Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
I tried to write a motte post and accidentally wrote a book. Chapter one is here.
User ID: 3846
Okay so I'm going to make a general apology @HereAndGone @Chrisprattalpharaptr
Yes, this is laying it on a bit too thick. No, I don't 100% believe everything I say here (call it 99.9 tho), but it's instructive. Directionally-correct. Necessary.
Our societal ability to have conversations about what really matters has become sclerotic due to overreddit.
If you're discussing human evolution, why not drop the Tidus framing and just call them humans? And write a sourced post instead?
Because there is not a paragraph in this book which could not be its own essay with citations, if not its own book, which precisely three other people could actually comprehend and none of whom would read it because I already know them and they already know what I think.
I'm writing for a more general audience. I'm taking a leap. I'm trying to show you what I'm seeing in front of me, because I think you're probably seeing it too and just don't know it yet; are in conflict with yourself about it, and no one else is going to speak the words you need to hear.
Man, I am trying to show you the forest. We rationalist tree-enjoyers have gotten rather out of hand, wouldn't you say?
At times in this book I take hard, perhaps even indefensible positions, because I think that they're angling at the truth and I don't know any other way to impart it. I'm painting. A picture. I understand that we're all trained to quibble over pixels but I'm using oil. Gloss.
Let me show you this thing that is staring at us. C.f. the first invocation from chapter one.
I can, and would, defend everything I'm saying here, were it not beside the point. I value this community because it is the only place where I think I can make an honest fresh argument. It might help to know that in book two we take a step back and come again at everything from a very different angle; portray the same subject in a very different light. I'm hinting at truth where I can but some things can only be said between the lines; or in poëtry.
Today's chapter, about to go up, is sure to upset some people. So remember here that I'm painting with purpose. I don't want to lose readers, but let's please stop focusing on trees. Let me show you what I'm seeing, and then we can fight over details. I'd love to, actually, and don't know anywhere else it can happen.
Put another way: The argument could be made rigorously, and long-form, only in theory. In practice, there's no other way to speak than elision. Else vital truths go unsaid.
I'm being as concise, accurate, and sober as I can here while still managing to say anything worth saying. I am not calculating for provocation or unrest. Those come naturally along with the truth.
But this is The Motte and I should address some specific concerns.
Females too need to develop intelligence for politics
Yes, and they're about to in today's chapter. I'm not trying here to make a point about modern women, but rather to show how these things developed in a way that is intuitively comprehensible.
Polygenic traits frequently have very significant environmental influences (Even in animals, and even in genetically identical animals) which you also do not discuss.
I gesture at it occasionally. Bits of new substances working their way in, etc. And next week's chapter is substantially about cultural environment. But also left untouched are: epigenetics, and memetics more generally. That's more the subject of book two.
I suppose you would argue that I could never prove to your satisfaction that those mice experience the world differently, but that would just a be waste of everyone's time.
Correct. While I'm admittedly partial to an omnigenic model, and don't think it's probably quite the case — some things maybe really only do one thing, and have little to do with anything else — I still think it's generally true that this is a better framework, starting point, for the average (highly-preselected) reader than the usual one we're given. Better to start with omni and work back than start with mono and work forward, which is how it's usually taught. YMMV I guess, but then you're also free to write your own book. What needs to be understood here is that genetics is less a bake than a stew.
What is the cliffnotes version of the data supporting this hypothesis?
Not entirely sure what you're asking here but the basic idea is that more-fit organisms displace less-fit ones, which I shouldn't think is objectionable. The conceit of the mountain and the tides does a lot of work. Social space and physical space map onto each other in Tidus, and tides abstract away famines, plagues, etc. It's a simplifying thought experiment. And also nifty. If you want more details go ask Razib; he'll be happy to tell you where it's all to be found in the literature.
Personally I am at pains to stay anonymous, if such a thing will even be possible five minutes from now. I don't want to divulge sources, or drop hints, or leave background information about myself. The most I can say is that I have an expertise in animal psychology and a great deal of practical experience, from which I'm drawing these insights.
don't know what you're referring to here, but this sort of polygenic interaction is impossible to keep track of with our current level of understanding.
Yes; my assertion was that computers help, not that we've solved the problem. In retrospect I can see how the way I put it was a bit ambiguous.
Were you HelmedHorror on the old site?
The name faintly rings a bell but no.
I find is disquieting how many people reject psychology when it concludes that racial diversity improves team efficiency, stereotype threat or whatever other bullshit and then happily eat up evo psych slop that flatters their own biases.
To be honest, Chris, I didn't expect you to like this. I'm a long-time fan of yours but our politics are different and I think we're just seeing through different lenses. I am happy that you finally showed up in the comments. Though the particular places you've chosen to nitpick don't make a lot of sense to me except through the lens of politics. I know what you don't want to think and why, and I respect the goodness in you which makes you this way.
Can we make a deal? Please continue to call out anything that you think is specifically bogus. Either I will answer your concerns along the way or else I had better get around to fixing my model. It's an unfair card for me to play, I know, but I'd appreciate the scour. In many cases, as you said, we actually just don't know, and in those I find that the default assumptions are at least as unsupported as the ones I'm making here, but mine shed a lot more light on the general situation.
Please forgive any errors in form or syntax as I am in a greatly-weakened state. Especially when I get sick am I reminded that English isn't precisely my first language; only my best. I hope she enjoys such liberties as I take with her. Even so it feels like I'm trying to burst out of a too-tight suit. But anyway I didn't want to let you sit any longer unanswered.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
So apologies again to you (and @HereAndGone) but I've been both busy and ill and unable to respond. Hopefully tomorrow.
But can I just take a moment to appreciate how much fun it is to have detractors? For my book? Whom I might hope to rebut?
Good times.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
All (mostly) fair questions but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment and probably won't be able to respond substantively until tomorrow at the soonest. Thanks for asking.
the males are smart and the females are dumb breeding machines
Not at all, and not what I said. The females are, in this phase, about as smart as the males. They just have less pressure to use those smarts — for the time being. Sit tight!
Actually your reaction is kind of humorously on-brand for the chapter, if I'm reading it right. Did you detect, here, the edges of an idea which might hurt your social status were you to accept it?
It may help to remember that I'm describing a last common ancestor (LCA) which would map to something like 6-7 MYA, not modern humans. And, having studied this fairly intensively, the situation I'm describing is pretty much the current best mainstream academic hypothesis as to how they behaved. (If you'd like to know more, probably start with asking an LLM and it can direct you to where all of this is in the literature.)
Partly this is inferred from observing modern chimps, gorillas, and so on, and working backward. No strict harem system where one guy gets all the sex, but coalitional, with close allies also getting substantial preferential mating access. And, most interestingly to me, lack of female identification with the coalition in question. Instead, females ranging where they please and associating with the local males until moving on. But now I'm just repeating myself.
Point being that there's plenty of time for the situation to change between then and now, which is rather the topic of next week's chapter.
But laughter is good medicine.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
I think the answer to your question, in that other post, is yes. This is mainly incidental to the book and so I only have a bit of tangential material about it, near the very end, but I think you're right on the money.
I appreciate the objection, but will mostly decline to respond for the time being. Chapter six is substantially about exactly what you're describing here. It may or may not persuade you but we'll be in a better position to talk about it at that time.
For now what I'd suggest is that shared (genetic) substrate is critical. Your friends, etc. can share higher-order internal realities with you ('culture') only so long as they have the necessary genetic substrate in the first place. Assuming that all humans have the necessary components to be 'like you' given a similar-enough upbringing would be a major mistake. Humans do have an enormous capacity for learned associations and behaviours, but only so long as etc. You get it. We'll come back to this later.
And even then there's a tendency to, er, 'anthropomorphize' other people and assume that just because they laugh at the same jokes, those jokes occur to them in the same way. I'd be wary of this mistake too. There are many possible internal pathways which result in the same external response. Maybe this can be thought of as an interesting window into convergent evolution.
ETA: There's also the phenomenon of mass, lowest-common-denominator culture to consider. A mixed population necessarily devolves to those cultural levels which its mixed foundation can support.
But we're not talking about people yet. Let me set it up first.
Ah I liked it better before the edit. Alas.
What a touching read.
If nothing else I hope the readers get a sense of the very sincere courtesy which I am attempting to extend.
Anyway thanks. I don't think I'm actually saying anything our forefathers didn't already know; only, they seem to have dropped the ball on actually saying it and people have clearly forgotten.
The question of why this should be is a really good one. Next week's chapter sheds a bit of light, and we get to the next proximal answer in about a month or so, but the true answer doesn't come until... I'm not even sure if it's book two or three, yet.
You had asked before how I managed to come by this perspective without apparently relying upon the same literature with which you're familiar. Perhaps you withdrew the question because you sensed, correctly, that the less I say about myself the better. There's a reason people don't talk about these things, and it's a compelling one.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
I await your strident objections over tomorrow's chapter.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
A test reader described the tone as 'sublime horror' and while that's not per se what I was going for it seems apt.
Thanks for reading! You can probably tell how much I've put into this and the worst case scenario is that no one ever reads it.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
Well there's an old face! Thanks, I appreciate it. Plenty of views but I can't tell if anyone's actually reading or if I'm just getting scraped by bots.
No one's had much to say yet, but I bet next week's chapter ruffles some feathers. Hope I can count on your readership.
These are intended as motte posts after all and some engagement would be nice. If I'd posted the above in the CW thread I imagine I'd have half a dozen people telling me I'm wrong by now.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1mo ago
Even so I like the comment.
There's a meme about how women just aren't functionally aware of any but the most-attractive/successful men (or at least their immediate male relatives). @faceh wrote about this a bit here.
Seems to be powerfully on display in this case. I write about the bleakness of the both sexes' reality, and apparently all HereAndGone saw was... well, the post speaks for itself.
More options
Context Copy link