NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Altruism » Ethnic Genetic Interests and Group Selection Does Exist: A Reply to JayMan

Ethnic Genetic Interests and Group Selection Does Exist: A Reply to JayMan

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 99 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

6350 words

JayMan has said that ““Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist (Neither Does Group Selection)“. It’s clear from what he says towards the end that he has some sort of bias to attempt to disprove Ethnic Genetic Interests and Group Selection. This will be a definitive refutation of JayMan’s belief of the non-existence of GST and GS. Along with  Dr. Swaggins from the CoonU Blog, both of us today will prove that EGI and GS do in fact exist and that JayMan has an implicit bias in the denial of EGI and GS. I will also address JayMan’s comment to me in that same article that I never responded to save it for this article.

I first wrote an article, Genetic Similarity Theory, in reply to his denial of EGI. It was short, but I got my point across with the Price Equation. JayMan then comments:

Ethnic altruism can’t evolve through genetic similarity because the coefficient of relationship between co-ethnics (who aren’t close family) is pretty small. Even kin selection itself is pretty weak in general. How much time do you spend with your second and third cousins?

In-group favoritism likely evolved through individual selection for reciprocal altruism. Overall similarity simply allowed individuals to recognize likely partners for trading favors (shared language and customs may help). This may have even co-opted systems designed to act towards close kin – misfiring kin altruism, if you will.

Rebutting Jayman’s denial of the ethnic kinship coefficient requires an explanation of the concept of relatedness as a whole. How, for example, can I be 50% identical to my father if I’m 99.8% identical to all living humans? The answer is that I am not 50% identical to my father; rather, I am 50% identical to my father by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of all living humans. If all living humans are 99.8% genetically identical then I’m 99.9% identical to my father. Jayman’s argument that two random co-ethnics aren’t related fails to factor this into account: a calculation of relation needs a baseline level of relatedness for comparison. So he’s correct in stating that two co-ethnics are not similar to one another- but only by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of their entire population.

Since the ethnic kinship coefficient has been worked out to the equivalent of half siblings, it may be useful to frame the issue in those terms. If I am 25% identical to my half sibling by comparison to any other co-ethnic, it is because there is a quarter of my genome that I share with my half sibling due to our common descent. Specifically, our mutual descent from our mutual parent gives us a specific combination of genes that nobody else is likely to have. 25% of my genome is 100% identical to his alleles of the same genes and the other 75% is as similar to his as it is to any other co-ethnic, but taken as an average across my entire genome, any given allele is 25% more likely to be shared with him than it is everyone else in our race.

The ethnic kinship coefficient works in an uncannily similar way. Instead of inheriting those 25% identical genes from recent common ancestors, the two co-ethnics inherit the same genes due to the fact that people of their race usually have those genes (think melanin, keratin, microcephalin, EDAR, HERC2, or any other gene for which the frequency of alleles differs overpopulation). In spite of that difference in the origin of ethnic vs familial similarity, the mathematics are shockingly similar: according to Henry Harpending in his review paper Kinship and Population Subdivision, “Many studies agree that Fst [genetic distance between populations] in world samples of human populations is between ten and fifteen percent,” with “a conservative general figure” being 12.5%. What’s more, Fst “is computed for each allele at each locus, then averaged over all loci.” In other words, 1/8th of human genetic diversity is at the between-group level.

To put things into perspective, a 1/8th reduction in diversity within a family occurs when two half siblings (25% identical) have a child. There is a 1/16th chance that the common parent will pass a given allele to both children and that both children will pass that allele to their child, and a 1/16th chance for the same to occur for the other allele of the same gene; when computed allele for allele, “diversity” (odds of heterozygosity) goes down by 1/8th among a population that is 25% identical by descent.

One such calculation finds, for example, that a Frenchman is 24% identical to another Frenchman if your baseline for comparison is the genetic similarity between the French and Japanese.

This is the inevitable implication of the central tenet of HBD: that the various races of the world are genetically different from one another. It is also the inevitable implication of Lewontin’s famous finding that 15% of all human genetic variation is racial; if it were 100% then all co-ethnics would be identical and it were 0% then race wouldn’t exist at all. If it were 15%, though, then that 15% would be composed of genes whose alleles vary in frequency across populations; these are genes you share with co-ethnics much more often than you share with anyone else. If you’re more likely to share a lot of genes with co-ethnics than you are with anyone else, then you’re more genetically similar to co-ethnics than you are anyone else. When they sequence the genes of people of different races and compute the odds of similarity locus for locus, you’re much more likely to share some genes (ABCC11, MC1R, etc) with co-ethnics than you are others, but taken as an average across both copies of the entire genome, it’s about 25%. Apply those odds to the 20,000 or so genes in the human genome and the result will be consistent with the data that members of a given race are about 25% identical by comparison to members of other races.

We are not the first people to predict that these genetic differences would result in kin selection expressed as altruism towards co-ethnics and discrimination towards others; to quote an article by the late Henry Harpending posted in March 2012, “In the new diverse community the average person can find someone related as f~0.06, corresponding roughly to a great-grandchild at f=1/16. Suddenly there is a fitness payoff to discrimination.” (In this hypothetical population, an individual is 1/8th more related to a co-ethnic than to the average and 1/8th less related to some of a different race than to the average.) In an ethnically homogeneous population, discrimination of this kind will not occur because the fitness payoff of benefiting one co-ethnic or the other is the same, but in a heterogeneous population, you suddenly have people in whom you have comparatively more or less genetic interest. In December 2012, Harpending and Salter published “JP Rushton’s Theory of Ethnic Nepotism,” a paper predicting that the Fst data would support Rushton’s theory of ethnic genetic interest, by providing evidence for kin selection. Towards the end of this article, I will provide evidence for human altruistic behavior fitting the patterns predicted by kin selection, and I will present a likely animal model for subspecies competition over resources. In the meantime, however, there are more misconceptions to clear up.

JayMan says:

I suppose a key misunderstanding in the matter is the failure to realize that each individual gene contributes to fitness independently. Each gene is “out for itself”, so to speak. It just so happens that in any given organism, genes achieve success by working together (most of the time). As sucheach individual gene’s “aim” is to make more copies of itself. What’s going on in the rest of the genome is tangential to this. ((—>Each gene would be just as happy to mix with any other gene, so long as its own fitness is increased in the process.<—))  (Additions in last sentence for emphasis are mine)

Individual genes don’t always contribute to fitness independent of one another; the venerable Nicholas Wade has pointed out that there is at least one gene which confers different levels of selective disadvantage depending on the other genes they’re mixed up with: an allele that slightly increased risk of heart problems in Europeans causes big problems whenever it introgresses into Africans. Naturally, the population which has had this allele for longer has more genes elsewhere in the genome compensating for its negative effects, meaning that said allele will cause fitness problems after it introgresses into another population. Introgression is just a fancy word for race mixing, though, and there are other problems with it, as follows:

In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

Yet another study done on white-Asian mixes notes that they have a two times higher rate to be diagnosed with psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.

It was found, in agreement that black-white mixes engaged in more risky behavior than did monoracial children. They also observe that mixed-race adolescents are stark outliers in comparison to whites and blacks, which still holds true despite being raised in similar environments to monoracial children.

Fitness doesn’t look increased in that process, seeing how mulatto children show more health problems and negative behavior than monoracial children. And given the data relating to the allele mentioned above, we can’t rule out the possibility that health problems in biracial children arise because their parents’ genes don’t necessarily work together.

There is no impact on one’s fitness from the race of one’s mate (or an offspring’s mate) so long as close relatives are off the table as mates (aside from the fitness impact of the particular genes such mates were bringing in the environment in question). The fitness impact to a White man’s genes if his daughter marries a Black man is the same as if she married an unrelated White man (again, fitness from gene function notwithstanding).

Do you really believe that? As shown above, mixed-race children show more health and behavior problems than do monoracial children. Africans were not selected for resistance to the negative effects of certain European genes as Europeans were, and we have no reason to believe that any race is selected to compensate for the negative effects of genes they don’t even have.

Just the same, the inclusive fitness impact to a White American is the same whether he focuses his altruistic act on an unrelated White American or on a Namibian; it is zero in both cases. If you adopt children rather than have your own, the fitness hit to you is the same whether your adopted children are White, Black, Chinese, or Venezuelan.

Again, this assumes that there are no genetic differences between populations, but there are, so your fitness is probably higher if you adopt a co-ethnic than if you adopt someone else.

Hence, there is no human ethnic group that exhibits ethnic nepotism. This includes Ashkenazi Jews. But these have nothing to do with ethnic nepotism, didn’t arise via kin selection, and don’t depend on genetic relatedness per se. This includes Ashkenazi Jews.

Ashkenazi Jews evolved their nepotism through thousands of years of getting driven out of countries. Along with being barred from certain jobs, this led to them being only able to do banking jobs and those jobs that took more intellect, which they then evolved their higher IQ as well as more group favoritism to help them in societies where they are the minority. This is clearly evident today with Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities; their average IQ of 110 suggests that they shouldn’t be that much of the student body since they’re six times as likely to be geniuses but many more times likely to make it into the top institutions. Odds are pretty good that that’s ethnic nepotism in action. We’re talking about a group of people 38% likely to consider themselves religious but 70% likely to believe the old mythos that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything that ever existed prefers them to literally everyone else, and judge whether someone is worthy of this inconceivably lofty status purely on the basis of their genetics; before they had handy-dandy PCR machines and enzymes, Jews determined someone to be Jewish by matrilineal descent, not cultural custom. If the Ashkenazim lacked any ingroup preferences of any kind during their time in Europe, they would’ve literally copulated themselves to death by marrying Gentiles until their population was totally absorbed by ours. What would you call it then, JayMan, if not EGI? They’re one of the best examples FOR the existence of EGI. See, the thing is, if someone is an Ashkenazi Jew, more often than not, they will be more related to each other than some other random person from another population.

This particular fact – that co-ethnics share genes – is why they have a genetic interest in one another.

The Ethnic Kinship Coefficient has been corroborated literally every time anybody calculated Fst values between different human races, and by JayMan’s understanding of kin selection it disproves his assertion that ethnic genetic interests do not exist:

This [relatedness] is the probability that a given relative of an individual possesses a copy of an allele the individual possesses.

Co-ethnics are about 25% more likely to share the statistically average allele than people of different races are, so the Hamiltonian drive to confer benefit on co-ethnics is comparable to the drive to confer benefit on secondary relations (half siblings, grandchildren, etc). In other words, it doesn’t matter that the frequency of altruistic alleles is unaffected by the presence of outsiders, because people have a genetic imperative to assist the genes they share with their co-ethnics either way (and are therefore selected for altruism/ethnic nepotism either way); since they are related to their co-ethnics regardless of context, they are selected for the desire to confer benefit on co-ethnics regardless of context, and they only have a genetic interest in derogating an outgroup if doing so will increase the fitness of the ingroup. This is why Harpending and Salter observe, in the paper linked above, that racial solidarity “strengthens in response to attacks perceived to be aimed at group identity, especially invasion of the homeland and physical harm done to co-ethnics.” Observe Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen excoriating the bureaucrats they deem responsible for an alleged invasion, or Black Lives Matter being more enraged about a Hispanic killing a black than by thousands of blacks killing thousands of other blacks. A supposed shift in altruistic allele frequencies was never the point, and to argue against it is to battle with strawmen.

If altruism is the result of kin selection, then an organism will confer benefit on the criterion of relatedness. If a European man saves a daycare with 8 Asian babies in it from some freak accident, then he saves as much of his own genes as were shared by those babies. If he saves a daycare with 8 European babies in it, he just saved a collection of his own copies of HERC2 or ABCC11 or EDAR or some other such gene which he previously failed to save as well. If he saves 8 of his co-ethnic first cousins, the proportion again goes up, this time by 12.5%. By the same mathematical model we use to explain kin selection (Hamilton’s Rule), we predict and observe that altruism will be expressed to various degrees depending on the degree of relatedness.

The adaptation to this would have nothing to do with magical altruism genes which change in frequency when Japanese people arrive in France. Rather, the selection pressures predicted by the kin selection model would select for organisms that exhibited compassion and cooperation in proportion to relatedness.

The fact that co-ethnics share so many genes means that they do have a genetic interest in one another, if kin selection is real. I personally believe that kin selection is a clearer and more likely explanation for altruism than group selection in most cases, but due to the difficulty of determining causality in processes that occurred thousands if not millions of years ago (namely the original evolution of altruistic behavior), I doubt that the scientific community can put this one to bed yet. For the purposes of this issue, however, JayMan has already professed his belief that group selection has never occurred, meaning that one of a few different things must be true.

  1. Humans are not altruistic at all. Untrue.
  2. Humans are altruistic, but not due to kin selection or group selection. Unlikely; we can talk about mutual back-scratching all we want but the fact that people take bullets and jump on grenades for one another means that mutual benefit cannot be our only reason to confer benefit upon others.
  3. Humans are altruistic due to kin selection. This explanation is consistent with genetics and evolutionary theory; evolution holds that survival is a matter of passing on genes and genetics show that related organisms have many of the same genes. It also has pretty good predictive power (it predicts familial love, racism, and other real phenomena). For these reasons, I’m going to be arguing from the assumption that kin selection is a primary reason for human altruism, and that it, therefore, must exist in humans.

Due to the genetic similarity between co-ethnics, there is a genetic interest between them. Each has a Darwinian interest in the other comparable to roughly 25% of their own survival. Operating from the assumption that kin selection is the reason for human altruism, one would predict one of the following possibilities:

  1.  Humans will prefer to confer benefit to their co-ethnics over others due to the fitness advantage gained by doing so,
  2. That humans cannot perceive genetic similarity and have therefore been selected to benefit one another regardless of genetic similarity in hopes that they hit the mark by accident,
  3. Humans do prefer those who are genetically similar but are incapable of perceiving the genetic differences between the various human subspecies, or
  4. Humans understand the genetic differences between themselves and others but for whatever reason will not take the 25% fitness advantage. I’m going to go ahead and throw this one out.

We know that humans prefer others on the basis of genetic similarity, and we know that nearly all human cultures have considered those of different ethnicities to be “the other,” or at least different in some significant way. We know that people can determine someone’s biological race based on their appearance, in any case, and in his 1996 book Race in the Making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds, Lawrence Hirschfeld found that even children could do so. All of which means that humans can get a rough idea of genomic similarity (or difference) using phenotype and family history as a proxy, and that race is among the types of genetic difference that humans are capable of perceiving. If humans prefer one another based on the criterion of genetic similarity (they do), and race is a genetic difference that humans can perceive (it is), then we expect humans to generally prefer those of their own race (they do).

Even in studies of bereavement, Littlefield and Rushton (1986) put forth ten hypotheses (I will only bring the ones up that prove the case for EGI) to make the case for Genetic Similarity Theory:

  1.  A mother will grieve more than the father: this is due to the mother having  finite number of ova, have a more limited reproductive potential than do men and also bear the burden of bearing children, this shows that each offspring of a mother is more important to the overall success to her genes than the are to the father’s.
  2. Male children will be grieved for more intensely than female children. This is due to a male having a higher chance to have more children and spread his genes to more progeny.
  3. Similar children will be grieved for more intensely than dissimilar children. GST explains the phenomenon of assortative mating, the phenomenon that spouses will be genetically similar on those traits more influenced by genetics. One consequence of assortative mating is that one parent may be more similar to the child than the other. This can be illustrated as follows: Rushton and Littlefield: “If a father gives his child 50% of his genes, 10% of which are shared with the mother, and the mother gives the child 50% of her genes, 20% of which are shared with the father, the child would be 60% similar to the mother and 70% similar to the father (Rushton et al., 1984)”. So we can see that depending on the amount of genes a child gets from his parent will infer whether or not they are genetically similar to which parent, and in the case of a possible surprise death, the parent who believes the child looks (shares more alleles in common with) like their selves, will grieve longer and more intensely due to having a greater fitness hit due to the increased GST.

This study shows good evidence that the more genetically similar the child is to the grieving parent, the more strong and intense the grieving process will be. How mothers and fathers will risk their lives for their children, their genetic endowment, shows another truth to this phenomenon: altruism. Altruism for those who are genetically similar to yourself. We can then take this and show that since co-ethnics are closer to each other than they are to distant populations, and that since they are more genetically similar to themselves, the same kind of derogation and suspicion that parents give strangers who come around their children, co-ethnics will give to non-co-ethnics when they appear in their homeland. Robert Putnam’s research corroborates this.

Altruism/nepotism does increase when out-groups come to the land. When this occurs, the native population of the country will, in theory, become more altruistic to co-ethnics since their genetic interests are at stake. This is currently occurring in Eastern and Southern Europe in countries like Hungary, Poland, Spain, and Italy.

The model has pretty good predictive power since it predicts racism and other phenomena, which I’ll dive into now. Applying the kin selection model to humanity we expect that altruism will not only be doled out proportionally with respect to genetic similarity, but also to the number of babies the recipient is likely to have. I wouldn’t do as much for my DNA by saving the residents of a retirement home as I would by saving a daycare. And saving women is smarter than saving men. Hence, when the Titanic sinks, the rallying cry of the day is literally “save the women and children!” (Because the people who didn’t do that throughout our biological history had less of an impact on our gene pool than the ones who did.)

So you’re going to see innumerable charities for the benefit of children, and comparatively, nobody trying to solve the conundrum of how terrible life is in nursing homes for the elderly. On the Forbes list of top US charities, numbers 1-4 all frequently work with children (as do many others) and numbers 5, 6, 12, and 14 are specifically for children. None of them are specifically for the elderly; making sure that Grandpa isn’t miserable and alone registers nowhere in the top 50 items of our society’s to-do list.

And you’re going to see things like this, in spite of the fact that men are equally likely if not a hair more likely to get lung cancer and it’s a big killer in both sexes because people care more about “women” than they do about “people.” And I’m not joking or cherry-picking: Lung Force’s blog is seemingly more about women’s feelings than about lung cancer, no doubt because these people are aware that breast cancer research receives way more funding than prostate cancer research does in spite of similar death rates . In other words, it’s a well-known fact among people whose jobs are to stir up altruism that people will give more resources for the well-being of women than for the well-being of men.

All of which is just another case of altruism that “just so happens” to confer group and/or kin benefit, and does so proportionally to the expected increase in fitness, precisely as kin selection would predict. I would expect people to donate more to co-ethnics as well, were it not for the facts that:

a) It’s fashionable in our society to virtue signal niceness to swarthier folks, and

b-z) Haitian children literally eat dirt for breakfast.

In any case, you can look at where rich nonwhites send their donation dollars, be it the fitness benefit gained by JayZ when he donates to clean water causes in Africaor by George Lopez in his “contributions to the Latino community“. This isn’t a cherry-picked trend of statistically irrelevant anecdotes: Blacks donate to other Blacks, “Identity-based giving is gaining momentum in the Latino, Asian American, Arab American, and Native American communities,” and “Latino’s motivation to give is embedded in a sense of responsibility and desire to give back to their community.” Much of the work of such people may end up benefiting Whites who happen to be there when a catastrophe hits a bunch of the donor’s co-ethnics (observe a Black donating to Hurricane Katrina; New Orleans is majority black, but not devoid of Whites), or occasionally they’ll donate to other nonwhites. But I’m not holding my breath for the day they raise awareness for the White squatter camps in South Africa.

Basically, any time that a person does a nice thing for another person, it will be proportional to any combination of three factors: genetic similarity, assumed number of offspring, and/or how bad the recipient needs help. All three of these are predicted by kin selection since all three are factors which predict the fitness gained by engaging in an altruistic act.

Importantly, virtually every culture on Earth preferred co-ethnics to others prior to the Communist subversion of the West, at which point accusations of racism became something of a social death sentence. (You don’t believe me on the Communist subversion thing- think it’s a conspiracy? Google up where all of this “social construct” ideology we keep encountering ultimately came from, and look up who’s promoting it today.) One could claim that whether a culture is “racist” or not depends on “culture” rather than biology, and point to the modern West as an example of an “anti-racist” culture, but in that case, it’s one hell of a coincidence that every race on Earth generally preferred themselves to everyone else, and did so for 10,000 years or more if you count prehistory. Considerably more likely is that populations with no ingroup preference are subsumed by other populations who gain a fitness advantage by doing so (they mounted no defense because they didn’t understand the need to do so) and that the majority of modern humans are therefore descended mostly from passionate racists.

Co-ethnics have a real genetic interest in one another due to large amounts of shared DNA, meaning that ethnic genetic interest is real. Humans do act on genetic interests in general, as the family studies show, and they are capable of perceiving racial genetic differences, as the ethnicity studies show; it is, therefore, likely that they will act on these ethnic genetic interests as they do with other genetic interests, because racism is caused by the innate preference for genetically similar people. In other words, racism is a biological phenomenon instead of a cultural one.

That, or nearly every culture ever in the history of forever was racist by pure coincidence.

To put subspecies competition into perspective, I will point out that wolves and coyotes have a Fst value between 0.056 and 0.121 and can interbreed. We can call subspecies and other taxonomic classification a social construct if we like; technically we’d be correct in the case of canids, to whom the words “species” and “subspecies” are doled out in a pretty arbitrary fashion. We can say that the admixture is proof that the wolf and coyote DNA doesn’t care about which other genes it’s combined with, if we like. But everything we say about it does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the biological fitness of coyotes massively drops when they share territory with wolves.

Understatement of the week: the implications of having to compete for the same resources is probably why canids fight for territory. Wolf packs, being direct family, would no doubt have a high Fst with other wolf packs, no different from how I’m more similar to my grandpa than I am my housemates. They fight for territory on a familial level because of genetic interest, and they have been observed fighting for territory on the level of subspecies as well, with a clear genetic interest in doing so. The only difference between them and us in this respect is that our method of acquiring resources relies on commerce rather than hunting, and so we weren’t selected for the propensity to wander around a given territory fighting off other families who intrude. That’s not good for business; in fact, I’d be willing to bet that warfare usually occurs in humans when the profit incentive for conquest is greater than the profit incentive for trade. Humans who don’t engage in a lot of commerce and belong to inbred populations, though, have fewer incentives towards peace and higher Fst values relative to others- and they aren’t above killing the guys from the next tribe over. What a surprise that these village’s conflicts had to do with territory and breeding, both of which have to do with fitness. In any case, humans from populations selected for agriculture and commerce engaging in this sort of behavior is the exception that proves the rule, because the only reason anybody knows about the interfamilial warfare of the Hatfields and McCoys is that it falls under the “man bites dog” rule.

I have this radical view that biological rules still apply to humans, and that we are therefore self-replicating bags of meat smart enough to understand that we are self-replicating bags of meat. I see little difference between wolves reclaiming their old hunting grounds and the Reconquista movement. Coyotes had taken over when the wolves kept getting killed by men; Spaniards took over when a storm of viruses killed off most of the Natives. Even after the Spanish admixture, the Fst values between Whites and the now-mestizos likely falls within the range of coyote-wolf Fst values. Wolves feed their kind with elk and we feed ours ultimately with money; the distribution of elk meat to wolves isn’t good for coyotes and I’m willing to bet that the distribution of money and jobs to other nations and their peoples explains much of our abysmal birth rates in the West (with birth control technologies being another primary factor). We had lots of kids back when there were blue collar jobs you could get fresh out of high school which instantaneously elevated you to the middle class. We could afford to have them, no different from the fact that European nobles had more kids on average than us commoners. If current economic, cultural, and political trends continue, though, then ethnic Europeans might go out roughly 50x faster than the Neanderthals did.

Biological organisms show preference of those who are similar at the level of self (me), family (the Kennedys), tribe or nation (Papuan tribes or Mexico), race or subspecies (Native Americans), and species (I eat pork and kill spiders more often than I eat aboriginal Australians and kill Sentinelese people). All are the same phenomenon (attempts to increase the odds of self-replication at the genetic level), all are predicted with Fst values and Hamilton’s Rule, all are observed in animals to whom “culture” doesn’t apply, and all are observed in mankind.

Now, the question is this: how would GST be detected? Numerous ways. Location, for one. Since up until around 50 years ago, most countries were monoracial, those in your general proximity will, more often than not, be more genetically similar to you than a group that’s 50 miles away. Culture, which is an expression of genetics, is yet another way that GST can be detected. Since culture is an expression of genetics, when that culture is expressed, this shows other genetically similar co-ethnics that this individual shares more genes in common than those who don’t share their culture. There is also matching by phenotype, which goes along with the location aspect. But, as I stated in my article Genetic Similarity Theory as a Cause for Ethnocentrism:

It’s clear that we are more altruistic to people who look more phenotypically similar to ourselves, to pass on and benefit copies of our genes. This evolved in spite of the negative impact on behalf of the altruist. The altruist is helping copies of his shared genes survive so that they may be copied into the next generation of progeny. The tendency to favor co-ethnics is the tendency to attempt to help pass on shared genes, as if the phenotype is similar, more often than not, the genotype is as well. This is the basis for ethnocentrism.

There is also what is called the “Grandmother’s hypothesis” in which the researchers theorize that women live past menopause to help take care of their grandchildren. In doing so, they can then make sure their grandchildren are well-fed and nourished. The researchers state that by using Hamilton’s relation coefficients (what we have been using in this article), that a grandmother should share 25 percent of genes with her grandchildren. Ted Sallis says:

Therefore (and this is the important point), a paternal grandmother, all else being equal, is genetically less related to a grandson than to a granddaughter, and less related to a grandson than is a maternal grandmother.  Conversely, a paternal grandmother likely is more genetically related to a granddaughter than is a maternal grandmother, given the certainty that the granddaughter possesses an X chromosome from the paternal grandmother.

The researchers hypothesized that the grandmother’s investment in grandchildren will be directly mirrored by how genetically similar they are to each other. The authors conclude that women live past menopause to help care for their children’s offspring. Since they share 25 percent of their genes with their grandchildren, they too, have a genetic investment in making sure they get adequate nutrition and are well cared for. They found that in 7 previously studied populations that “separating grandchild survivorship rates by sex reveals that X-chromosome relatedness correlates with grandchild survival in the presences of MGMs and PGMs. In all seven populations, boys survive better in the presence of their MGM than PGM. In all bar one population, the PGM has a more beneficial effect on girls than on boys. Our X-linked grandmother hypothesis demonstrates how the effects of grandmothers could be sex-specific because of the unusual inheritance pattern of the X-chromosome.”

This is what this whole debate is about: ability to detect genetic similarity in co-ethnics. Matching by phenotype, culture, and general proximity will, with good chance, bring you together with someone who shares more alleles in common with you and someone who you would feel more altruistic towards since you have a genetic interest in ensuring that some of your genes survive to the next generation.

Mixed-race relationships don’t discredit the existence of EGI/GST, in fact, it helps to strengthen it. Americans of mixed ancestry made up for ethnic dissimilarity by matching up on the more heritable traits, whereas the correlation is lower for those traits that are more influenced by the environment. Since the correlation is higher for heritable traits, i.e., BMI, personality, alcoholism, aggressiveness, criminality, psychiatric disorders and so on. Since the correlations are higher than in the environmentally mediated traits and since mixed-race couples match on more heritable traits than on the traits more influenced by the environment, this shows us that even though they are marrying outside of their race/ethnicity, they still match up on the more heritable traits and not the traits more influenced by the environment. 

JayMan brings up the concept of reciprocal altruism as if it negates the effect of racial/ethnic altruism as a whole. It does not. Reciprocal altruism and  Genetic Similarity Theory go hand-in-hand as genetic similarity eliminates the need for the reciprocation to occur again. Since two related individuals share more genes in common with each other than two unrelated individuals, this then caused reciprocation and GST to evolve hand-in-hand with each other. To quote Rushton:

Thiessen and Gregg (1980) make the same point. Thiessen and Gregg state that “cooperation among `nonrelatives’ (`reciprocal altruism’) may be based in large part on genetic and phenotypic similarity” (p. 133).

Another reason that GST and reciprocal altruism go hand in hand is that genetic similarity at certain important loci can predict the efficacy of a reciprocal altruistic relationship; Fowler & Christakis find that close friends are as similar as 4th cousins, and Guo et al find the same for spouses. Selecting for phenotypic compatibility means selecting for genetic similarity at the loci which determine the relevant phenotypes (height, IQ, personality and so on). For example, different races of the world differ in Big Five personality traits, and the reason for these differences is likely genetic. If a statistically normal, introverted East Asian prefers to associate with fellow introverts, what are his odds of becoming best friends with a comparatively gregarious Black man? A gregarious Asian or an introverted Black may become fast friends with those of other races, but most of their kinsmen are more stereotypical.

Ultimately, however, what it comes down to is this: if a gene can better ensure its own survival by bringing about the reproduction of family members with whom it shares copies with, then it can also do so by bringing about the reproduction of any organism that it shares genes with. Meaning altruistic self-sacrifice. But, if there is a fitness gain for the altruist, then how is it altruism? Simple. The altruist is just protecting genetic interests. The altruist is just being driven by his genes to save copies of itself. This is basically what we humans are: organisms that only attempt to bring about those with similar genetics to ourselves.

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. Salger says:

    Another top-notch article.

    What do you make of this article’s claims? Here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

    It claims to use the largest study on human intelligence.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Thanks.

      What do you make of this article’s claims?

      So they disproved Spearman’s hypothesis?

      It’s garbage, of course. As I said the other day, Jensen tested Spearman’s hypothesis on 25 large independent samples, with each sample confirming Spearman’s hypothesis. Even matching blacks and whites for SES didn’t diminish the effect. Jensen then concludes that the overall chance for Spearman’s hypothesis being wrong is over 1 in a billion. Pretty high odds.

      Arthur Jensen’s Method of Correlated Vectors

      Hartmann, Kruuse, and Nyborg (2007) tested the cross-racial generality of Spearman’s hypothesis. They say it doesn’t verify g, but it supports it.

      Though in 2010, g was corroborated by researchers other than Jensen, et al.

      Spearman’s hypothesis can now be considered to be an empirical fact. Mean differences in intelligence between ethnic groups can be largely explained by the complexity of the subtests in an IQ battery. So, the present study shows clearly that there is simply no support for cultural bias as an explanation of these ethnic group differences. Apart from subtests with a strong language component, IQ batteries appear to be excellent measures of intelligence for all groups studied in our meta-analysis.

      Conclusion: Mean group differences in scores on cognitive-loaded instruments are well documented over time and around the world. A meta-analytic test of Spearman’s hypothesis was carried out. Mean differences in intelligence between groups can be largely explained by cognitive complexity and the present study shows clearly that there is simply no support for cultural bias as an explanation of these group differences. Comparing groups, whether in the US or in Europe, produced highly similar outcomes.

      Causes of group differences studied with the method of correlated vectors: A psychometric meta-analysis of Spearman’s hypothesis

      The “seat” of general intelligence is the prefrontal cortex (Cole, et al, 2011; Roth, 2011; Newman and Just, 2005). This is corrobarated with MRI scans showing a larger prefrontal cortex (PFC) than those with lower IQs.

      All of these papers that come out that the news outlets then proclaim “_____ DISCREDITED!!!” Are wrong, 99.9999999 percent of the time. Don’t trust the news media, always read the original paper.

      I also couldn’t find the original paper to read myself, but saw someone say that they cited Steven Jay Gould!!! Why he’s still getting cited in papers involving intelligence is beyond me, as JP Rushton rebutted him and so did Arthur Jensen.

      Why people are still citing him when it comes to intelligence testing is beyond me. Seriously mind boggling.

      The g factor can be deduced to be the main factor from IQ test scores using factor analysis.

      Factor analysis, which Spearman developed when he saw that all cognitive abilities tests were correlated, can be used to represent correlations between IQ tests in terms of a smaller number of variables known as factors.

      So Factor Analysis is brought up here in your linked article:

      “The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,”

      “Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,”

      Gould made the same argument in Mismeasure of Man.

      Old arguments, old news. The g factor is what encompasses most, if not all mental ability. With factor loadings, related variables are tested in relation to each other, then the correlation of the related items are evaluated to find clusters or groups of variables. It simplifies the correlations to analyze them among a set of variables.

      “It allows researchers to investigate concepts that are not easily measured directly by collapsing a large number of variables into a few interpretable underlying factors.”

      Tl;Dr it’s wrong. Anyone will attempt anything to discredit the g factor, yet it has been empirically verified.

      Like

  2. JayMan says:

    How, for example, can I be 50% identical to my father if I’m 99.8% identical to all living humans? The answer is that I am not 50% identical to my father; rather, I am 50% identical to my father by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of all living humans. If all living humans are 99.8% genetically identical then I’m 99.9% identical to my father. Jayman’s argument that two random co-ethnics aren’t related fails to factor this into account: a calculation of relation needs a baseline level of relatedness for comparison. So he’s correct in stating that two co-ethnics are not similar to one another- but only by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of their entire population.

    Sure, that’s why humans and chimpanzees band together to fight gorillas and orangutans, and why all primates band together to fight lions, tigers, and leopards. Except that they don’t.

    We are not the first people to predict that these genetic differences would result in kin selection expressed as altruism towards co-ethnics and discrimination towards others

    How would that translate into selection? The coefficient of relationship is important for kin selection because it represents the likelihood at any putative altruistic alleles will increase in frequency due to they altruistic act they cause. A novel altruistic allele would have to increase in frequency from effectively zero. It couldn’t become prevalent through selection if it targeted distant kin because those co-ethnics are not likely to have said allele.

    If you sacrifice yourself to save 20 distantly related co-ethnics, the allele you possess that led to do that would die with you. This is why we say ethnic altruism can’t evolve.

    This:

    In an ethnically homogeneous population, discrimination of this kind will not occur because the fitness payoff of benefiting one co-ethnic or the other is the same, but in a heterogeneous population, you suddenly have people in whom you have comparatively more or less genetic interest.

    …is complete rubbish. The fitness payoff to such a putative allele certainly isn’t going to be any higher with members from other ethnic groups around.

    Individual genes don’t always contribute to fitness independent of one another; the venerable Nicholas Wade has pointed out that there is at least one gene which confers different levels of selective disadvantage depending on the other genes they’re mixed up with: an allele that slightly increased risk of heart problems in Europeans causes big problems whenever it introgresses into Africans. Naturally the population which has had this allele for longer has more genes elsewhere in the genome compensating for its negative effects, meaning that said allele will cause fitness problems after it introgresses into another population. Introgression is just a fancy word for race mixing, though, and there are other problems with it, as follows

    Seems like the effect of said allele is deleterious in both populations. If you have read Cochran and Harpending at all, you would know that admixture is a fast way to pick up adaptive alleles. It all depends on the context. There certainly isn’t going to be selection for mating within your ethnic group because of the fitness impact of the admixture itself. Realize that that’s a separate matter from the adaptive value of alleles individuals from other groups carry, but we all size up the fitness contribution of potential mates regardless of what race they are.

    In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

    Of course, there are several problems with this.

    First, who identifies as mixed race?

    Second, mating outside your race isn’t random. Certain individuals are more likely to do so. This makes it impossible to conclude that it was the cross-race marriage itself that had these effects, as opposed to the traits of the individuals likely to marry outside their race.

    Again, this assumes that there are no genetic differences between populations, but there are, so your fitness is probably higher if you adopt a co-ethnic than if you adopt someone else.

    My friend, this is risible. Your fitness is exactly the same in both cases: zero. We are clear what fitness means, right?

    If the Ashkenazim lacked any ingroup preferences of any kind during their time in Europe, they would’ve literally copulated themselves to death by marrying Gentiles until their population was totally absorbed by ours. What would you call it then, JayMan, if not EGI?

    In-group favoritism can exist, but (this is important) it has nothing to do with kin selection. Most in-group favoritism is situationally-dependent. People like bonding with “the team.” It’s certainly not because of kin altruism that you bond with Democrats or Republicans. For clannish peoples, in-group favoritism likely evolved out of a co-opting of mental faculties for true kin altruism and explains why clannish people are more likely to bond with people similar to themselves. However, it is not kin altruism, but a type of reciprocal altruism. I’ll watch your back if you watch mine.

    Most of the rest of your posts is utter nonsense, frankly. History is replete with examples of people abusing their co-ethnics, which is clearly not what this would predict. Further, you ignore the notion of general in-group favoritism, which explains most of what we see.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      RR’s coauthor here.

      First off, we never argued that kin selection works at the level of genera as you bring up. The fact that humans are generally as comfortable eating beef as they are eating fish means that there is likely some point at which comparative relatedness becomes arbitrary (as I point out below, this threshold is probably the point of not-so-relatedness at which they are too different from you to justify risking your own hide almost regardless of how many you help). So no, humans and chimps aren’t going to band together. Humans, using culture, phenotype, and other proxies for genetic similarity, do not innately understand that they’re a bit more similar to chimps than to orangutans, for example.

      Also, humans and chimpanzees in the wild are probably not wildly effective communicators with one another. Would make it pretty difficult to organize attacks on the “less like us” creatures. Meaning that even if kin selection did occur on the level of genera, we would be hard pressed to observe clear examples of it.

      Altruism at the ethnic level doesn’t have to evolve at the ethnic level. Consider the possibility- very much backed by research- that humans are capable of using culture, phenotype, and geographic proximity as proxies for genetic similarity. Markers for tribe can work for race.

      Particularly, consider the possibility of high consanguinity among hunter gatherer tribes (ultimately the ancestors of all humans). Along different branches of the convoluted family tree, you could be third cousins, second cousins once removed, and somebody’s great aunt or something, without being fully aware of just how related you are. This effect is exacerbated due to the low effective population sizes such tribes likely had. Each tribe/village/whatever could be as genetically distinct from the next as two races are, going by Fst values. The tribes would distinguish genetic similarity using proxies like geographic location, culture, and phenotype, and those mechanisms would work just as well or even better when their descendants encountered people who were very unlike them, ie of another race. Unlike random coethnics, your inbred tribesmen *are* likely to share your relatively shiny new allele. Novel alleles which encourage altruistic behavior towards kin, defensive attitudes towards others, or aid in the distinguishing of “alike” and “not alike” would be selected for via kin selection, and since humans don’t have the innate ability to read one another’s genomes, these mechanisms would rely on proxies (phenotype, culture, etc) which would eventually work well with races.

      Of course, there are other possibilities, like this https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/03/03/how-ethnocentrism-can-and-does-evolve/

      But as long as the Darwinian incentive is there, the possibility for selection is there.

      Come to think of it: the Darwinian incentive wouldn’t be there between species or genera even if you COULD innately perceive the human-chimp similarity. Because of the genetic distance between the two, you’d have to save so many chimps per altruistic act that it wouldn’t even pay off- a negative ROI if you will. If you attacked a tiger to save a chimp it’d be a horrible idea because the odds of you dying are much, much greater than the odds of the chimp passing down a bunch of your genes.

      Again, though, the belief that such a gene could never be selected for is built around the assumption of a fairly large effective population size and low consanguinity. Which generally wasn’t the case for most of the existence of homo sapiens, and certainly not for our recent ancestors like heidi or erectus.

      As for the race mixing thing it seems you’re missing the point. You could call the love child of a White and a Native American an example of hybrid vigor because of his White immune system genes and his darker skin helping him resist cancer. You could call call a half Black child an example of outbreeding depression if he’s got the wrong heart gene. You could be right either way, and both conclusions hold up with our understanding of genetics. But how does the health and quality of life of mixed race kids typically end up? Studies have shown that it’s not always the best prospect- sure there are some mixed race folks who do great, and I wish the best for all of them, but looking at the population as a whole you have to conclude that race mixing causes problems. Likely genetic problems.

      I don’t care who “identifies” as anything. Your Pops is one race, your Mom is another, you’re mixed. Mixed race means more than one race. End of discussion.

      As to the non-randomness and interracial marriage point, that depends who’s doing the mixing I guess. Eg if White women who married interracially all had an average IQ of 90 or so then I’d just say that race mixing women are generally dumb, but I’m more willing to bet that assortative mating is at play. White women who marry Asian men might be a hair smarter; Black women who marry White men might be a hair smarter. I’d like to see studies on that. But if assortative mating for IQ and other traits increases regardless of who you’re mixing with, then our point is corroborated.

      Fitness of the adoptive parent is only zero if we set the baseline at “no children.” But again, a child is only 50% related *by comparison to others within the same population.* There is a baseline relatedness of all populations to themselves (otherwise, race wouldn’t be real). If you are 25% identical to a coethnic by comparison someone else, then more of your genes are likely to be passed on when you confer benefit to a coethnic. This may not be the case today, but in a hypothetical world wherein being adopted gives greater fitness than being in foster homes, every adoptive parent would better suit their genes by adopting a coethnic than not.

      Just as having your own children gets your family’s genes into the population, altruism at the ethnic level helps your population’s genes continue in the species.

      Okay, so people assortatively associate with people who are phenotypically similar, but that has nothing to do with genotype? Further, how does this explain people who die for the tribe, or for their friends?

      Moreover, how can a mechanism for preferring those who are alike yourself be misfiring kin altruism- when you actually are comparatively genetically similar?

      Calling something “utter nonsense” isn’t an argument. It’s just embarrassing to watch you try to use that as a debate tactic. “I dismiss your post and call it rubbish, and therefore it is rubbish”? Please.

      People kill coethnics. They also kill their own brothers. Am I to pretend that family altruism isn’t real either? Besides, instances of betraying your own ethnic kin generally don’t decrease fitness long term because the population expands back to the carrying capacity of the dirt they’re on. Kin selection at the ethnic level becomes way stronger when somebody else is attempting to grab your dirt, because that’s much harder for a population to come back from. Kill a few peasants and they’ll breed up some more, but if somebody else comes in and grabs all your resources, the whole breeding thing will get harder and your fitness will go down.

      RR here:

      It couldn’t become prevalent through selection if it targeted distant kin because those co-ethnics are not likely to have said allele.

      The allele will be more likely to be in that population, as populations with higher rates of altruism survive better than those that don’t have the trait (Rushton, 1980).

      If you sacrifice yourself to save 20 distantly related co-ethnics, the allele you possess that led to do that would die with you. This is why we say ethnic altruism can’t evolve.

      It’s simple: groups who have the trait survive better than those that don’t. A group with individuals willing to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the group show that a) the self-sacrifice happens due to genetic similarity, b) if the allele for altruism is in the group (which it would be if an individual self-sacrifices), then copies of those genes are saved by the self-sacrificing genes, and c) you know full-well that the allele would be present in other individuals in the population. This is a bunk argument as altruism can and has been selected for.

      …is complete rubbish. The fitness payoff to such a putative allele certainly isn’t going to be any higher with members from other ethnic groups around.

      What’s so hard to understand about “but in a heterogeneous population, you suddenly have people in whom you have comparatively more or less genetic interest.”??? It’s simple really; you’re just overlooking it. If there are other ethnies in the area, resources are being competed for, among other things. Due to this, those foreign populations will have more of a genetic interest in making sure that their kin is well-off in comparison to the native population’s. We see this happen everywhere in the world; mainly taking advantage of European pathological altruism.

      but we all size up the fitness contribution of potential mates regardless of what race they are.

      And due to numerous factors, race-mixing could possibly be a negative to the parent’s fitness.

      First, who identifies as mixed race?

      Tons of people. Is this really a question?

      Second, mating outside your race isn’t random. Certain individuals are more likely to do so. This makes it impossible to conclude that it was the cross-race marriage itself that had these effects, as opposed to the traits of the individuals likely to marry outside their race.

      Due to people matching for IQ, which is another aspect of genetic similarity theory, this is one of many variables that people who marry and breed outside of their race/ethnicity have that are correlated with genetics. Genetic traits are correlated much higher than the traits influenced by the environment in marriage partners, so due to this, they are phenotypically matching on those heritable traits, and if the phenotype is similar, more often than not, the genotype is as well. “Traits of the individuals likely to marry outside their race”, that quote proves our point.

      My friend, this is risible. Your fitness is exactly the same in both cases: zero. We are clear what fitness means, right?

      Sure we are: the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation’s gene pool relative to the average of the population. However, your fitness has a higher chance of being hit by race-mixing than by mating with one of your own. If there are deleterious alleles there is a great chance that the deleterious alleles will be selected for. We are clear that “fitness” means not just spreading your seed into anything and everything to reproduce, right? Does this include making your children biologically worse, on average, then you are? Does this constitute “good fitness”?

      The fact that you say: “Even when it comes to a mate for your child: once you start outbreeding, it doesn’t matter if mate is 6th cousin or from 6th continent.” shows your bias. 1) You have a ‘genetic interest’ if you will, to disprove EGI/GST. 2) See the cites on race-mixing and how there are many deleterious possible effects of race-mixing. 3) Does it not matter if your children don’t look like yourself?

      It’s certainly not because of kin altruism that you bond with Democrats or Republicans.

      These are heritable traits; proving our point again.

      For clannish peoples, in-group favoritism likely evolved out of a co-opting of mental faculties for true kin altruism and explains why clannish people are more likely to bond with people similar to themselves. However, it is not kin altruism, but a type of reciprocal altruism. I’ll watch your back if you watch mine.

      Ah, yes. You must have glanced over this:

      Thiessen and Gregg (1980) make the same point. Thiessen and Gregg state that “cooperation among `nonrelatives’ (`reciprocal altruism’) may be based in large part on genetic and phenotypic similarity” (p. 133).

      I said in the article that we are more altruistic to those more phenotypically similar to ourselves, this is due to, obviously, if the phenoytype is similar than more often than not then the genotype is as well. It’s highly plausible that EGI/GST evolved hand-in-hand with reciprocal altruism. As there would be no need for the reciprocal act to be paid back, as the more genes organisms share, the more likely they are to cooperate, and in turn, this negates the need for reciprocity. This is what you need to understand: The “I’ll watch your back if you watch mine” is due in part to genetic similarity. Evolutionarily speaking, is there a fitness hit to me if I save a, for arguments sake, a Papua New Guinean over of my 6th cousins?

      Most of the rest of your posts is utter nonsense, frankly.

      Right. Utter nonsense that the Grandmother’s hypothesis was confirmed when researchers observed that grandmothers would show more investment in those grandchildren they showed more genetic similarity towards. Even if this is phenotypic matching, as I said above, phenotype is the product of genotype, so detecting GST by phenotype would, with great odds, show a greater genetic similarity than to another grandchild who looks less similar (imagine this is ethnic groups).

      Showing that mixed-race marriages don’t disprove EGI/GST is rubbish. Showing that they match on heritable traits more than non-heritable traits is rubbish.

      That is not an argument, JayMan. How about groups like BLM, La Raza, the KKK and other ethnic interest groups? I theorize that individuals in those groups, as well as those populations more clannish as well, have higher levels of oxytocin.

      Fact of the matter is, JayMan, EGI/GST does exist. You glancing over parts of our argument and not responding to them, all the while giving a response that the article answered, then saying that it’s “utter rubbish”, even though it answered your objections to what we said, is clearly illogical, as you’d have been answered by the article and seen our argument and phrased another question.

      Like

  3. ni67 says:

    We can also observe Propinquity/Homophily pretty clearly too. I find it funny that when I was in my private school years that.. lets wait for it..

    asians self-segregate
    whites self-segregate
    blacks self-segregate

    at lunch tables. this was irrespective of the fact of high SES.
    and this -also- applied to friend groups.. biased, even when the proportion of availability by ethnic group was significant.

    some exceptions. another asian-american or er.. asian-canadian paired with a french white-canadian and was in the “in” 5% centile for looks/intellect group with his outstanding scholastic achievements/leadership/etc.

    even when I look at my 14 year old cousin. plenty of white people
    some amount of black people. plenty of asian people. every single time. choice of ethnic group = specific asian group.

    its like.. when given the choice, it just happens. i sit at a table studying in a classroom. poker club or table club comes in.. same thing. kind of. but the initial composition was all asian, and then some white/other people.

    this is excluding the phenomena of association by language / regional migration by the way. we’re talking asian-canadian. of course if we’re talking about the status of when theres 1 asian or 1 black or 1 white in a homogenous school, or even native americans .. it won’t be that dramatized simply due to limitation of availability.

    maybe it is just me .. but i guess there is some unconscious “comfort” level when we see someone more related. even i can sense this relaxed openess from this asian woman when i rented a room from her as if ”great, I don’t have to deal with difficult cultural differences or extreme noise or partying or room destruction”

    not to mention.. a disproportionate amount of pairings made amongst similar people.. fat/fat more often than not. attractive face+attractive face, more often than not. average/average more often than other pairings.

    pharmacist + civil engineeer
    physician + lawyer
    business owner + x
    factory worker + divorced wife and on … alimony
    you can fill in the blanks

    anyhow, even though you do highlight white-black differences a lot – i was wondering what your solutions to remediate the lower iq distributions of all races as well as the effect of auto-self-segregation and auto-distrust function of human beings of other people (only when not habituated). the effects don’t really seem that pertinent the more i’m exposed to a particular group though, unless they severely differ in behaviour a lot (pragmatics, diction, correspondance style, etc). This seems more like a function of mismatched intelligence pairing and individual personality differences having the greater of variance / effect than me seeing white / black / asian / indian / insert identified person here.

    Although, I suppose we all make prejudgements on the basis of inferences and overextend these conceptions to apply to entire groups even though it really is just a probablistic sampling of a quality n on a distribution curve r with some expected mean n yielding a residual n-c causing a identity function g(x) to change in parameters of sensitivity in i,j to ii, jj.

    See bat + hoods + slacks + sneakers + arriving -> avoid
    See angry + crazed hair + grumbling walk + rambling -> avoid

    I guess I fall more on the eugenics or crispr gene editing side or even the techno-post human route.

    on a side note of temporary solution

    what do you think of entrapment + sterilization?
    I could see it work really well.
    very nice effect of selecting on low iq + propensity for crime

    but this leaves out high iq + manipulation of institutions
    like sneaky crime…
    declaring wars.. sending weapons abroad
    creating infinite levels of debt..
    redistributing wealth.. using it to fund business, then taxing ..
    special laws to benefit yourself, and only -apply- when convenient
    divide & conquer – group vs group weakening
    media control, illusion of control and choice via oligolpoly/collusion
    it looks like you can’t win either way..

    low iq + propensity for power + causus beilli = BLM
    low iq = immediate effects, scary
    high iq = slow effects, unobservable effects, tolerable long run

    The problem is the selection method. But there is a possible contingent chance of increase in intelligence or decrease in # of births of opportunistic thieves preceding this event. Tbh, we all are opportunities thieves to some extent.. I do recall accidentally taking home toilet paper without paying for it cause I left it on the bottom of the cart and never took it back.. some people glance at answers for quizzes in UG online .. in cooperative / defect games of 2 players .. on and on.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I find it funny that when I was in my private school years that.. lets wait for it..

      asians self-segregate
      whites self-segregate
      blacks self-segregate

      This is exactly how Rushton developed his GST. Noticing that on campuses that races and ethnies mostly stuck with their own. I see this the most with East Asians, mainly Korean and Japanese people.

      some exceptions. another asian-american or er.. asian-canadian paired with a french white-canadian and was in the “in” 5% centile for looks/intellect group with his outstanding scholastic achievements/leadership/etc.

      Even with so-called ‘exceptions’ there still may be some genotypic matching. Couples who are not of the same race or ethny still mtch on heritable traits such as BMI, waist size, etc, proving the theory.

      maybe it is just me .. but i guess there is some unconscious “comfort” level when we see someone more related. even i can sense this relaxed openess from this asian woman when i rented a room from her as if ”great, I don’t have to deal with difficult cultural differences or extreme noise or partying or room destruction”

      This unconscious comfort comes from, in general, having an expectation because they are of the same race as you. You’re more likely to know their culture and how they act and not think that it’s ‘weird’. When I was in high-school, people always thought the Asians were ‘weird’ for sticking together so much and not talking to any out-groups. Today I see it as East Asians being the most ethnocentric.

      not to mention.. a disproportionate amount of pairings made amongst similar people.. fat/fat more often than not. attractive face+attractive face, more often than not. average/average more often than other pairings.

      I watched a program on Nat Geo a few years back talking about attractiveness and mate selection. They did a study where they put numbers on people’s foreheads and watched how they matched up. People with similar numbers matched up with others with similar numbers. More attractive people end up with other attractive people because we match on IQ more often than not.

      anyhow, even though you do highlight white-black differences a lot – i was wondering what your solutions to remediate the lower iq distributions of all races as well as the effect of auto-self-segregation and auto-distrust function of human beings of other people (only when not habituated).

      Greatly reduce funding for social programs, have people do things themselves and it will sort out in the end. Give incentives for higher IQ people to have children. Focus on having intelligent women have children.

      This seems more like a function of mismatched intelligence pairing and individual personality differences having the greater of variance / effect than me seeing white / black / asian / indian / insert identified person here.

      Yes. I watch how people interact with others a lot. I notice, even when friends are of different races, that they have similar personality styles that mesh well with eachother. It seems that similar personality traits can override a racial/ethnic bias in some instances.

      I guess I fall more on the eugenics or crispr gene editing side or even the techno-post human route.

      I agree. CRISPR will be huge in the next 20 or so years. China just did the first test on a human.

      what do you think of entrapment + sterilization?

      If people are persistent welfare-takers, they should have a choice on whether or not to get sterilized to continue seeking benefits. Our society is dysgenic in that we give incentives for the low IQ people to breed yet none for the higher IQ people. This needs to reverse.

      but this leaves out high iq + manipulation of institutions

      Just inherent human nature. Though the more intelligent will be able to be more manipulative and pull it off without people noticing (too much).

      Like

  4. […] In a group, people are co-related and so can share traits and pass them on together, which is why groups break away from larger populations and settle alone; your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This way, they can […]

    Like

  5. You are a racist says:

    You didn’t mention the fact that a lot of black women do not exercise because of their hair. Also don’t you think the BMI scale overestimates the obesity levels in blacks due to higher muscle mass and higher bone mass in blacks.

    Like

  6. […] “Ethnic Genetic Interests and Group Selection Does Exist: A Reply to JayMan” by […]

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 180,994 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: