far end of that “fully wet to completely dry” continuum was reached by our primate ancestors, but that seems like a stretch.” You have made a thoughtful response. Yep. That’s the evidence as it comes to me. I wasn’t thinking “Primate ancestors” or course more like Mesopotamia and Egypt. I think the weakest part of it is that deserts are also the place where artifacts would be most likely to survive. There appears to have been a very impressive civilization in the Amazon region, but almost the only remaining evidence is that there are square patches of good fertility where they somehow (and we don’t know how or we’d do it) got the jungle to give good crops. Still in all, it seems that Mesopotamia and maybe Egypt both survive with substantial input into our own culture from what I am told. The question should be, “Why deserts? Why not the rich, ideally watered, hospitable climes of Europe?”

    Reply

  9. @hbdchick

    I’m about to go on a google trek about it but in your literary travels have you come across anything relating to how shifting agriculturalists deal with their dead?

    Reply

  10. @hbdchick

    also do you remember your post which had a link to a website with a ton of anthropological type pictures of different tribes round the world? if you can’t remember i’ll keep trawling.

    Reply

  11. @grey – “I’m about to go on a google trek about it but in your literary travels have you come across anything relating to how shifting agriculturalists deal with their dead?”

    oh! no, i haven’t. when you find out, lemme know! that’s an interesting question.

    @grey – “also do you remember your post which had a link to a website with a ton of anthropological type pictures of different tribes round the world?”

    uuuuuhhhh…can’t remember the post, but was this the website?:

    http://www.beforethey.com/

    Reply

  12. “but was this the website?”

    hmmm, no it was more just a wall of photos. it’s not important but there was a pic of a native american man i linked to on the thread which had the site with a comment i remember that tickles me now after the recent La Brana thing. it might have been on a linkfest even. not important but i’ll trawl anyway.

    ty

    Reply

  13. @grey – “it’s not important but there was a pic of a native american man i linked to on the thread which had the site with a comment i remember that tickles me now after the recent La Brana thing.”

    d*mn! i can’t remember at all (but that’s not unusual (~_^) ).

    if you can recall at all a unique-ish keyword that was in the post or a comment (if you left a comment on that post), i can search for that. has to be kinda unique, though — “photo” prolly won’t do it.

    Reply

  14. yeah i commented something like

    “this is how i look in my head apart from the eye color” or “apart from the eye colour this is how i imagine myself”

    (maybe spelled “color” cos of the annoying squiggles)

    Reply

  15. @grey – “doh i’m an idiot, didn’t realize i could search for comments. this is the one”

    oh, good! glad you found it. (^_^) i didn’t realize the search function worked for comments, either.

    Reply

  16. @ Greying wanderer “do you remember your post which had a link to a website with a ton of anthropological type pictures of different tribes round the world?”
    About a hundred years ago somebody gave my grandfather a book that had been written with the support, I think, of the Chicago Field museum. The book fell into my hands and I’m sure I haven’t destroyed it, so I’ll have a look to see if I can get you a propper reference. As I remember we was looking for “races” and decided he had exhausted human biodiverstity on the day he logged in number 100.

    Reply

  17. Anonymous
    01/27/2014 at 4:31 AM

    I suppose that one could argue that as the species moved further and further from the wetness of the jungle, it had to become more far-seeing and intelligent to secure water, thus leading to a sort of pinnacle of those qualities in the civilizations which were most in need of collectively-organized water procurement. All other civilizations could then be seen as a ‘falling-away’ from this most disciplined form of collective action, led by a far-seeing ruling class. The question would then be whether the fruits of that falling-away had any value. Certainly, the historical novelty of the masses of individuals being able to be completely free of day-to-day concerns of the most necessary of liquids has paid many dividends, including the ability of almost everyone in the West being able to drink as much water as they want day-to-day with hardly any individual effort, to say nothing of the industrial uses to which water is constantly put.

    It could be that the reason civilization in Europe was possible was because of the things the Europeans learned from the Ancient Near East in terms of water management and then transplanted into the more watery climate of Europe.

    Reply

  18. Did you know that Sam Harris once commented on James Watson’s Watsoning? Check out what he had to say:

    It is worth recalling in this context that it is, in fact, possible for a brilliant scientist to destroy his career by saying something stupid. James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel laureate, and the original head of the Human Genome Project, recently accomplished this feat by asserting in an interview that people of African descent appear to be innately less intelligent than white Europeans. A few sentences, spoken off the cuff, resulted in academic defenestration: lecture invitations were revoked, award ceremonies cancelled, and Watson was forced to immediately resign his post as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

    Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific. There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered. I say this not to defend Watson’s fascination with race, or to suggest that such race-focused research might be worth doing. I am merely observing that there is, at least, a possible scientific basis for his views. While Watson’s statement was obnoxious, one cannot say that his views are utterly irrational or that, by merely giving voice to them, he has repudiated the scientific worldview and declared himself immune to its further discoveries. Such a distinction would have to be reserved for Watson’s successor at the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins.

    I’d love to know how the ever-so-rational Harris (who I reference on several key issues) squares that circle…

    For the record, I though that this was wonky at the time, but for some reason I didn’t dig too deep into it (just made the mental note that this was a scientific possibility). But, really, how absolutely insane is it?

    Reply

  19. I’m looking into one of the favourite areas of both hbdchick and jayman which is the effect of outbreeding in Europe. One thing I can’t figure out about this hypothesis is why Scandinavia tends to score highly on things like altruism when they should be behind in this trait compared to the English who started outbreeding earlier. Have I misunderstood something or is this a real paradox with the hypothesis?

    Reply

  20. @samuel – “One thing I can’t figure out about this hypothesis is why Scandinavia tends to score highly on things like altruism when they should be behind in this trait compared to the English who started outbreeding earlier. Have I misunderstood something or is this a real paradox with the hypothesis?”

    i’ve been planning to look into the scandinavians further, but, unfortunately (and annoyingly), i just haven’t had the time. i WILL do it though — promise!

    two things that i think are probably important here:

    1) although the scandis must’ve starting outbreeding later than the english, once they did, they seem to have taken it very seriously — at least if the swedish are anything to go by. the swedes (and i’m guessing the danes and norwegians — and icelanders?) kept secular laws banning cousin marriage right up until the mid-1800s, so, unlike many other protestant nations that reversed the cousin marriage bans at the time of the reformation, the swedes — and maybe the other scandis — kept right on outbreeding. see my two posts on sweden here and here.

    2) remember, too, that there are regional differences in england wrt cousin marriage patterns — the center of outbreeding in england gravitates in the southeast (kent and other areas along the southern coast have probably experienced the longest amount of outbreeding in all of england). when you get to more peripheral areas — east anglia, cornwall, yorkshire and the north — there outbreeding has a shorter history (see for instance the posts on the quakers under “english” in the “mating patterns in europe series” below in the left-hand column), so this, too, might account for why the whole of england doesn’t come off as altruistic as the scandinavians. of course, there might be regional differences in sweden/denmark/norway, too, that i don’t know about. have to wait and see.

    or maybe scandinavia will prove to be a problem for the hypothesis. (~_^) we shall have to see! (^_^)

    Reply

  21. I’m doing a history project this semester and my area of focus is the North pre-1750, by which we mean Denmark, Sweden and Norway. At the moment I’m collecting some of the many links you, jayman have amassed. Like most HBD observers I tended to be interested mostly in the IQ part but this has turned out to be much much more interesting so thanks to both you and jayman.

    Thanks for the answer and I suspected that this was the case. A couple of questions if you will spare your time. Before I present this topic to my professor I just wanted to ask how sure you’re are about this hypothesis. To me it seems pretty legit but are there other scholars who have found similar connections?

    Also, do you have any idea why the Northern European states accepted the cousin marriage ban more so than countries closer to the church? I suspect they were already more pious and so it was a more natural fit for them than the more lavish of South Europe.

    Reply

  22. @hbd chick “l thought the scandis must’ve starting outbreeding later than the English, once they did, they seem to have taken it very seriously ” I spent a couple of months in Lund. It’s the the South of Sweden, province called Scania and a pretty good bet for where Beowulf fought Grendal. London is named after Lund and the town features in the beginning of “Wild Strawberries” where the hearse has a mishap. Scania has traditionally been the riches area of Sweden although I imagine the industrial areas are now richer. Anyway it’s the closest to the rest of Europe.
    While I was there I noticed that a number of people in the department were next door neighbors as well as childhood friends. But all their houses were very new. It turned out that they had all grown up together and done pretty well so they could all build new homes, which they did. The built new homes where they could all live right next each other, just in a different place.
    Also the college there had the student body divided up into “nations,” each one being a different part of Sweden. The socialized as “nations,” so they could always stay close to home folks.
    I guess it was my stay there that persuaded me that there was something really important about maintaining the village structure, although it would be many years before I figures out that the key was fertility.
    Of course things are different now and the Swedes are dying out right along with everybody else who outbreeds as defined by marrying people less related than eighth or tenth cousins or so.

    Reply

  23. @samuel – “Before I present this topic to my professor I just wanted to ask how sure you’re are about this hypothesis. To me it seems pretty legit but are there other scholars who have found similar connections?”

    i don’t know of any other researchers in biology or genetics looking at the question of how inbreeding and outbreeding might effect altruistic behaviors. some historians (see micheal mitterauer’s Why Europe? and avner grief’s “Family structure, institutions, and growth – the origin and implications of Western corporatism” and emmanuel todd) do come close to the idea, but from a strictly historical and not biological perspective — a couple of them seem to have put together mating patterns and family types with societal traits like the amount of corruption found, whether or not democracy is present, how much infighting happens between clans or tirbes, etc. — but they haven’t made a biological connection (which is not strange since they’re not biologists!).

    pretty much everything i’ve written about the topic here on my blog is very, VERY speculative! it’s basically me — and some other folks — brainstorming. (^_^) so, please — don’t take ANYTHING here as gospel. none of it has been tested or proven in any way!

    @samuel – “Also, do you have any idea why the Northern European states accepted the cousin marriage ban more so than countries closer to the church? I suspect they were already more pious and so it was a more natural fit for them than the more lavish of South Europe.”

    possibly, but i really don’t know. there appears to be a connection between the avoidance of cousin marriage and the medieval social-agricultural system known as manorialism which was found mostly in northern europe (mostly on the north european plain and a bit in southern england). the manor system reinforced the cousin marriage bans since the populace was under the rather strict watch of the manor lords and the priests who were connected to the manors. thus, the cousin marriage bans may have been more easily enforced in these areas than in places where the people were not attached to manors. see mitterauer’s Why Europe? for more on this.

    if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask! (^_^)

    Reply

  24. @samuel – Regarding cousin marriage and the Northern Europeans, perhaps manorialism provided more economic benefits. Or, perhaps the plague deluged family populations so much that people had to look outside their kin to even find a mate. Or, maybe the cousin marriage ban was just plain liberating, as in…”Oh cool, now I can marry the hot guy/chick next door!!!”

    Reply

  25. @Hbdchick
    I will try not to take too much advantage of you but thank you. If it gets too much I will try asking jayman as well and your readers seem quite bright so hopefully it won’t be too burdensome.

    “i don’t know of any other researchers in biology or genetics looking at the question of how inbreeding and outbreeding might effect altruistic behaviors”
    But aren’t there theorists who have talked of ethnic nepotism and genetic similiarity? My gues was that from reading these theories you applied it to European history. If such theories and theorists did inform you, what/who were they?

    With regards to this hypothesis of yours(and jayman) how sure would you be of its validity and impact on modernity? 50%, 75%? Because it seems pretty casual to me. Also what other factors have you found so far that play a role. Manorialism as I understand you interpretation undergirded the main factor(outbreeding) but what other factors do you think could have played a role?

    Robin
    Surely the cousin marriage ban was liberating but it would be so for all parties where it was enforced and not just in Northern Europe. But interesting point about the plague.

    I will consult some economists on manorialism and I might try to write Helmuth Nyborg if he can tell me anything about Scandinavian case. Naturally if I find something of interest I will write it here

    Reply

  26. @samuel – “With regards to this hypothesis of yours (and jayman) how sure would you be of its validity and impact on modernity? 50%, 75%?”

    oh, i don’t want to put a number on it like that, since nothing here has been tested. the whole idea of outbreeding resulting in less clannishness and, therefore, the selection for the sorts of behaviors we see in northwest europeans — high trust, low corruption, orientation towards the larger unrelated group (i.e. civic behaviors) — really is still a theory. i happen to think it sounds very right — or close to being right — but that’s just my opinion, and i could be wrong! (^_^) (everyone always loves their own idea. (~_^) )

    having said that, as misdreavus said on twitter last night, when the environment changes, the fitness landscape changes, and different behavioral traits will inevitably get selected for. changing the mating patterns drastically — from inbreeding to outbreeding (i.e. avoiding close cousin marriage) — would’ve changed the social environment, so it seems inevitable that different behavioral traits would’ve been more “fit” in this new social environment. THAT’S the theory — it seems logical to me, but it hasn’t been proven or disproven (yet!).

    in the 1980s, there was some amount of research done on/thinking about what effects inbreeding might have on the evolution of altruistic behaviors, but that seems to have stopped for some reason (i don’t know why). here are a few papers that came out of that research that you might be interested in:

    Effect of Inbreeding on the Evolution of Altruistic Behavior by Kin Selection – Michael J. Wade and Felix Breden (i blogged about this paper here.)

    An Experimental Study of Kin Selection – Michael J. Wade (my post here.)

    Inbreeding and the Evolution of Altruism Under Kin Selection: Effects on Relatedness and Group Structure – Marcy Uyenoyama

    – Inbreeding and the Evolution of Social Behavior – Richard E. Michod in The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives

    @samuel – “Also what other factors have you found so far that play a role. Manorialism as I understand you interpretation undergirded the main factor (outbreeding) but what other factors do you think could have played a role?”

    aside from the outbreeding (+manorialism), the removal (by execution!) from medieval society of a lot of violent people was probably another factor that resulted in big changes to european society. steven pinker talks about this in his book Better Angels, and both henry harpending @westhunter and peter frost @evoandproud have explored this idea. if you simply execute a lot of the violent individuals in your society for long enough, you will reduce the amount of violent genes in your society’s gene pool. you could very well get a more civilized — or, at least, less violent — society by doing that! i think there was more to it than that, but, like i said, i like my theory. (~_^)

    @samuel – “I will try not to take too much advantage of you but thank you.”

    no problem! you’re welcome. (^_^)

    Reply

  27. @hbd chick ” the removal (by execution!) from medieval society of a lot of violent people was probably another factor” Quite possibly. But I had understood that executions, witch hunts, torture and centralizing political power were renaissance, not medieval events. Absent a central government with a monopoly on violence if there was a quarrel they’d just fight it out. Upper classes might have a formal duel by knights, but there was no guarantee that the nice guy would finish first. Of course violent people might have got into more fights, so the effect would be the same.

    Reply

  28. Study says that countries with lower genetic distance are *more* likely to go to war, not less http://www.nber.org/papers/w15095 . Thought you might be interested.

    This makes no sense under kin selection. I expect there’s some cultural selection going on, with each country acting as a memetic “species” competing for the same biological resources. Competitive exclusion principle predicts there will be a conflict.

    Reply

  29. @laofmoonster “This makes no sense under kin selection.” Lower genetic distance equals more likely war. You know, that is my experience. In fact when I was in high school, our greatest rivals was a high school 30 miles away. Everybody thought it was funny, us being so close in so many ways … that is until the annual football game, which was routinely far the most violent of the year. It’s like you have your closest friends as well as your closest enemies. It’s something to do with interbreeding with them, which is more likely and thus more dangerous than interbreeding with those at a greater genetic distance … maybe.

    Reply

  30. comment from mangan thread referencing a book that might be of interest

    “Many years ago I read the Elucidarium of Honorius Augustodunensis (intended, more or less, as an idiot’s guide to Christian theology, written for Anglo-Saxon clergy early in the twelfth century).

    In the section on marriage, he says that one purpose it serves is to build a chain of love between families. In the context, he would seem to be supporting HBD Chick’s thesis.”

    Reply

  31. “Study says that countries with lower genetic distance are *more* likely to go to war, not less … This makes no sense under kin selection.”

    That’s just a function of geographical distance. Compare the proportion of internal to external euro wars after the development of long-range ships.

    Reply

  32. Jello Wrestling, now, huh? Is that a way to boost readership, draw more (much-deserved) attention to HBD, in particular, your awesome work?

    Anything for the cause, yes? ;P

    Reply

  33. @grey – “jello is very hard to wrestle”

    you’re telling me?! (~_^)

    (sometimes discussing hbd with the hbd-deniers feels like wrestling with jello. not literally of course. that would be…kinda gross!)

    Reply

  34. very interesting blog but are you going to write a book or a kind of thesis, summarizing all your research?

    Indeed, it would be easier to read if you write a systematic, organized, logically articulated book/thesis, than a blog.

    You don’t have to publish it, just use Word and make a PDF of it :)

    Thanks again for your work.

    Reply

  35. @rakbenadam – “are you going to write a book or a kind of thesis, summarizing all your research?”

    the short answer is: yes, some sort of ebook (or more likely an ebooklet).

    the longer answer is: i’ve been planning to write said ebook for at least half a year now — maybe it’s a full year — and not much progress has been made. so, please don’t hold your breath! (*^_^*)

    @rakbenadam – “Thanks again for your work.”

    you’re welcome! thanks for saying thanks. (^_^)

    Reply

  36. Hey again I’m Samuel from above. Just a couple of questions
    Why so few sources on Denmark? As far as I could tell you only have data for Sweden and Norway. Is there a reason for this? And do you have any sense of the change, in terms of cousin marriages, over time for a country that goes back to the Middle Ages or is it more speculation based on old laws and more recent data?

    Do you have any ideas about what to look for in our project? Seeing as you thought of this I guess you would be the one to ask. I was thinking of trying to find records or law of cousin marriages to see how it changed just as you have done. I think your hypothesis is fascinating but I’m struggling to think of a concrete way to handle this topic for my project.

    On a non-project related note, what would you do if some think tank or university came to you with all the money you needed to flesh out the missing pieces of your hypothesis? I ask because I wonder what sort of work would be needed to be done. Considering that you have some smart readers and even some in a position to take part in this project it might be a good idea to have a post on what needs to be done and what sort of data you need on different countries.

    Reply

  37. @samuel – “Why so few sources on Denmark? As far as I could tell you only have data for Sweden and Norway. Is there a reason for this? And do you have any sense of the change, in terms of cousin marriages, over time for a country that goes back to the Middle Ages or is it more speculation based on old laws and more recent data?”

    there’s really no good reason for why i haven’t looked into the danes so far apart from the fact that i just haven’t gotten around to you guys yet. sorry about that! (*^_^*) the danes ARE next on my list of populations to look at, and i shall try to get down to it and not get too distracted over the next couple of weeks, but i can’t make any promises. (~_^)

    the only little piece of historic evidence re. denmark that’s popped up on the blog here appears in this post — see the map. there’s some historic evidence collected by a lady named bertha phillpotts that extended kindreds were very important in denmark up until the 1600s. if so, this might suggest that close marriages lasted longer up in denmark than further down on the continent (like northern france and central germany) if (*IF*) the theory’s right that close matings lead to larger families (like extended families or kindreds or clans). that’s a lot of “ifs” there, so do keep that in mind. also, phillpotts hasn’t been exactly right about everything — the kindred was important for longer in england than she thought — so perhaps she didn’t have it quite right about the danes, either.

    unfortunately, i don’t have any feel for what the historical mating patterns of the danes might’ve been. =/ my guess — going by phillpotts and the little i know about sweden (and norway) — is that the avoidance of cousin marriage probably started there later, so therefore the survival of the kindreds until comparatively late. that could be wrong, though. further research is required! (^_^)

    @samuel – “Do you have any ideas about what to look for in our project? Seeing as you thought of this I guess you would be the one to ask. I was thinking of trying to find records or law of cousin marriages to see how it changed just as you have done. I think your hypothesis is fascinating but I’m struggling to think of a concrete way to handle this topic for my project.”

    something i did read recently about denmark (i HAVE started to look into it! (^_^) ) is that, unlike sweden (and norway, i think), there weren’t any secular laws in the medieval period in denmark regarding cousin marriage. apparently, this was because the regulation of marriage in medieval denmark was handled by the church. so, if there are any marriage laws or regulations out there from medieval denmark, they must be ecclesiastical or church laws. so you’d have to look for them there.

    if there are records from ecclesiastical courts in medieval denmark, this is where you might find cases regarding divorce or the annulments of marriages based upon consanguinity (i.e. close relatedness). this might be one of the best routes to get a sense of how much cousin marriage was happening. charles donahue did this for some of the ecclesiastical courts in northeastern france and southern england in the 1300 and 1400s and found that there were very few cases brought before the courts related to cousin marriage during those centuries, quite possibly reflecting the fact that there were simply very few cousin marriages. (see his ENORMOUS book: Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages.)

    you scandinavians have a tendency to keep very good records (great trait! (^_^) ) — at least the swedes do — so there might simply be family genealogies and marriage (church) records that can be gone through. that’s a bigger project, though, and probably the records would date to later in history (1600s, 1700s, etc.). still very interesting, of course. lotta work, though. although maybe some danish researchers have already published the results of such research. worth looking around for that!

    going back to earlier in the medieval period — old stories, sagas, epics can give indications of what people were up to. these aren’t filled with good numerical/statistical data, but if the sagas mention all the time that so-and-so was married to his cousin — well, that would be interesting to know.

    @samuel – “On a non-project related note, what would you do if some think tank or university came to you with all the money you needed to flesh out the missing pieces of your hypothesis?”

    if i had loads of money from some sort of think tank, i’d see to it that the sort of research which i outlined above for denmark was done for every country/population in the world. (^_^)

    if i had even more money, i’d get people to start looking for runs of homozygosity in the genomes of living and dead populations (i.e. from skeletal remains) to try to reconstruct what levels of inbreeding and outbreeding have been going on where and when. (^_^) (runs of homozygosity are good indicators of the levels of inbreeding in populations. see here for example.)

    if i had all the money in the world, i’d set people to work on trying to find out what the “genes for altruism” are (via gwas studies maybe?), try to discover if different populations have different types/frequencies of these, and see if those results correlated with inbreeding and outbreeding or not. (^_^)

    (and when that was all done, i’d throw a big wrap party for everyone involved in said projects — probably somewhere nice — like tahiti. (~_^) )

    Reply

  38. @Revyen for what it’s worth, there are some references linking fertility and kinship: (The link is always there when anybody looks.)
    On the Regulation of Populations of Mammals, Birds, Fish and Insects, Richard M. Sibly, Daniel Barker, Michael C. Denham, Jim Hope and Mark Pagel SCIENCE vol. 309 July 22, 2005 page 609

    An Association between Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples Agnar Helgason et al. SCIENCE vol. 329 no. 5864 February 8, 2008 page 813 – 816

    Human Fertility Increases with marital radius. Rodrigo Labouriau and António Amorim. GENETICS volume 178 January 2008 page 603

    Comment on “An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples,” Rodrigo Labouriau and António Amorim SCIENCE vol. 322, page 1634b December 12, 2008
    Sibly headed up a team in England looking at over a thousand animal studies; Helgason looked at Icelandic data. Labouriau looked at Danish data. He looked first at the most closely kin couples and only when encouraged looked at more distant cousins. Of course they all found the same thing.

    Reply

  39. Looking back to the water discussion in January, I refer to “After the Ice, A Global History” by Steven Mithen. In the begining of the book he traces the archaeology of the Fertile Crescent from the last Glacial Maximum to the begining of farming. This involves a period of abundant water, glacial drought and then a return to abundant water (which has now mostly gone). The first Wall of Jericho was built to stop mudslides. Taking his thesis, all three were required to establish real farming.

    Even in the Paleolithic, the archaeology suggests that there were large concentrations of people in place for the annual gazelle hunt so there was opportunity for outbreeding. During the dry phase, people were forced back into nomadic habits but he suggests that they returned the bones of their dead to the ancestral sedentary (but hunter gather) villages they occupied during the interglacial. So very strong family bonds and territorial claims. He is a digger rather than a blood sampler so no genetics.

    Reply

  40. In the Medolithic, Doggerland occupied the site of the Southern North Sea. There is evidence that it was populated, perhaps by I2. The Germanic speakers who may be the core outbreeders are found on the coasts facing Doggerland. This also explains why the Frisians speak a closer dialect to English than the Angles and Saxons from further East who invaded as the Romans left. Anglo-Saxon was just an elite language. English was already there.

    The break up of Doggerland may well have forced outbreeding. At least one Mesolitihic settlement in coastal Denmark shows a very hetrogenous cultural mixture and signs of communal violence. Perhaps signs of forced migration and associated outbreeding? So whatever the later Frankish pattern, there was already a structural dispostion in the population that led to outbreeding due to the forced migration from the (generally thought to be) very rich hunting and gathering grounds of Doggerland.

    This all supposes very ancient linguistic and genetic roots.

    Reply

  41. @Philip Owen “In the Medolithic, Doggerland occupied …” and so forth. What you say makes good sense and is consistent with all the facts I know. My own slant has been slightly different:

    My guess was that in paleolithic times, extending into neolithic times, people had no concept of group identity at all. A person was just a person. Kin recognition, which we share with animals, obviously was available, but beyond that – out at the third-through-fifth cousin level, which is critical for survival – they didn’t have a clue. We see heterogeneity that might have escaped their notice.

    The inter-group violence may simply a matter of “get off my property” not a a formulated tribal policy. When proper war and tribalism came along at the end of the neolithic, of course civilization began and hasn’t gone away quite yet. Keeping gene pool size down would have the effect, still pretty much ignored or unknown, of letting a population survive long enough to develop tools one person could not invent alone.

    The reason the Doggerlanders survived when no other Mesolithic culture did might have been because the north sea drove them apart rather than that it pushed people together.

    Just a thought. I do like your idea and the way you martial your facts.

    Reply

  42. Hello HBD chick – i just came across your blog in the last couple of weeks and love it. This subject is, and has always been, interesting to me. Question – what about native Americans? What kind of ‘inbreeding’ do you see in their culture? It seems like it is pretty high, and when i see reports like the one i saw last month on Real Sports (HBO) about some NA girls from the northwest, it really gets me thinking about that topic (watch the segment if you can find it). It seems their inbreeding should be high, thus the ‘we won’t leave the reservation’ line of thinking. What say you? Thanks, and keep up the good work!

    Reply

  43. “if there are records from ecclesiastical courts in medieval denmark, this is where you might find cases regarding divorce or the annulments of marriages based upon consanguinity (i.e. close relatedness). this might be one of the best routes to get a sense of how much cousin marriage was happening. charles donahue did this for some of the ecclesiastical courts in northeastern france and southern england in the 1300 and 1400s and found that there were very few cases brought before the courts related to cousin marriage during those centuries, quite possibly reflecting the fact that there were simply very few cousin marriages.”

    So is this the methodology used to to figure out the amount of cousin marriages?

    And how far back does this data go?

    Reply

  44. How would one measure the ethnocentrism, if that’s the right word, of a group? You can measure the level of cousin marriage and the genetic relatedness and so on, but that won’t tell you about behavior. Obviously the behavior of Italians will probably look different than the behavior of Scandinavians, but how to measure that? Tendency to live in homogenous/diverse neighborhoods? How often a group tends to cluster at certain colleges? Or send their kids to private schools? I suppose the ultimate is tendency to marry within group, but how much will that alone tell you? I was thinking about this after reading about Cliven Bundy and then Donald Sterling, both “racists” but in very different ways. Bundy seemed to have the typical tin-ear paternalism of some whites toward blacks, whereas Sterling’s seemed more from the gut. So I came up with this: tendency to have other-race nannies. Blacks been a part of white domestic arrangements for a long time, whereas I wonder how many Jews would rely more on extended family and be very resistent to the idea of bringing blacks into the intimate household sphere. Part of the Jewish policing of white paternalism may be a kind of hygienic aversion to any kind of intimate/hierarchical relation with non-kin. The family of the Krims, whose children were killed by a Puerto Rican nanny, tried to treat the nanny as part of the household (taking the nanny on vacation) but also as an employee, creating a predictable confusion. OK, now I’m talking out of my rear, but I don’t know of many Jews among my acquaintances who have nannies. The one family that did had a white/non-Jewish nanny.

    Reply

  45. I am the author of quite a few works showing that IQ related allele frequencies vary significantly across populations and predict average intellectual levels. They also tend to cluster, that is the presence of an high IQ allele predicts the presence of other high IQ alleles. Since this debate keeps going on by mysteriously and largely ignoring my work (which I presented in London in April) it would be nice if some kind of kind soul could spend the time to read it and comment on it: The paper can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7hcznd4DKKQUTgyQXhwRmZTLVU/edit?usp=sharing

    Reply

  46. I know about that study but it’s a bit fishy for various reasons I’ve cited elsewhere.However, let’s hope the results will be replicated. I honestly don’t understand all this media hype about Wade’s book. What’s new about it? It says things that people knew already 10 years ago and is not up to date on new research. It even claims that no genes have been identified which influence intelligence, which is nonsense.If one has read the Bell Curve and a few other papers, there is no need to read Wade’s book. I personally haven’t read it and never will.It tells a lot about our society where a book written by someone with little qualification to do so becomes so popular just because the author is relatively well known.

    Reply

  47. At one point I asked a liberal friend, “How come you are all for immigration while the immigrants are all more conservative?” He said, “Immigrants come because they share out American values; they only make us more liberal.” I now read that there are 200,000 girls at risk for female circumcision in the US. Hmm.

    Reply

  48. This is just a test comment (I think I’ve figured out what’s up with WordPress). Feel free to delete after a day or so…

    Reply

  49. Dear hbdchick,

    Would you happen to know if Asians are underrepresented or overrepresented in SF Tech based as corrected for IQ?

    Example by analogy, second chart here: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/philip-dick-preschool-and-schrodingers-cat/

    While there’s various arguments that could influence the interpretation, the simplest explanation is that direct cash transfers to blacks are inflating their incomes against IQ. At the very least, the poorest whites shouldn’t be as smart or smarter than the richest blacks.

    If Europeans dominate SF tech CEO positions (true AFAIK) and are racist, then Asians should be similarly shifted away from their natural representation,.

    Reply

  50. Interesting site you have here. History, anthropology, human genetics, etc., are all hobbies of mine, or at least they were at one time before I had to put them all on the back burner. Great blogroll too by the way.

    Reply

  51. @Grey

    re. a comment you made – is it possible that the attraction of ‘the farmer females carried some advantageous alleles that allowed selection in place’ is due to lactase retention amongst H? Could we not suppose that that adaptation may well have occurred amongst those milking cows since free milk is the only perk of such a job and is it not likely that girls milked cows and helped themselves to free milk for as long as possible thereby pushing the limits of lactose digestion to the max? Or is the time frame for that idea all wrong, had lactase retention occurred much earlier among the ertebol?

    Reply

  52. Have you ever looked at adoption? Particularly extra familial? It is striking how W.E.I.R.D. the practice is, and how modern.. I never understood it, especially people who would forego their own years of fertility to adopt.. It seems crazy and almost certainly dysgenic (but of course it’s”wrong” to say that).. Like a bird voluntarily taking in a cuckoo egg.. Some adoptive parents will even make comments about “their” kids, like ” oh she gets x or y trait from me”.. wtf are they nuts? She doesn’t get anything from you, she not your child.

    Reply

  53. @Kate

    “re. a comment you made – is it possible that the attraction of ‘the farmer females carried some advantageous alleles that allowed selection in place’ is due to lactase retention amongst H? Could we not suppose that that adaptation may well have occurred amongst those milking cows since free milk is the only perk of such a job and is it not likely that girls milked cows and helped themselves to free milk for as long as possible thereby pushing the limits of lactose digestion to the max? Or is the time frame for that idea all wrong, had lactase retention occurred much earlier among the ertebol?”

    good questions i don’t know the answers to. i mostly throw out ideas as bait in the hope of catching some data off people who do know :)

    my theory on LP is it is more likely to have come from outside and expanded dramatically in NW Europe because a) crop yields were marginal and b) there wasn’t enough pasturage for large enough herds to live off meat so the combination of some cereals mixed with milk became a regional staple. time will tell if there’s an element of truth in that or not but yes if correct it could be the farmer milk maids.

    personally my thinking on the possible selection in place of post-squish farmer females (H?) is related to breast milk. it’s still a lot of jumbled thoughts but it seems to me there were two farmer phenotypes, an east Asian one and a Eurasian one and the East Asian one spread more completely than the Eurasian one (due imo to the Eurasian farmers getting partially squished by an early steppe or steppe-related incursion) but i think the squished farmer phenotype (SLC etc) still spread despite the squishing due to some significant advantage. if mixed east Asian / Eurasian people don’t get a double advantage then i wonder if both farmer groups had the same advantage i.e. they both used the same mechanism, so you only get one or the other and EDAR is also connected to breast milk.

    seems to me if human brains grow 95% between ages 0-3 then breast milk must be one of the most critical nodes in human evolution so i’m partly working back from that to where it might have been significant and the farmer transition seems the most likely.

    Reply

  54. The creator of Sherlock Holmes on EBD (Equine Bio-Diversity):

    For myself I am fond of horses, and to have four hundred of them, of every age and shade and character, all under my own hands, was a very great pleasure to me. They were from Pomerania for the most part, though some were from Normandy and some from Alsace, and it amused us to notice that they differed in character as much as the people of those provinces. We observed also, what I have often proved since, that the nature of a horse can be told by his colour, from the coquettish light bay, full of fancies and nerves, to the hardy chestnut, and from the docile roan to the pig-headed rusty-black. — The Exploits of Brigadier Gerard, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

    Reply

  55. Why does outbreeding lead to altruism? I’d naively expect them to be Randian selfish assholes, since that’s kind of the evolutionary default.

    Reply

  56. @ckp – “Why does outbreeding lead to altruism?”

    i don’t think it automatically leads to (a non-familial sort of) altruism.

    what i think, or guess, happened in the case of nw europe is that, once the outbreeding opened up the genetic ties between individuals in the population — for instance, first cousins just shared the number of genes in common that you’d expect in a randomly mating population, as opposed to nearly twice as many in an extremely inbreeding population (like the arabs) — once that happened, then it started to pay off in genetic terms for individuals to cooperate with strangers/unrelated individuals. or maybe it didn’t pay off so much to only cooperate with family members.

    once that happened, individuals who were able to trust others (strangers) and who were trustworthy saw their fitness increase. those who weren’t trustworthy, they lost out. they were probably on the receiving end of some altruistic punishment for not following society’s new rules.

    in other words, thanks to the outbreeding, the selection pressures changed and a different set of individuals were able — and did — succeed in the world. the selection pressures changed from the payoff being connected to helping your extended family (’cause you were so closely related to them) to the payoff being connected to helping and working with unrelated members of society.

    i’ve described the possible process as a two-staged rocket: first the mating patterns change and then the new selection pressures start to work.

    Reply

  57. @ckp

    “Why does outbreeding lead to altruism? I’d naively expect them to be Randian selfish assholes, since that’s kind of the evolutionary default.”

    What hbd chick said plus there’s also the possibility that the balance between net cost/benefit can change over time i.e. a closely inbred population turning into one where everyone is on average say a 4th or 6th cousins might create an environment where altruism extends wider (which would make sense) but beyond a certain population size the average level of relatedness may become so low you get a population that is excessively selfish. (i don’t think it’s an accident that the countries which always top the “best places to live” charts tend to be smaller.)

    and/or

    time may be a factor. If the out breeding environment changes selective pressures on types of altruism then if out breeding takes place slowly over centuries then there may be enough time for wider altruism to expand but if it happens rapidly there might not be enough time for that to happen so two populations equally out bred but one over six centuries and one over one century might not behave the same way.

    (also it’s not so much that out breeding leads to altruism. altruism is very strong among in breeding populations. it’s more that the *width* of the circle of altruism varies. so at one extreme you have people with a small circle of altruism and at the other extreme you have people with a wide circle of altruism. i’d also guess the strength of altruism may vary i.e. smaller and stronger circles of altruism versus wider but weaker circles of altruism). the former would have an advantage in small scale activity and the latter would have an advantage in larger scale activity – which again would make sense)

    Reply

  58. @Greying Wanderer: concerning out breeding and altruism, here is an unhappy thought. I hope it’s not true. My liberal kith say “the mountain tops are blue,” by which they mean on a map in which the population is represented by a peak and politics represented by color with red being republican and democrats being blue (whatever happened to liberals being pinko’s?) the high peaks are blue. Liberals are an urban phenomenon. And of course the fundamental lust of liberals is for inclusiveness, and that goes for mating choice. Well gene pools are bigger in the cities. If you have too much ancestral diversity in a population, that population will eventually die. Since your going to die out anyway, nature has no use for you and in fact since you endanger the whole species nature needs you out of there. Nature takes the long view but cannot see the big picture. People can see the big picture but never take the long view.
    Anyhoo,
    Here’s us and there’s nature out to kill us off. Easiest way is to make us all liberals, inclusive, tolerant, hating marrying cousins, and wearing Birkinstocks. We have no choice but to be liberals and marry out.
    Sorry. Tell me I’m wrong. Lie if you have to.

    Reply

  59. @hbdchick @greying wanderer: Thanks for the explanations! Here’s one final thing though:

    >(also it’s not so much that out breeding leads to altruism. altruism is very strong among in breeding populations. it’s more that the *width* of the circle of altruism varies. so at one extreme you have people with a small circle of altruism and at the other extreme you have people with a wide circle of altruism. i’d also guess the strength of altruism may vary i.e. smaller and stronger circles of altruism versus wider but weaker circles of altruism). the former would have an advantage in small scale activity and the latter would have an advantage in larger scale activity – which again would make sense)

    It was my belief that the distinction is one of kind rather than magnitude – that is, altruism towards close kin was a different thing (involving different mental modules?) to reciprocal altruism towards non-kin. The former would arise from simple Hamiltonian kin-selection (you help out copies of your genes directly), the latter from complicated game-theoretic adaptions. It’s not that you actually care about how many genes are passed on by the non-kin you’re dealing with; it’s to make sure the interactions follow sustained cooperation in an Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (e.g. tit-for-tat, punishment for defections).

    So I’m not sure if you can get to this kind of altruism by fiddling with kin-altruism. Or maybe both adaptions are there in everyone, but when you decrease the emphasis on the former, the latter pays off more?

    Reply

  60. @ckp – “Or maybe both adaptions are there in everyone, but when you decrease the emphasis on the former, the latter pays off more?”

    yes. that’s what i’ve been thinking/wondering. if you reduce the kin selection pressures (by avoiding systematic, long-term inbreeding), maybe you (can/might) increase the reciprocal altruism pressures. -?- dunno.

    Reply

  61. @grey – “it’s more that the *width* of the circle of altruism varies. so at one extreme you have people with a small circle of altruism and at the other extreme you have people with a wide circle of altruism.”

    yeah. here’s the idea i’ve been toying with lately: that the inbred groups with “narrow” circles of altruism are very simply just more selfish in general (and vice versa for outbred pops).

    steve sailer always likes to quote this pashtun proverb (as well as others! =P ):

    “When the floodwaters reach your chin, put your son beneath your feet.”

    so, when your group is really inbred, you’re really the most selfish. YOU are first and foremost, by a long shot! then close relatives, then more distant relatives, and maybe eventually — but probably not really — distant strangers.

    i haven’t thought this through, so i’m not able to communicate it quite right yet. (*^_^*) what keeps coming to my mind, though, is something that fischer relates in Albion’s Seed on how the wild backcountry scots-irish of appalachia are so violent (impusively violent, i’d say) — and obviously that’s a good trait to have in a literally clannish society — but it also spills over into domestic life with the scots-irish men often hitting their wives — but, then, being really sorry for it afterwards!

    so, i’ve been wondering if (some of) the altruistic behaviors being selected for aren’t just: 1) very general (e.g. become more impulsively violent), and 2) more “selfish” in nature.

    dunno. still trying to work this out. (^_^)

    Reply

  62. @ hbd chick: re “what keeps coming to my mind, though, is something that Fischer relates in Albion’s Seed on how the wild backcountry scots-irish of Appalachia are so violent (impulsively violent, i’d say)”

    My such a difference point of view makes. Here I am back-country Scotch Irish (that’s what my mother called us, and she was Scotch Irish and I’m sticking with it) on both sides and all the way back although hardly a pure specimen. I am doing something that I regard as totally altruistic. I’m trying to get people to avert a calamity that I shall not live to see.

    Beyond that, I reckon that a million American women will cry themselves to sleep tonight because they can’t get pregnant. I know what’s wrong. But can I get anybody else to lift a finger? Maybe one out of over a hundred I have personally contacted, (and thousands of visitors to my blog) and even that one I think is interested because of the (non-trivial) intellectual challenge. Nobody, but nobody has ever said, “Oh, the poor things. That’s terrible. And it’s not their fault, is it?”

    OK, I’m outbred as all get out. BUT I’m still Scotch Irish. I’m just mostly outbred between different Scotch Irish lines, so I ought to be impulsive and selfish if there’s anything genetic to it at all. But no, I find myself thinking “Are all you people so selfish that you have no pity for the world outside yourselves? Is there nothing that you value but your own short term self interest?”

    And I’ve been hammering at the issue – which I still do not totally understand, but I keep refining – for fifteen years. If “ambition should be made of sterner stuff” then I would guess that “impulsive should be made of more fickle stuff.”

    What you say does make sense. I won’t deny that. But speaking as an inherently violent, impulsive country boy, its not my experience. (Touch of irony in that last sentence, of course.)

    I don’t really think everybody is that selfish. I don’t know what’s going on. If I had to guess I’d say it was herd instinct. Nobody wants to wander out there alone. Everybody wants to be part of a group. My mother had one word of utter contempt I ever heard her use: sheep. I suspect that is the greatest strength and the only weakness of the Scotch Irish. We aren’t sheep. And we aren’t lambs either; I’ll but into that.

    But I can’t swear to it. No hard data.

    Reply

  63. @Linton

    “Here’s us and there’s nature out to kill us off. Easiest way is to make us all liberals, inclusive, tolerant, hating marrying cousins, and wearing Birkinstocks. We have no choice but to be liberals and marry out.
    Sorry. Tell me I’m wrong. Lie if you have to.”

    Nature isn’t trying to kill us.

    Reply

  64. @Greying wanderer re: Nature isn’t trying to kill us.
    You remember Catch 22? Yosarian would say, “Why is everybody trying to kill me?”
    “There aren/t trying to kill you Yosarian”
    “Then why are they shooting at me with guns?”
    So, “Then why doesnt nature give us enough babies?”

    Reply

  65. @ greying wanderer
    @ Greyingwanderer: Sorry. Don’t know what happened to my manners. I wrote one reply that – happily – seems to have vanished. When I meant to say was “thank you.”
    BTW did you ever look at Calhoun’s mouse utopia?

    Reply

  66. @hbdchick

    “so, i’ve been wondering if (some of) the altruistic behaviors being selected for aren’t just: 1) very general (e.g. become more impulsively violent), and 2) more “selfish” in nature.”

    I think the mechanism always aims to produce selfish (from a genetic point of view) behavior but as the mechanism relies on chance and probability it doesn’t always work out right in the short term – although for the same reason it should always work out in the long enough term.

    If you take the base mechanism as random chaos (mutations) filtered by the selective environment then traits for impulsive violence should appear naturally in all populations. The cost/benefit of the trait in a particular environment will decide how attractive it is. You see this in violent environments today – the more violent the environment the more attractive violent men are to women as getting beaten once a month by a boyfriend is better than being prey to every violent man every day. The less violent the environment the worse that trade-off becomes until it flips completely.

    (Also from a genetic point of view in a violent environment a woman needs her sons to be violent.)

    In a clannish environment cousin-altruism may be beneficial and any broader altruism be deleterious – unless the clans are completely isolated in which case broader altruism is neutral because it can only effect the clan as there is no-one else. In a partially out bred environment cousin-altruism may become deleterious and region-altruism become positive but also any broader altruism beyond region, say national or universal may be deleterious *unless* the regional population are mostly isolated in which case it won’t matter as national or universal altruism only applies to the region so it would be neutral.

    So region-altruism or beyond in a mostly isolated clan environment or national-altruism or beyond in a mostly isolated region environment or universal altruism in a mostly isolated nation environment has no negative effect so they are *all* likely to appear in all populations to be differentially selected for and against.

    So for practical reasons universal-altruism in a mostly isolated homogenous population doesn’t display as universal altruism and so wouldn’t be negative. In those conditions It might even display as improved region altruism and be beneficial. It only actually becomes universal when time and technology e.g. transport, mass media etc give it the opportunity to be universal at which point it becomes deleterious (at least in a blank slate world).

    so

    The intended purpose of all traits is to be beneficial (i.e. genetically selfish).
    There is no way of knowing in advance which traits will be beneficial in all possible environments.
    So randomly create traits that do anything and everything and let probability sort them out.
    Traits that are benign in one environment can be malign in another and neutral in a third.

    Once the (necessary) underlying randomness of it all (allied with an infinite number of ever-changing selective filters) is fully accepted then it’s all quite straightforward really.

    #

    Also

    If ego has 8 genes, 2 siblings and 8 1st cousins then ego has 24 genes in total 16 of which exist outside of ego’s body. If you shift the pov of ego to be the family, clan, tribe, nation then the individuals within are like the cells of a body and altruism is like a person’s arm holding a shield to protect their chest.

    Reply

  67. @Linton

    I think what you need to do is accept some people don’t want babies and some do and that trying to persuade the first group to be different isn’t going to work.

    Instead focus on those who do want babies and collect together all the pro-fertility stuff you can find including all the genetic stuff that would be ignored on PC sites e.g. the 3rd cousin thing.

    The people who do want babies haunt fertility sites – focus on them.

    Secondly there are those who are 50/50 by nature but nudged into the anti-natal side by various anti-natal memes.

    so

    1) take downs of the common anti-natal memes
    2) collection of fertility maximizing info

    #

    “BTW did you ever look at Calhoun’s mouse utopia?”

    Utopia requires healthy selective pressures even if artificial.

    Reply

  68. @ Greying wanderer:
    “The people who do want babies haunt fertility sites – focus on them.” Thanks. Good suggestion. Don’t know why I didn’t think of that.
    “utopia” was Calhoun’s word. It might help you find the article (Proceedings of the Royal Society) on Google scholar. I think his title was something like Death Squared. I won’t defend his use of the word. All he did was make a really big cage, provide ample room, food, water and bedding mateial and count mice for a few years. Their numbers never reached 1,000. The last live birth was on day 600. Then they died out. He blamed it on psychological factors, and indeed the mice did start acting strangely. On the strentgh of his theory that it was social he predicted world melt down in the 1990’s. That didn’t happen. I’m the only other game in town. I sure am glad I don’t have to raise all those mice. Can you imagine the stink?
    Thanks again for the suggestion. Did you have any specific sites in mind?

    Reply

  69. @Linton
    I read the mice utopia experiment. i think it shows that if you get rid of natural selection then you need to replace it with an artificial version.

    I don’t have any specific links in mind i just recall people i knew in the past who were trying for a baby would haunt fertility sites so that might be a better target audience.

    Reply

  70. @Greying Wanderer: “I read the mice utopia experiment. i think it shows that if you get rid of natural selection then you need to replace it with an artificial version.” Good point in the long run. On the other hand 600 days seems pretty fast for a significant change in the effect of selection, particularly since there was – to the best of Calhoun’s ability – no big environmental change; just more mice together. My hat is off to you for running down the reference. Good show.

    “I don’t have any specific links in mind i just recall people i knew in the past who were trying for a baby would haunt fertility sites so that might be a better target audience.” When I looked it seemed mostly about support groups and fertility experts looking for patients rather than discussions of cause, but yours is still a great idea and I shall not give it up.

    Reply

  71. Are you white or asian? Are you Germanic? Are you American? If it’s not too off-putting for you can you tell us where your ancestors are from?(England, Wales, Bavaria, whatever?)

    Reply

  72. @steven – “Are you white or asian? Are you Germanic? Are you American? If it’s not too off-putting for you can you tell us where your ancestors are from? (England, Wales, Bavaria, whatever?)”

    i’m white. not germanic (although there might be a dash of germanic from the middle ages…so might be a dash). i am american, although not as american as some americans — my ancestors didn’t come over on the mayflower or anything like that. (~_^) one of my parents was actually an immigrant to the u.s. and my grandparents on the other side were, so i’m a 1.5 generation american. (both sides of my family came from the same european country.)

    my ancestors are all from one of the peripheral european nations — one of the p.i.i.g.s. i think i’ve mentioned before on the blog that my religious background is roman catholic (although i’m an agnostic now), so that might narrow it down for you a bit. i’d rather not say exactly what my ethnic background is, because i don’t want to be watsoned. not that there’s any great career or anything to be destroyed, but still…can’t be too careful!

    (^_^)

    Reply

  73. I’m going to leave this here because it needs to be said and I want people to refer to it:

    A lot of people talk about the determining factors behind national success. Lots of factors have been invoked. The HBD-aware invoke (of course) average IQ, but many countries in the world show that that’s not enough. So other factors get invoked. Due to the correlational nature of these, assessing causation is difficult – unless you use behavioral traits, which are (sorry blank and half slatists) largely inherited.

    Here’s some of the factors that don’t matter:

    Size (see Japan, Finland, and any number of small dysfunctional countries)
    Diversity *per se* (e.g. Switzerland, Albania, China)
    Resources (e.g. Arab oil states, S. Korea)

    All that matters are two things: high average IQ, and high-trust people. You can even have several high-trust populations (e.g. Switzerland). And that’s all.

    “Diversity” becomes a problem, really, only when there’s one or more clannish populations in the mix. Virtually ALL the “diversity” problems currently being experienced by Western countries is conflict between the non-clannish base populations and one of more clannish minorities. Switzerland manages fine with three different (relatively) non-clannish populations. So does, for that matter, Belgium and even France (Occitania – future discussion). Meanwhile, “homogenous” Italy, Albania, and Greece flounder.

    Size, to the extent that it correlates with problems, only occurs because large states tend to encompass multiple populations – often clannish ones. So, trouble sometimes ensues. But size is not inherently a problem so long as the state manages to be primarily comprised of high-trust groups.

    When you look around the world, you can see that average IQ and non-clannish (or at least high-trust, in the case of the Japanese and other similar “in-betweeners” – possibly includes Singapore and Taiwan) people make the difference. All the rest stem from these. These two things can explain 100% of the variance (haven’t checked, but maybe I will).

    Of course, the challenge is that, with the possible exception of the Semai, there are no low-IQ non-clannish/high-trust populations, which are basically confined to NW Europe.

    It’s helpful to talk about this, to quality check these ideas, but it’s hard to ignore the above realities.

    Reply

  74. @Jayman Your analysis of the success of nations is eloquent, data heavy, and very strong. Of course by now I would have expected no less of you. And of course you know what I’m about to say: I’m not sure what success means for a nation, but I have a pretty good hunch what failure means; that’s when there is a regime change and all the principles of the prior regime are murdered. That happens only because of demographic collapse of the elite. (The evidence is complex and I have brought attention to it before.) Demographic collapse happens only because people stop marrying cousins. (The evidence is massive.) Whether a high-trust population is less likely to marry cousins I leave up to anyone who has a definition for high-trust.
    Well you did invite discussion.

    Reply

  75. @Jayman

    My impression of China is that is a low trust culture. Where is the evidence of high trust in China?

    Reply

  76. @Sam:

    China is definitely low-trust. I used China to illustrate that even a fairly ethnically homogenous country (and at 92% Han, it basically is) can have major problems. This flies in the face of people who claim diversity is a problem in and of itself.

    Reply

  77. @Jayman
    Ok I misunderstood your point and I agree although I think what people really mean when they talk about diversity being a problem is diversity of people of very different cultures.(typical first world mixed with typical third world). I live in Denmark and people rarely complain about diversity in reference to Germans or Swedes. It is always understood that the diversity problem is about certain groups.

    The reason people hide behind “diversity is a problem” is because it gives you some leeway so as not to appear racist because by making this claim you are not singling out specific ethnic groups but saying foreign group is a problem. Nonetheless it is better to state the truth outright because rhetoric, even if initially used as a cover, can eventually lead to muddled thinking and open you up to legitimate criticisms. One might be able to get away with talking of high trust and low trust cultures instead.

    Reply

  78. Trust helps, no doubt about that, but IQ is still an order of magnitude more important. They shouldn’t be portrayed as being in any way equivalent in importance.

    Name me one country that is high-IQ but poor, with the obvious exception of those economies were distorted and held back by central planning. I don’t believe there are any.

    To the contrary, there are plenty of low-trust but high-IQ societies that successfully converged into the ranks of the developed countries (all of the European Mediterranean). China and Eastern Europe are now also converging now that they’ve thrown off the shackles of economic illiteracy that once bound them at a systemically lower economic level than the developed world.

    Low trust and high corruption does lead to somewhat different economic structures (e.g. more family firms, as in Italy) and no doubt has some specific negative effects (e.g. more inefficiency, mafia influence) but their impact is marginal in the overall scheme of things.

    Reply

  79. @AKarlin:

    “Name me one country that is high-IQ but poor, with the obvious exception of those economies were distorted and held back by central planning. I don’t believe there are any.”

    That doesn’t come out of thin air. The clannish, low-trust high IQ nations are mostly ex-communist ones, but as Staffan would say, we can’t adjust for their entire history.

    “To the contrary, there are plenty of low-trust but high-IQ societies that successfully converged into the ranks of the developed countries (all of the European Mediterranean).”

    That’s very questionable, to say the least (Greece…).

    “Low trust and high corruption does lead to somewhat different economic structures (e.g. more family firms, as in Italy) and no doubt has some specific negative effects (e.g. more inefficiency, mafia influence) but their impact is marginal in the overall scheme of things.”

    Well, since most of the examples are ex-communist states, that’s kinda like saying the problem with drinking bleach isn’t the awful smell or burn, but the awful taste…. :\

    Reply

  80. The factor of intelligence is limited. As I’ve argued on my blog, there is a breaking point around 97 at which you can’t maintain a civilized society but there is also a very clear case of diminishing returns above that point,

    http://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/the-iq-breaking-point-how-civilized-society-is-maintained-or-lost/

    Whether you think human rights is part of the concept of success or not, it is not some airy fairy thing that doesn’t relate to economics. It’s obvious that as history progresses we compete more and more with ideas, new ideas. They need rights and freedoms do flourish. And I think this is a better measure of trust than asking if people can be trusted, which can be interpreted in many ways. In a society where everyone has these rights and respect that others have them, that’s when you have real trust. And that’s when you think and speak freely and have ideas that boost the economy.

    In this sense we will not see countries like Russia or even China emerge as anything but moderately successful in the long run, economically or otherwise. Russia oil and gas, and the Chinese, while understanding the problem better are still unable to do much about it. To illustrate, here is an interesting quote from Martha Nussbaum,

    “Citizenship education” typically takes the form of analyzing a problem, proposing several possible solutions, and then demonstrating how the one chosen by government is the right one for Singapore. In universities, some instructors attempt a more genuinely open approach, but the government has a way of suing professors for libel if they criticize the government in class, and even a small number of high-profile cases chills debate.

    That’s Singapore with a national average IQ of 107.

    These countries are dependent on Northwestern ideas. What they add to the mix is efficiency, but that efficiency is also derived from the system that disables free thoughts.

    Liberal blogger Santi Tafarella has an interesting post on this. He fails to grasp the genetics involved but he comes stumbling close to sounding like a HBD proponent sometimes,

    “Mind wells are vastly more important to a nation’s long-term prospects than oil wells or pools of cheap labor. They are, ultimately, what drives economic and human progress.

    And Europe has lots of them too.

    But outside Japan and South Korea, this is not true of the rest of the Far East. And it will need them sooner rather than later. It is only then that the future will be truly bright, not just for China and the Far East generally, but for humanity as a whole.”

    Full post here: https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/china-vs-america-advantage-the-united-states-because-of-its-mind-wells/

    Reply

  81. @Staffan:

    Quite well said!

    “The factor of intelligence is limited. As I’ve argued on my blog, there is a breaking point around 97 at which you can’t maintain a civilized society but there is also a very clear case of diminishing returns above that point”

    Indeed, intelligence alone is limited in its effect in granting a healthy state. But I maintain that the fundamental reason for the apparent IQ cutoff is this:

    intelligence and corruption | hbd chick

    The appearance of low corruption (and hence high trust) doesn’t seem to happen until you reach an average IQ of about 95. Of course, as we see (e.g., China, Russia), having a high average IQ is no guarantee of this, but it doesn’t seem to happen without it.

    Which goes back to my earlier point: success depends on high average IQ + high trust.

    Reply

  82. Perhaps the amount of outbreeding required for high trust corresponds to a reduced level of homozygosity that ensures an IQ around 95-97 or above?

    The fact that East Asian can be smart and also corrupt is perhaps just a matter of other factors that select for IQ, such as scarcity of resources. After all Japan is on top having both outbred and at some point been exposed to the harsh environment of central and northern Asia.

    Reply

  83. So I don’t understand what is being said about China and Singapore. China’s convergence will stop dead in its tracks at some point ? Singapore, which is comparable to Luxembourg, will do what ? Degenerate into a middle-income country ? How about Taiwan ? It’s right now comparable with Japan and South Korea.

    Reply

  84. And Singapore is usually rated about as uncorrupt as any Scandinavian country. But maybe Singapore uses draconian punishments against corruption. But Hong Kong is not as highly rated but still comfortably within the western range, and no draconian punishments. Did only the self-selected high-trust Chinese settle in HK and Singapore ?

    Reply

  85. @pseudoerasmus:

    Well, full disclosure: HBD Chick’s theory appears to breakdown a bit in Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea (also Finland, Iceland).

    That said, in the case of Singapore and Taiwan, initial sorting likely had a big impact, especially in the former.

    As well, Singapore seems to reduce corruption by having a very draconian system (anecdotally, I understand it’s very rule bound there). Nepotism does not “pay” there, so it is reduced, apparently.

    I suspect a similar process may have been in play in Japan, leading to what we see there. Of course, it’s harder to imagine how it would have been enforced in pre-modern times.

    My understanding is that Hong Kong is pretty damned corrupt (think Triad gangs).

    On selective migration, note that sorting has a much bigger impact on those that leave than those who remain behind (depending on what size fraction depart). If, for example, 10,000 mainland Chinese, having an average IQ of 130, left and set up shop somewhere, their descendants will have an average IQ 120, but you wouldn’t see much impact on the average IQ of the mainland population.

    Reply

  86. Think Triads ??? In the Corruption Perceptions Index ( http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results ), Hong Kong rates a score of 75, comparable with Japan, Belgium, the USA, and the UK.

    Yes, Singapore has draconian punishments for many things (bribery, drug trafficking, etc.), but so does its neighbour Malaysia and it’s considerably below Singapore in corruption rankings.

    Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong do not have draconian punishments.

    Anyway, maybe corruption, as a single factor, is not that great an instrument for trust. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0095555 tests some of Fukuyama’s ideas using social survey evidence from East Asia, with Australia as a comparator. See particularly Table 1. Compared with Australia, none of the East Asian countries looks terribly high-trust. Japan does best in “trust in strangers” but Hong Kong and Taiwan are better at trusting foreigners & peoples of different religions. Anyway the paper has many interesting patterns of trust by age, income, etc.

    That said, in the case of Singapore and Taiwan, initial sorting likely had a big impact, especially in the former

    IQ-sorting, I can believe. Trust-sorting, I don’t believe for a minute, mostly because Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan are obviously not high-trust societies ! In these Chinese societies, the corporate structure tends to be either small-medium, family-owned firms (Taiwan), or large corporations dominated by single families (Singapore, Hong Kong). In the case of Singapore, despite being a free-market icon, many of the publically share-traded private companies are GLCs (government-linked corporations). That is, a family is the largest shareholder, but with a significant government ownership stake. That doesn’t make them corrupt necessarily, but the state had a hand in national economic development. Since the Chinese control most of the industry in Southeast Asia it’s really the same in Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, etc., except that in those countries the clannish ownership structures are largely unchecked.

    Reply

  87. @pseudoerasmus:

    I used IQ as an example, but the process I described would work equally well for ANY quantitative trait.

    You know, you shouldn’t get caught up in a Ron Unzian style in the minutia of various measurements. Measurements that are noisy and of unknown representativeness to the variables of interest.

    Further:

    “Compared with Australia, none of the East Asian countries looks terribly high-trust.”

    Well, first off, I don’t trust (no pun intended) any measures of trust. The reason? Trust, at least in the West, doesn’t appear to be heritable at all. A virtually zero heritability screams of an invalid measurement.

    That said, the findings above sound right, at least.

    The thing that’s shaping up to appear is that the non-Chinese East Asian societies (Japan, Korea, Singapore, possibly also Taiwan and Hong Kong to an extent) along with others like Finland and Iceland are “semi-clannish” or “in-betweener” societies. They combine elements of clannish and non-clannish peoples. Japan with its high internal cohesion but intense xenophobia exemplifies this.

    So in the case of Singapore, for example, the initial Chinese settlers were no doubt quite different from the average Mainland Chinese. That, coupled with the strict anti-corruption measures likely keeps corruption there in check. That means you end up with something very different from a Western-style high-trust society, but is nonetheless functional. It takes special people to begin with, those that would fold under such strict rules. It works in Singapore, but, as you note, not in Malaysia.

    The rest (Hong Kong, Taiwan) sound much like you’d expect for societies that were settled by people who were considerably below average in clannishness than the average Mainland Chinese. Not the West by a long shot, but not China, and functionally high-trust enough to function as a modern nation.

    Great find with that paper though. I will be scouring it for details, caveats noted above in mind.

    Reply

  88. (1)
    Yes, trust metrics are totally screwed up. Every paper gives definitions and results incommensurable with one another.

    (2)
    I strongly agree that CQ (“clannishness quotient”) matters to “national success”. But the high-IQ, medium-CQ of East Asian societies suggests, contra Staffan, that it is CQ, not IQ, which has diminishing returns. More precisely, the returns to CQ input start to diminish earlier than returns to IQ input. In terms of concentric circles of trust, you can clearly imagine returns to widening the circle from family to unrelated neighbours, from neighbours to complete strangers, from co-residents of your city to those of other cities, and then from localities to the nation as a whole. The benefits, however, to further widening the circle are not obvious.

    (3)
    Unz was arguing for the instability of national IQs. I, however, am saying East Asian countries (including China) are stable as fairly clannish societies — not as clannish as the Arabs, but more so than Westerners. The characterisation of East Asians as in-betweeners seems right to me. It’s obvious they have high internal cohesion, but low trust of outsiders.

    (4)

    Regarding China…

    The optimistic predictions of wishful people that African countries will one day become as rich as Greece or that Arab countries will eventually become democracies are probably unverifiable within our life times. Unlike such hopes, predictions about Chinese development will be verifiable relatively soon. Or at least within my life time, anyway. I don’t know how old the rest of you are.

    So far China has followed the growth trajectories of other East Asian countries. If it continues, then by 2035 or so China will already be at the OECD median. If that holds, then the living standards in the coastal provinces will already have been in the top third of the OECD. Maybe that won’t happen, but unless you are all ancient we can check this discussion in about 20 years’ time !

    Reply

  89. And by “if China continues the growth paths of other East Asians” means high rates of growth which nonetheless diminish over time as you get richer. In order to reach the median OECD level within the next 20 years, China doesn’t have to grow as fast it has done in this decade, or had done in the previous 2 decades. So we can check back in 20 years time.

    Reply

  90. @pseudoerasmus:

    Well, I’d argue that China has a much higher “clannishness quotient” than the other East Asian societies, certainly much more so than say Japan. China appears to be in line with the Eastern and Southern European societies (though none of which are as bad as the Arabs). The differences between mainland China and Taiwan and especially Singapore heavily involve selective migration.

    Will China pick up with time? Sure. Will it rival the other East Asian nations? Not so sure. No more than Russia rivals Germany or Britain.

    Reply

  91. anyway the reason Singapore probably must rely on a strong hand is that it’s much more diverse and divided than Taiwan or Hong Kong. Singapore is 75% Han Chinese, but these are not dominated by any one ethnic group. Taiwan, by contrast, is 70% Hokkien, with most of the remainder divided between Hakka and “Mainlanders”. Hong Kong is something like 95-98% Cantonese and should be considered South Guandong.

    Reply

  92. I’d agree that E Asian peoples are mid-way in the cooperativeness scale, but with quite high variability.

    Sometimes they are very low-cooperation:

    1) Macao is a by-word for gangs, gambling, and corruption.

    2) Singapore in the 50s/60s was beset by street gangs, kidnappings, corruption. Gangs would kidnap the children of Chinese millionaires, a very profitable business model. There were riots between Chinese and Malays. Graft was rife in the civil service.

    Eventually, something turned Singapore around and made the people more cooperative. I would guess it was partly Hobbesian (Mr. Lee’s firm hand on the Leviathan) and partly Aussenpolitik, namely the very real threat from Malaysia and Indonesia at the time made people rally together.

    Reply

  93. The Triads are not ethnically random. They are disproportionately Hakka and Cantonese.

    The Chinese in Southeast Asia had also been disproportionately members of the Communist Party. The Malaya Emergency was basically a British counterinsurgency campaign against the Chinese.

    Reply

  94. @ Whyvert “Eventually, something turned Singapore around and made the people more cooperative.” Outside my field, but I do notice Singapore has the lowest birthrate in the world .. all might … there’s the Vatican. Anyway, it’s low. Maybe crime went away because the young people went away.

    Reply

  95. @PE “The benefits, however, to further widening the circle [of trust beyond the nation] are not obvious.”
    Didn’t you get the memo? The global community must act together to save the world from warming/AIDS/ebola blah blah blah.

    Reply

  96. It is worth noting that China has significant regional variation on these counts.

    Historically, South China was dominated by extended lineages – clans by another name.

    Talhelm et. al. demonstrate that Northern and Southern Chinese have distinct psychological profiles. Their study specifically included questions like “if a stranger betrayed you in a business deal, they should be punished by ____?” and “if a friend or family member betrayed you in a business deal, they should be punished by ____?” to try and get a hold of attitudes towards in and out groups.

    Northern Chinese scored like Europeans. Southern Chinese were sig. less “fair” and more protective of the in-group.

    Evidence suggests that South China is more “clannish” and probably less trusting than North China.

    Its economic growth (which seems to be the measurement of choice in this discussion of country ‘success’) has not been slower than the North.

    Make of that what you will.

    Reply

  97. googling the Atayal people for something else and came upon this legend

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

    “According to stories told by their elders, the first Atayal ancestors appeared when a stone, Pinspkan, cracked apart. There were three people, but one decided to go back into the stone. One man and one woman who lived together for a very long time and loved each other very much. But the boy was shy and wouldn’t dare approach her. Whereupon, the girl came up with an idea. She left her home and found some coal with which to blacken her face so she could pose as a different girl.

    After several days, she crept back into their home and the boy mistook her for another girl and they lived happily ever after. Not long after, the couple bore children, fulfilling their mission of procreating the next generation. The Atayal custom of face tattooing may have come from the girl blackening her face in the story.”

    That sounds like something that might be done to counter the Westermarck effect in small populations?

    Reply

  98. @Whyvert

    “Eventually, something turned Singapore around and made the people more cooperative.”

    If a certain level of cooperation is optimal and an intelligent population who were below that level naturally could see there level of cooperation was sub-optimal then they could choose to behave that way but only if they had an arbiter who was trusted to enforce the rules equally.

    So the conditions might be
    a) high IQ
    b) below the optimal level of cooperation
    c) trusted king

    If it lasted long enough then the “natural” i.e. genetic, level of cooperation might go up to the point where a trusted king wasn’t necessary or it might break down if there was no longer a trusted king before that point was reached.

    Reply

  99. @myself

    Belief in a divine judge-king aka God would alleviate the need for a physical one on earth.

    Reply

  100. Hi chick,
    I know you’re away for the holiday, so perhaps you could reply to this when you’re back… but I can’t help but notice that you and JayMan may actually be the same person(s), or working in such close collaboration that your sites represent a concerted effort.

    In our society it seems to matter less what is said and more who is saying it, which is likely why your (anonymous) personalities have gained ground on this topic. Oddly enough, even the most ardent HBD proponent would likely ignore these blogs if they were authored by a white male.

    That said, I’m curious about your position on some things Jayman has asserted, such as the possibility that homosexuality (and other behaviors) may be caused by a “pathogen.” Do you have a position on this? Did I miss something?

    Also, I’m interested in your opinion on both eugenics and genetic engineering, meaning, the genetic engineering we observe modern agricultural corporations engage with livestock (but utilized on humans).

    Of course, your work is expansive and fantastic. So thanks.

    Reply

  101. @reed – thanks very much for the kind words, reed! (^_^)

    just to be clear, jayman and i are actually two different people! =P (altho we never have been seen at the same time in the same place, so even i’m beginning to wonder…. (~_^) ) we are very much interested in the same areas of hbd, tho – esp. perhaps the notion that there’s more to hbd than just iq (that’s not to say that intelligence isn’t *extremely* important, of course!). jayman’s better at “the math” than me, however, so if you ever want anything technical clarified, ask him! (^_^)

    yeah, i’m also inclined to think the pathogen explanation of homosexuality is prolly right. perhaps a combo of some pathogenic effect + some genetic predisposition? as for eugenics and genetic engineering, i’m generally in favor so long as they’re not compulsory in any way. i prefer carrots to sticks! (^_^)

    Reply

  102. The pathogen notion makes me edgy: “Don’t touch me; that may be catchy.” comes to mind. That’s not, of course, a rational argument against the idea, just a kind of hint that the idea may have more than rational support. There I’ve said more than I know and more that I have evidence about; I shall keep an open mind until evidence comes my way. An attractive thing about the idea is, of course, that natural selection seems superficially to do such a poor job of accounting for the phenomenon. Of course when I cast up my statistics it’s just another form of infertility. That’s not to say that outbreeding causes homosexuality, just that if it did I wouldn’t have any way of knowing.

    Reply

  103. Carrots and not sticks, huh.
    Guess that would mean more birth control, perhaps tax incentives for some people to reproduce and others to not do so. Maybe early parole with sterilization? Or efforts like this: http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/14/facebook-and-apple-offer-to-pay-for-female-employees-to-freeze-their-eggs/

    I’m curious if you have any novel eugenic ideas. My only input would be to not use the word “eugenics” and replace it with something like “positive reproduction.”

    The gay pathogen hypothesis really interests me but I haven’t seen any evidence for it. Of course, strong evidence would be catastrophic for homosexuals around the world, but that’s no reason not to find proof. I know next to nothing about virology, but I’ve read that HIV is a very unusual virus. Would this epidemic have any significance? I think I’ll go back and read some of JayMan’s theory on it.

    Thanks for your response.

    Reply

  104. Sorry to bother again,

    You know what makes me doubt the validity of HBD between groups is Latin America, basicly the economic or social sucsess or failure of a certain country seems much more dependant on how a population sees itself then on its actual genetic makeup take for instance Brazil and argentine. All over their history from the 19th century on argentine was a prosperous, almost European settler society with a very high per capita GDP, a far lower crime and corruption rate then other Latin american nations, a literacy rate of 70% in 1913 (vs around 25% in brazil) and was in almost everyway closer to North america/Australia then to the rest of latin America.

    the obvious HBD explanation would be that its because its population was just “whiter” then on the rest of the continent but it turns out that while this population did see itself as “white” it was in truth 20-30% non white, while the population of for instance Mexico did see itself as Mestizo but was only about 10% less white then that of Argentine and about as white as that of Chile. compared to argentine brazil was a hellhole with an extremly low per capita GDP and equaly low stats just about in every other area. Yes they started catching up during the last few decades but for most of the 19th and 20th centuries they were far below Mexico which is less white then Brazil.
    Since it turned out that Brazil is 65-75% white, ofcourse one could argue that black DNA had a more hampering effect on social development then ameroindian DNA but it just cant explain the difference between Brazil and Argentine and chile.

    Ok chile did grow rich on the sulphur boom in the 19th century and had a hard time recovering after some german self taught genius found out how to do it artificualy (thus prolongling WW1 by 3 years), still its growth after Pinochets time was phenomenal and it also always had higher literacy rates and higher life expectancy then the rest of Latin America…….so we see basicly identical populations in chile and for instance columbia, but a totaly different level of human development over the centuries…….

    Maybe its the tropical climate influencing culture since I doubt there could be much selection going on in just 400 years.

    Is there any HBD attempt to explain this?

    Thanks in advance and happy new year.

    Reply

  105. @unknown128:

    “You know what makes me doubt the validity of HBD between groups is Latin America, basicly the economic or social sucsess or failure of a certain country seems much more dependant on how a population sees itself then on its actual genetic makeup take for instance Brazil and argentine. All over their history from the 19th century on argentine was a prosperous, almost European settler society with a very high per capita GDP,

    the obvious HBD explanation would be that its because its population was just “whiter” then on the rest of the continent

    Since it turned out that Brazil is 65-75% white, ofcourse one could argue that black DNA had a more hampering effect on social development then ameroindian DNA but it just cant explain the difference between Brazil and Argentine and chile.

    so we see basicly identical populations in chile and for instance columbia, but a totaly different level of human development over the centuries…

    There’s your problem: who said that they were identical populations? Remember HBD Chick’s post way back when white and white? Not all White people (or people of any race) are created equal. That’s pretty much the primary focus here, and is quite evident in my American Nations Series. Do not focus on the major continental races as the be all-end all of HBD. HBD does not stop at continental margins. Indeed, even within an initially homogenous ethnic group, major differences can emerge thanks to selective migration. Compare the French Canadians in Canada with those in the U.S. (see the poverty of northern Greater New England and Louisiana), or the differences between the Great Plains (and elsewhere) and their progeny on the Left Coast. Indeed, the whole idea that two similar groups are essentially “identical” populations was blasted in a post of mine:

    Stop Saying North and South Koreans Are Necessarily Completely Identical Populations

    Now, all that said, as previously noted, achievement does vary according to continental racial admixture across the Americas. However, that may set an overall pattern, but other factors – such as the precise characteristics of the groups in question – set much of the rest.

    Reply

  106. Well it would be indeed interesting to see if Chile was colonized by a different “breed” of spaniards then the rest of the continent, still…..I look at the fact that Portugal does rather well right now (even if for a long time they had the worst per capita GDP in europe even under Russia), while Brazil that is 70% white (and not just portugese they have many descendants of white settlers from much better doing nations like Italians and even Germans) is doing far worst bouth in GDP, human development or crime…It seems, strange, as does for instance the high level of education and financial sucsess of filipino americans in the USA (theyr better of then chinese or Koreans, yes I know that maybe its the best and brightest from the Philiphines emigrating but we also know that the best and brightest Chinese go to the USA, shouldnt the best Chinese still beat the best Filipinos?)

    What about the high sucsess of the Indian diaspora in singapore (were they have reached a higher income then the Chinese) and the total failure of the Indian diaspora in Malaysia…..high cast vs low cast indians? but bouth groups came there as part of the same british colonial programes how can they be so diferent in their competition with the chinese?

    Reply

  107. Thomas Sowell in his attempt to show that it is culture that matters has probably unwittingly uncovered the sort of intraracial genetic differences that are at play which Jayman and Hbdhick are talking about. I can highly recommend his trilogy on culture, economics and history.

    Race and Culture
    http://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420411015&sr=8-1&keywords=Thomas+sowell+race+and+culture

    Migrations and Culture
    http://www.amazon.com/Migrations-Cultures-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/046504588X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420411015&sr=8-2&keywords=Thomas+sowell+race+and+culture

    Conquest and Culture

    Reply

  108. @unknown128:

    It’s always important to look at the totality of the evidence, not just one or two errant studies (and indeed, any study that contradicts the bulk of the evidence is likely to be wrong). You can get a good start on that by seeing the stuff on my HBD Fundamentals page.

    “It seems, strange, as does for instance the high level of education and financial sucsess of filipino americans in the USA (theyr better of then chinese or Koreans, yes I know that maybe its the best and brightest from the Philiphines emigrating but we also know that the best and brightest Chinese go to the USA, shouldnt the best Chinese still beat the best Filipinos?)”

    Actually, we don’t know that (or at the very least, we can’t a priori make that declaration). The general rule, at least as far as immigration to the U.S. goes, the higher the hurdle to get here, the better immigrants we get. The U.S., for example, got near the bottom of the barrel from French Canada. But we get nearly the cream of the crop from sub-Saharan Africa.

    It’s hardly inconceivable that there’s more elite migration from the Philippines to the U.S. than from China, for similar reasons.

    “What about the high sucsess of the Indian diaspora in singapore (were they have reached a higher income then the Chinese) and the total failure of the Indian diaspora in Malaysia…..high cast vs low cast indians?”

    Yup.

    “but bouth groups came there as part of the same british colonial programes”

    So? One set went to Singapore and another to the U.S. Why?

    “ok then what about the british study that shows a very low achievement gap between blacks and whites?”

    You might want to read this post by Peter Frost in response to Ron Unz on testing variability. Noisy data be noisy:

    Evo and Proud: Ron Unz on Race, IQ, and Wealth

    Reply

  109. ok there may be some problems with school samples but still Chuck seems to be convinced that the UK data presents a severe chalenge to HBD ideas…..one that noone in HBD has an answer against

    Reply

  110. @128 “severe chalenge to HBD ideas…..one that noone in HBD has an answer against” Hmm. HBD is not really my interest. The things I care about all humans share and I suspect all mammals, but I come here because there is real data being moved around, and I really like that: that map of cousin marriages in France, for instance. Pity I can’t find a map of fertility. On the other hand, it seems to me everybody agrees that migration is demanding so that the average migrant is likely to be more capable than the average stay-at-home (Include me there). So if recent immigrants match the host population then the immigrants are bringing some sort of handicap. This hardly sounds like a disaster for the concept of HBD.

    Reply

  111. Many thanks, JayMan. I shall study it with great interest. At first glance it looks like I may be qualifying some of the things I say.

    Reply

  112. Half this stuff kind of goes right past me (unless I read it in a dead silent corner of my house alone). But what I do get, is quite intuitive to me. Adding you to my blog roll. Scott

    Reply

  113. @natroy – “Just to let you know, Kevin MacDonald has just published a post on your 2013 interview with The Hoover Hog. I for one would be interested in seeing your opinion on his rejoinder (for the record, I tend to think he is right).”

    oh, thanks! i missed that completely. thanks for pointing it out to me.

    i will definitely respond to prof. macdonald’s comments. might take me a week or two (or three) to get to it, though!

    Reply

  114. HBDC, have you looked at the Wikipedia article on Serfdom?

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

    At the bottom, it has an interesting, if incomplete, list of timelines that jurisdictions abolished land-tenured serfdom. it seems to go Scotland->England and Wales->some eastern European (Wallachia, Bohemia)->Some German states (Bohemia, Austria) then a few more german states, then everyone gets in on it.

    I would say this plays into your individualism thoughts, but more Data is needed :D

    Simon Pengler

    Reply

  115. @simon – “At the bottom, it has an interesting, if incomplete, list of timelines that jurisdictions abolished land-tenured serfdom.”

    oh! i hadn’t seen that. thank you so much! (^_^)

    @simon – “it seems to go Scotland->England and Wales->some eastern European (Wallachia, Bohemia)->Some German states (Bohemia, Austria) then a few more german states, then everyone gets in on it.”

    yes, indeed! that is EXACTLY the pattern — with eastern europe and russia coming in at the very tail end of the process, of course. you’ve hit the nail right on the head! (^_^) this is the timeline i’ll be discussing in my series on manorialism (whenever i get around to it (*^_^*) ).

    thanks again!

    Reply

  116. @unknown128

    “You know what makes me doubt the validity of HBD between groups is Latin America”

    There are some interesting anomalies in Latin America which to my mind – as someone who thinks the basics of hbd are plainly true – means there are important environmental factors at play in some regions: iodine, fluoride etc in the water – which may be connected to populations moving places where they’re not adapted to the food or water.

    .

    “Chuck seems to be convinced that the UK data presents a severe chalenge to HBD ideas…..one that noone in HBD has an answer against”

    If the black-white gap in the UK was closed *upwards* then the UK average would go up.

    If it was closed *downwards* then the UK average would go down.

    Looking at the international testing might hint at which.

    Reply

  117. @Jayman

    hexcellent – apart from being generally cool this is one of those things that could do a lot of good.

    Reply

  118. Please settle a debate, if a family from Spain settled in Mexico City in the 1800’s and presumably the generations married Mexicans, what race does that make the present generation.

    Sorry, but I do not have any more specific facts than that.

    Reply

  119. I have just realised that Candide and Cunégonde were first cousins. Silly example I know, but it got me thinking. Great site, BTW.

    Reply

  120. Alka Patel makes an excellent point about the fluidity of race. Modern Mexicans are not Spnish and they are not Meso American Indians. They are something else, a new race wit increasingly stable characteristics.

    Reply

  121. Mexicans must be a substantial exercise in out breeding. Mexico City is an enormous mixing pot.

    Reply

  122. Clans in the news:-

    http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21648697-western-balkans-peace-some-go-abroad-look-war-fight-good-fight

    Balkan warriors abroad
    Fight the good fight
    With the Western Balkans at peace, some go abroad to look for war

    “Orthodox Christian Serbs are joining pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine while Catholic Croats fight on Ukraine’s side. Muslim Albanians, Bosniaks and Muslims from Sandzak, the area straddling Serbia and Montenegro, have gone to fight in Iraq and Syria. All spread their messages online and send greetings to one another[…]”

    “[…]Balkan governments want neither extreme nationalists nor violent Islamists causing trouble. What is striking is the degree to which, apart from their religions, most Balkan fighters are so broadly united: against liberalism and the West.”

    Clannish people be clannish!

    Reply

  123. Without getting to serious (about a very serious problem) you do know that all this goes back to the Apple of Discord, which led to the Trojan war. The Romans looked back to Troy as their ancestral home, so going to Constantinople was just going home for them, and the wars between East and West hung out there for a long time until the Ottomans defeated the Byzantines and the East won. The Serbians reckon they are descended from Byzantines. They have always been totally incredulous when we ask them not to commit atrocities against Croatians, who were Ottoman flunkies. Us liberal western powers side with east against the Trojans all the time. Somehow we don’t have the slightest problem with eastern powers acting like troglodytes. I think there was a picture of George W. Bush dancing with a male gin Laden. Kind of makes you want to gag. Anyway the principle is well established by our foreign policy. So now you say that the same fault line runs right across the Ukraine, and that we have sold out to the eastern powers again while Russia holds on for Troy, Rome and the west Or maybe I have got it all flummoxed up or maybe bought into somebody else’s delusion. Anyway clannish folks ain’t goin’ nowhere ’cause there’s this selective advantage thing.

    Reply

  124. I’m curious where did the “self sacrificial daring ” come from? Is there evidence which created your hypotheses?

    Reply

  125. @Anonymous
    04/25/2015 at 11:13 AM
    Well to say I agree with most of what you say is an understatement. I had to read it three times before I could convince myself it wasn’t my message. In April I was a physical wreck and might not remember. But there is one point on which we differ (assuming I’m not talking to myself, in which case I really messed up through the fog of pain) and that’s the end. There’s a selective advantage to not being clannish? Nay indeed. The advantage, in the form of babies, is all with the more clannish. Read “Marry in or Die Out” chapter 19 by the brilliant Robin Fox in the new textbook Handbook on Evolution and Society.

    Reply

  126. I just read this piece about Korean Drama: http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/pdfs/KOREAN_DRAMA_I.pdf

    “Two exceptionally good‐looking young Koreans fall in love with one another
    without it having been arranged by their mothers – indeed, without even the
    mothers’ knowledge.  (…)
    Usually the more modernist fathers secretly side with their children, because their theory of matrimony differs from their wives’, although openly, vis a vis the kids, they of course make common front with the anguished mother by shaking their heads and muttering “tsk, tsk …”.  
    According to the fathers’ secretly held theory, marriage is primarily between two people, and love is its foundation that ultimately will lead to the good life.   
    Mothers, on the other hand, theorize that marriage is between two entire, extended families, that the new couple plays only a subordinate bit part in this union, and that “proper conditions” – speak economics and social status – are the ideal foundation for a marriage.  ”

    Like the good HBD-chick fan I am I couldn’t but notice that Korea outlawed cousin marriage in the paternal line but NOT for the maternal line!! In fact this kind of cousin marriage was quite common till quite recently.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/random-notes-060714/

    Thoughts?

    Best,
    Lee

    Reply

  127. For Lee, concerning the whole post but specifically “In fact this kind of cousin marriage was quite common till quite recently.” If the fathers believe as we do that love is essentially the only consideration in marriage while mothers believe marrying into the extended family, hers in this case, then my thought is simple: The mothers are right and we and the fathers are wrong. All right, I know that’s expected only by those who have heard from me before. And I should add something like, “this assumes that the long term survival of the family is more important than the feelings to whom that survival has been entrusted.” But the bottom line is the title of chapter 19, “Marry in or Die Out” in the recent textbook Handbook on Evolution and Society . Professor Robin Fox, who wrote the chapter, does a far better job of martialing the facts than I could. You can find my version on my web site at

    http://www.nobabies.net/A%20January%20summary%20for%202015.html

    Now as a great admirer of hbd chick, I grant that his may seem heretical. If I catch one of the themes correctly, there is evidence that some cultures have very exclusive families, men preferentially marrying a father’s brother’s daughter for instance and in other cultures the range of social options is broader, and in the more open culture it is easier to set up a more cooperative society with things like human rights being respected and a community wide social safety net installed in contrast with horrors like honor killings of relatives and the social safety net being the family, however poor that family might be encountered in the highly inbred ones.

    Rest assured that we have no quarrel. This is a matter of degree. I agree that such arrangements as she would call “inbred” are far from being ideal. If you take that approach you may have a lot of children, that is to say it may avoid pre-zygotic infertility, but you incur a diminished number of grandchildren; you are inflicted with post-zygotic infertility. The physical-chemical mechanism specifics of this have not been addressed by any state of the art research lab I know of. This neglect makes me want to use bad words. The phenomenon itself, on the other hand, is well established by a study done in Iceland, which both Fox and I cite, and there is a study done in Sweden that suggests the effect gets even worse with the great grandchildren.

    Many Americans would say, “Great grandchildren are of no interest to me; I married a member of my own sex,” which of course is quite true. Indeed great grandchildren may not be of interest to any of us, but we appear to have it in our power to affect them for good or ill.

    In response to the challenge “But marry in and have a generally hostile to outsiders society while marry out and have a be friendly to outsiders” I have put together a little video “Babies Triumph over Evil” on YouTube. It’s 40 minutes long and not much fun, but this is important stuff.

    As you know, Korea’s birth rate has become disastrously low. here’s a statement from https://www.google.com/#q=Korean+birth+rate

    According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues. The country currently has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, leading only Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and Singapore.Aug 27, 2014.

    2750? They should be so lucky. No urbanized society has ever lasted that long. Now you know why.

    Linton Herbert

    Reply

  128. Linton Herbert lists 4 Confucian city states as having the lowest fertility rates in the world. Anecdotal evidence also points to Shanghai and major Japanese cities as having extremely low fertility.

    So, is this a city state issue or a Confucian issue? Here are some city states for debate.

    Germany is a collection of city states. There has been no large national capital drawing in people from a huge population. Germany has low fertility.

    Beirut is a city state that did not draw in population from a huge area. Lebanon has a reputation for dissolute social practices in the rest of Arabia.The confounding factor there is religious separation. I fancy Beirut has lower fertility than Turkey or Jordan but Syria? The Levant is full of Crusader blood anyway.

    There are new city states appearing in Arabia. Dubai is a major one but Dubai brings in people from across the plant. What happens in Dubai?

    Did Venice and Genoa fade away because of low fertility?

    Reply

  129. I stopped by in Merthyr Tydfil last week after visiting a client. I’ve never lived there but in 1983 I stood for election to Parliament there, unsuccessfully.

    Merthyr was the first industrial town in the world. Large scale iron production began in 1765. Immigrants came from South Wales, the rest of Wales (distinct group), South West England (more Celts), Irish in huge numbers, Galicians from Northern Spain (yet more Celts), Italians and Poles, mostly Jews but some Galicians. So, with this diverse population, there should be outbreeding on a big scale. Yes?

    All of these groups can still be identified in the population. Surnames help. The Welsh, who haven’t left, have their different chapels even if they speak English these days. Membership of a Church or Chapel still follows ethnic lines. Even those who have joined the areligious drunkenariat live in distinct parts of town. Irish surnames dominate at the magistrate’s court. The English and the Irish after 200 years still won’t pronounce the names of their villages correctly (like Russians in Donetsk, actually founded by engineers from Merthyr). The Italians live in a tight little district with Italian porches on their houses and so on. The Jews have mostly moved to Cardiff or Israel. The synagogue downgraded to a Hebrew Congregation. People don’t have friends. They have relatives.

    So, the oldest industrial town in the world does not, subject to a rigorous study, demonstrate a conspicuous trend to outbreeding. Certainly not between populations. Of course, the various populations may be more mixed internally. Being Catholic produces crossover but not so much. The Italians still go to Italy to find brides from their home villages (in the 21st Century! Actually, they do a gap year in Italy to see the family – amounts to the same thing).

    So, shall we conclude that outbreeding between different ethnicities takes A LOT of time.

    Reply

    1. Interesting. Might I guess that he town is at peace? No riots? No knifing police or getting brutalized by police or… you know, kind of like Switzerland? Would that be true? I don’t see them in the headlines.

      Reply

  130. Ah never mind, I just checked your twitter feed and you have just been talking about this very thing! What the h*ck! Why does this keep happening to me? :-) New rule: check twitter before posting links for hbdchick. Or: don’t bother posting links for hbdchick, she already knows about them.

    Reply

  131. If I may ask, do you know anything about the rate of cousin marrige among the muslims in the european part of the Ottoman empire or in Muslim spain? I wonder if there was a difference between european and asian muslims?

    Reply

  132. The only way to stop the rape and pedophilia by paks to deport them all (funny when I put in rape Leicester popped up on google? Like put in rapedale Rotherham comes up ? Or Rochdale ,Blackburn, Oxford maybe I’m just a niave pensioner who’s parents and family fought and died in the war (11) to protect us from the evils of invasion by the enemy who are they isis as nothing on the people all ready in our country destroying our way of life wake up England

    Reply

  133. @ anonymous re “wake up England” I read your pain. At least you’re still yelping; few are. Problem is that we just don’t have the able young people. Think about hbd chick. That’s the kind of mind and energy that can make things happen. We don’t have enough, by a long shot. I swear it can be fixed, but it will take time. We may not have the time. By the way, I’m Linton Herbert. I’ve been saying the forbidden on the internet for years. No problem. Years ago I took great pains to protect my identity. It was a waste of time. It’s ok to say who you are. – IMHO, as they now say.

    Reply

  134. Here is some data may have interest you. I saw that your article “la endogamia en España” have a lack of sources from the South of the península to support your theory, so here you got http://nubr.co/LDtNah

    7% of consanguinity between 1980-1970 in Granada, Andalucia. Above the national mean in that period.

    Reply

  135. By the way, ‘prove’, in ‘the exception proves the rule’, means ‘test’, not ‘confirm’. Just saying

    Reply

  136. @ Johan Stayers “This might point to a gloomy future for those nw-European out-breeders:” True. Of course I am thinking nothing out-glooms the demography, but it is an interesting paper.

    Reply

  137. You were kind enough to post a link to my web page a few years back when I was researching Gould’s research with the Morton skulls.

    That research led me to study Blumenbach, which led to my presenting a poster about him at a 2015 symposium at the University of Göttingen that I’m trying to get published in a journal. As part of my overall research, I found a little known paper that Weidenriech wrote in 1931 in which he discusses the multi-rooted heritage of Europe’s Jews much in the same way he would later describe the multi-rooted ancestry of modern humans.

    I have learned how difficult it can be to get published in a journal, so I’m starting to post my “non journal suitable” essays on my web page here: http://michael1988.com/

    I think that Weidereich’s 1931 article may be of interests to scholars studying him… but I don’t know of any. Would you know of anyone who might be interested in this?

    Thanks

    Reply

  138. Hi HBD Chick.

    Long toym listena’, first toym calla’ here.

    Why do you think the Frankish Church was predisposed to ban cousin marriage in the first place? Especially, what genetic factors do you think were at work?

    Reply

  139. The authors talk about different evolutionary pressures on the population groups. They don’t talk about the sources of these groups. But it seems to me that it must that ancestry from Franks, Frisians and Saxons is still discernible in contemporary native Dutch from different regions with the Randstad people being more of a blend of Frisians and Franks.

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n11/full/ejhg201348a.html

    Reply

  140. for johan stavers
    My mother had Dutch ancestors. She wasn’t Frisian, but she did admire their fortitude. There was a tale about a Frisian standing up to his ankles in mud and then half way to the knees in water, blue with cold, shivering, nose running and chatting with a Roman, at whom he was sneering because Romans had slaves. So I can well imagine they could still be holding up. (Needless to say, living up to my mother’s standards has been quite the challenge.)
    Of course the issue of survival of groups of various sizes has been my preoccupation for a long time; I’ve made comments here many times. In a couple of weeks I present my work at a science convention in Orlando. So feel free to wish me luck.

    Reply

  141. Little treasure chest found online:

    “”Conservatives have taken to “reconfiguring” science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to “intelligent design” and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label “Human Biodiversity”, or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science.
    Ever since the amassing of data from IQ tests in the 20s and 30s, people have noticed a strong, clear difference between the scores of Caucasians and blacks. The difference is typically about 15 points, or one standard deviation. Statistically, there is absolutely no question that blacks score poorly on these tests.
    This has always served as an embarrassment to the designers of IQ tests, and they have made many efforts to revise the tests to diminish that difference, but despite many decades of effort, have never succeeded in this endeavor.”

    lol

    Reply

  142. HBDChick, what do you make of Satoshi Kanazawa”s Savanna Hypothesis? Over time, I have noticed that nearly all of his claims about higher IQ in his book The Intelligence Paradox tend to fall flat when applied to non-W.E.I.R.D. populations as well as non-whites in the west. It makes absolutely no sense that more intelligent people would be worse at evolutionary “familiar” activities than dumber people. Nor, when looking at non-white and non-NW Euro populations do you see any strong link between higher IQ and leftism, homosexuality, vegetarianism, monogamy, and drug use. The only thing that does seem to be universally linked with higher intelligence is secularism.

    Any thoughts?

    Reply

    1. Fertility is based on kinship – generally the closer the better down to about second cousin – and nothing else. If secularism correlates with intelligence, then it is probably due to trying to mix religions because high status folks quite maladaptively preferentially breed out and, yes, die out. Losing the social context of going to the same church in the long run means killing babies.
      :(
      http://nobabies.net/movie%20scripts.html

      Reply

  143. Also, Kanazawa’s statements about IQ and fertility also don’t add up when considering history. He apparently failed to note that it is only in the last few decades that IQ became negatively linked with women. Also, didn’t you post some data on your twitter and this site that shows that in most societies today that men of all IQ levels have equal fertility rates on average?

    If higher IQ is so maladaptive as he claims then there is no way it could have been strongly selected for in the last 10,000 (especially by the Ashkenazi). Kanazawa seems to be one of those evo-pychologist that mistakenly assume that evolution stopped or slowed down since agriculture when the opposite is true.

    Reply

  144. HBD Chick, do you have any thoughts or information on what India’s genetic potential IQ might be? I’ve heard estimates ranging from basically no different than what it is now to mid 90s to high 90s. Anything would be greatly appreciated!

    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