brainwash

this is grrrrrreeeeeaaaaat (as tony the tiger would say)! at least this first episode is. (^_^)

i heard about this series before from steve sailer, and referenced it once in this post here, but now someone has apparently gone and added engrish subtitles to the series. yay! (can’t vouch for the quality of the translations.)

unfortunately, i can’t figure out how to embed the video here on wordpress (they’ve got iframe issues and i’m not about to start downloading plugins), but you can watch the video(s) here @mrctv.

here’s more about the series:

“What Eia [the host of the show] had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.”

heh. (i almost feel sorry for the social scientists. almost….)

now why can’t somebody make a series like this in engrish?!

h/t to a commenter over @steve’s blog calling himself the observer for pointing to the videos. (^_^)

previously: the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

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

mara hvistendahl is a…

…person who is really wrong about the gender imbalance issue in china and india.

in her recently published book, she apparently blames westerners for all the missing girls. from the guardian:

“Much of the literature on sex selection has suggested that cultural patterns explain the phenomenon. But Hvistendahl lays the blame squarely on western governments and businesses that have exported technology and pro-abortion practices without considering the consequences. Amniocentesis and ultrasound scans have had largely positive applications in the west, where they have been used to detect foetal abnormalities. But exported to Asia and eastern Europe they have been intricately linked to an explosion of sex selection and a mushrooming of female abortions.

“Hvistendahl claims western governments actively promoted abortion and sex selection in the developing world, encouraging the liberalisation of abortion laws and subsidising sales of ultrasounds as a form of population control.

‘It took millions of dollars in funding from US organisations for sex determination and abortion to catch on in the developing world,’ she writes.”

yes, yes — it was the evil westerners. again.

never mind that she’s totally wrong.

coincidentally, emmanuel todd brought up this very topic in his book that i just posted about yesterday [pgs. 48-49]:

“Female infanticide

“Undoubtedly the best indication of the fiercely agnatic character of the Indian family is the existence of a virulent tradition of female infanticide, more marked in north India even than in China. Recent Indian censuses consistently reveal a striking imbalance between the sexes: and excess of males denotes a massacre of female babies. A special supplement to the 1971 census was devoted to the sex ratio which, while normal in south India, frequently falls below 9 women to 10 men in north India (8.8 in Uttar Pradesh, near Delhi). In one group of villages in the Kangra district (Punjab) where a census was held in 1855, there were among children aged 4 to 14 only 393 girls for 1,000 boys.

1855. that’s just a few years before ultrasounds and amniocentesis tests were exported to the east by us evil westerners.

for a change, i’m in agreement with richard dawkins: Sex selection and the shortage of women: is science to blame?

(note: comments do not require an email. or … omg! fish can count up to three! huh?)

the meaning of life

for kids in l.a.

this study found that, of european-american (i.e. white), latino and asian high school students in los angeles, latinos feel the most strongly that they have meaning in life, followed by asians and then white kids. and asian teens are the ones most in search of a meaning to their lives, while latinos and white kids don’t bother so much.

the latino kids presumably don’t bother looking for a meaning to their lives ’cause they already got one. but, the white kids don’t really have much meaning in their lives AND they ain’t lookin’ for it, either. slackers.

you’ll never guess it, but one of the things that gives teens (and prolly adults, too) LOTS of meaning to their lives is ethnic identiy, i.e. how close they feel to their ethnic group:

“[P]resence of meaning was significantly correlated with both dimensions of ethnic identity such that those who felt more positively about their ethnic group and those who reported greater ethnic exploration reported higher levels of meaning. Notably, ethnic identity was not significantly associated with search for meaning…. [E]thnic belonging was significantly associated with all indicators of adjustment. Associations were in expected directions such that a stronger sense of connectedness and affiliation with one’s ethnic group was related to higher self-esteem, higher attitudes toward the utility and value of education, higher intrinsic motivation, higher average levels of daily happiness, and lower daily distress.”

to repeat: a stronger sense of connectedness and affiliation with one’s ethnic group was related to higher self-esteem, higher attitudes toward the utility and value of education, higher intrinsic motivation, higher average levels of daily happiness, and lower daily distress.

but, of course, white folks ain’t ‘sposed to identify with their group anymore. gee — i wonder why white teens don’t really feel that they have any meaning to their lives? — and aren’t even bothering to look for any meaning!

“Although prior work has consistently documented positive links between ethnic identity and adjustment, it has yet to be entirely clear why ethnic identity has such a beneficial effect. Indeed, an important task for contemporary research is to identify the precise mechanisms by which ethnic identity has such a positive impact on development.”

yup! it’s just a COMPLETE and utter mystery why feeling close to one’s extended family would make a person feel good about life. strange, that!


_____

(note: comments do not require an email.)

the nyt discovers tribes!

hallelujah! from thomas friedman, no less:

“David Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times, wrote an article from Libya on Monday that posed the key question, not only about Libya but about all the new revolutions brewing in the Arab world: ‘The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?’

“This is the question because there are two kinds of states in the Middle East: ‘real countries’ with long histories in their territory and strong national identities (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran); and those that might be called ‘tribes with flags,’ or more artificial states with boundaries drawn in sharp straight lines by pens of colonial powers that have trapped inside their borders myriad tribes and sects who not only never volunteered to live together but have never fully melded into a unified family of citizens. They are Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The tribes and sects that make up these more artificial states have long been held together by the iron fist of colonial powers, kings or military dictators. They have no real ‘citizens’ in the modern sense. Democratic rotations in power are impossible because each tribe lives by the motto ‘rule or die’ — either my tribe or sect is in power or we’re dead.”

been there, said that.

here’s (some of) what kirkpatrick has to say about the tribal sitch in libya:

“The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war…?

“The behavior of the fledgling rebel government in Benghazi so far offers few clues to the rebels’ true nature. Their governing council is composed of secular-minded professionals — lawyers, academics, businesspeople — who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law. But their commitment to those principles is just now being tested as they confront the specter of potential Qaddafi spies in their midst, either with rough tribal justice or a more measured legal process.

“Like the Qaddafi government, the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties. And like the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.”

well, after hearing that — that the “operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties” — i’m gonna call this a civil war in libya and NOT a democratic uprising. in fact, i’m not even sure civil war is the right term. to be a civil war there needs to be a civitas, right? i’m not so sure that a group of endogamous tribes that happen to live in an artifically created state constitutes a civitas. this is more like good, old-fashioned tribal warfare like you woulda found in pre-state days.

anyway, here’s where kirkpatrick gets it wrong:

“But the legacy of such tribal rivalries in Libya may in fact be fading, thanks in part to the enormous changes that Colonel Qaddafi — a modernizer, in his idiosyncratic way — helped bring about. Coming to power just before the oil boom, he tapped Libya’s new wealth to provide schools, hospitals and other benefits for Libya’s desperately poor, semi-nomadic population.

“Gradually, Libya became overwhelmingly urban, with about 85 percent of its populations clustered around its two main urban centers — Tripoli and Benghazi.

“Though many of the people who flocked to the growing cities continued to identify closely by tribe, they now live mixed together. Many from eastern tribes now live in western Tripoli, and tens of thousands of members of the predominantly western tribes, Warfalla and Tarhuna, which form the core of Colonel Qaddafi’s support, now live in Benghazi and last weekend staged a major public demonstration there calling on their western cousins to join the revolt.”

just ’cause people are shuffled around doesn’t mean that tribal ties will be broken — NOT if they’re still marrying their kin at a rate of 46.5% — a rate similar to that found in iraq, and look how well they all get along! the chinese tried to get rid of the hakka clans in southern china during the cultural revolution by moving them around and not letting the members of various clans live with one another like they traditionally did. didn’t work. (the clan members are now living with one another again.) prolly ’cause the hakka had remained endogamous.

nope. if u wanna get rid of tribes or clans or whatever, u have to understand where tribes and clans come from. they do not just miraculously appear out of nowhere. they are the products of mating patterns. so, to get rid of tribes, u need to use hbdchick’s draconian measures of banning inbreeding. or do something to stop the inbreeding. shuffling people around might help ’cause you might make it more awkward for people to marry their kin over long distances. but better techniques would be just to ban it outright or encourage outbreeding somehow. (note: this is not a recommendation from me. just sayin’ how it could be done if someone really wanted to get rid of tribes. people can inbreed all they want afaiac.)

friedman is really lost-in-space, though, in how he views egypt and iran and tunisia:

“It is no accident that the Mideast democracy rebellions began in three of the real countries — Iran, Egypt and Tunisia — where the populations are modern, with big homogenous majorities that put nation before sect or tribe and have enough mutual trust to come together like a family: ‘everyone against dad.'”

*facepalm*

he’s gotta be kidding! ok, so maybe egypt doesn’t have tribes the way saudi arabia and libya does, but they are extremely clannish! their consanguinity rate was 29.7% in 2008. that’s a lot better than libya, but nuthin’ like anything you see in the west. so, good luck with the democracy thing there!

and iran?! he’s gotta be kidding:

these pc correct people are never gonna understand what’s going on in the world until they learn some biology. you can’t mix-and-match different ideologies (like democracy) with different peoples ’cause different peoples is different. duh! and, most crucially when we’re talking about tribes, mating patterns matter.

previously: cousin marriage conundrum addendum and libya – land o’ tribes and all tribes, all the time! and aígyptos

(note: comments do not require an email.)