I think much of the decline is explained by the cost and time of travel being reduced. Disparate populations are still easy to reach, but before we had mass communications, information about unsavory individuals might propagate slowly.
Snake Oil Salesmen are a well known trope in Westerns, where it was possible to arrive in an isolated town, scam the relatively trusting townspeople, leave before they realized the scam, and arrive in another such town before word actually spread.
Even today, it can be hard to punish a scammer if they stay mobile. Or simply operate outside the jurisdiction of the people they're scamming (oh look, India again).
Dunbar's number is probably pretty closely correlated to the largest community you can operate the runs solely on trust, rather than introducing contracts, mediators, and other dispute resolution systems.
Still, there is something 'magical' about being able to leave your garage door open, your car unlocked, and expect to find your Amazon packages left unmolested on your doorstep, and likewise be pretty certain that if someone DID try to take your packages or steal your car the neighbors would either intervene or call the police, who would in fact take it seriously enough to try to catch the miscreant.
One thing that has really stuck in my craw in the modern era are TSA agents stealing items from luggage. It was (is?) an epidemic, and I really can't see how you maintain trust in a system when the people tasked with enforcing the rules are the ones violating them flagrantly. And, oh dear, I have to note that A Majority of the Security Screeners are nonwhite.
faceh
1mo ago
I'm actually unfamiliar with the criminal justice practices of Tsarist Russia, was the death penalty meted out with regularity?
This seems likely to be the largest effect.
Social selection effects 'alone' seem insufficient. Gotta actually remove/filter the least cooperative/most dangerous defectors out of the gene pool for a few generations, allowing the cooperators to proliferate.
The other factor is probably there being even higher-trust subpopulations that were either allowed to live in isolation, or those subpopulations leave to a new land and form a society where everyone is extremely high trust (and defectors get burned to death or killed off by the elements). Then norms these cultures produce probably rubbed off on others they came into contact with.
Butttt if we're going with long-term evolutionary explanations, I'm a fan of the idea that long, harsh winters tend to produce human populations that are good at long term thinking and directly linked to that, cooperation in iterated games. "If we start fighting over food supply now, all it will achieve is everyone dies when winter arrives."
Then of course winter itself forcing people to live in close proximity and anyone who was intolerable to be around would likely be kicked out of the house and would more than likely die.
A good test for this would be to see if current Inuit cultures seem to have similar 'high trust' norms.
Japan
I recently was reminded of the series they have over there where literal toddlers are sent on errands that require them to operate very independently and overcome some basic obstacles, and navigate the risks of the local environment.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=z5GB-uiX4f4?si=7rg1ZGv38B4Ue86c
And nobody finds this odd, every single person does their best to assist without overly coddling the kid, and generally you get the sense the entire social structure of this community is designed for the safety of their children.
That's the dream, imho.
faceh
1mo ago
But simply "being prepared" is not a visible thing.
Correct, although there are visible signals a man can send, and a few of those are actually hard to fake!
More importantly, these are things a woman can sniff out in advance of committing to a guy if she wants to! Or she could ask her dad, who probably has the better insight into male worthiness.
A fire extinguisher basically can't, unless I failed to maintain it in working condition.
Think, for just a second, what the approximate equivalent of 'failing to maintain' the relationship with a male partner might look like, though.
The reason I'm willing to believe that post is hitting on truth is simply interacting with the Indians in my local community over the course of years now.
And the tendency to try and 'get one over' on others, even when it is detrimental to the relationship is nigh-universal. Sometimes this is benign. But I'd be reluctant to put anything meaningful at risk in a deal that might go sour because of this factor.
I had a potential client with a 2.5 million dollar net worth (if I assume he was honest on this point) balk at paying me $1200 to fix a problem for him. This was already steeply discounted! I also noticed that its about 50-50 that any given Indian-American potential client I actually work with will follow through on actually finalizing their work, since, I suspect, that would mean handing money over. And I get the sense that the act of handing over money is seen as somewhat of a 'defeat' unless the amount you hand over is much less than the amount that was agreed to.
I'll still work with them, of course, but it has colored my expectations across the board. I would NOT take one on as a business partner unless I had a pre-existing extensive relationship with them.
And these are all otherwise decently smart, well-presenting, well-off individuals.
My conclusion is basically one of two things.
#1 Either the Indians who actually make it over here are 'the best of the best' to some degree, and in theory the best-suited to adapt to Western Cultural norms, and even they are acting on this 'defection-based' cultural baseline... which indicates such culture is endemic in their home country...
OR
#2 The Indians who make it over here achieved that by cheating the hardest and fooling the gullible Westerners intentionally... which indicates that this culture is so endemic in their home country that it is the ONLY way for them to get ahead.
(The third option is that those are the same thing: the 'most talented' Indians are also the ones best at playing that game, and that's maybe the scariest possibility of all, we're inviting the 'superpredators' of their society here.)
I have also had some perfectly delightful, non-scammy/defection interactions in various contexts, and in most cases they're pleasant to interact with when money isn't on the table. And I have a few Indian dishes that I really do enjoy, I would never say their culture is without its pros.
But as I've stated before, I have little problem, zero discomfort looking at the broader, population level stats and drawing the obvious conclusions from those. One of the big ones that still sort of puzzles me... how does a nation with 1.5 billion people produce so few Olympic-Caliber athletes? They've won 41 medals... TOTAL. That's one-third of what fucking KENYA has, and Kenya started competing in 1956, compared to India starting in 1900. Granted Kenya is a bit specialized in which events they win.
And my 'theory' is that that whole area of the world assumes that defection/low trust is 'normal' and act accordingly, and when introduced to a high-trust population, they're more inclined to view these folks as potential suckers (in the P.T. Barnum sense) than they are to realize they can achieve much greater things via cooperation here.
So that reading pretty readily confirms my priors... which makes me suspicious enough to want some independent verification.
If you know how I feel about high-trust societies... you probably get why I find this concept disgusting and mildly terrifying if true.
faceh
1mo ago
There are a LOT of techniques in wrestling (and similar disciplines) that are unreasonably effective if you're willing to demolish your opponent's weak spots.
The good news is that there's now billions of dollar pouring into this particular area of research to find more and more effective options, so I'd expect they'll find one that works for your case relatively soon.
But I am very sympathetic to the feeling that the 'miracle drug' isn't helping.
Would I kill a stranger to protect my wife? Sure. Do I think I will ever have to actually do that? Almost certainly not. Does that fact, like, oblige some gratitude or something on my wife's part? Create some responsibility to me? I don't think so
And on that point I simply disagree.
If you are ever called upon to actually kill (or die) to save your wife or children, that sole act in itself functionally justifies the entirety of her gratitude for you, because the severity of the act is literally that large in terms of impact on your life and hers.
Even if I grant that we've rendered the present risk of having to do so to functionally nil (unless you go looking for trouble), if you have genuinely taken the time to mentally and physically prepare yourself for an act of ultimate violence or sacrifice, that risk is NOT guaranteed to remain low into the future and having an 'insurance policy' in place for such an event is is the wise thing to do.
Simply put, if you keep a fire extinguisher around the house for years on end, do you think "man why do I bother having this thing, housefires are a rare occurrence!" or, is it more like "I sure am glad to have this here because if my house catches fire I might be able to stop it burning down."
Have some gratitude for the fire extinguisher sitting on top of your fridge (well, that's where mine is) even if you never intend to use it.
Or, if you like, think of it as the equivalent of paying your life insurance premium every month. Hope to never to use it, still paying (in money, if not 'gratitude') for the peace of mind it brings.
The world is not, on the whole, a very civilized and safe place. And the only insurance policy one can have against the failure of civilization is someone willing to step up to fight the dangers. We forget and dismiss this at our own peril.
faceh
1mo ago
That's actually a damn solid insight.
We have gone from a society where most basic systems undergirding it are in principle legible and comprehensive to ~a majority of the people (in a practical if not scientific sense of 'understanding') to one where these mechanisms are far more complex and often hidden (sometimes intentionally obsfuscated) so its now a world of 'magic' machines from the perspective of the average citizen.
And Boomers sort of presided over this period, and were never economically incentivized to learn how things worked outside of their narrow domain.
We do now have a TON of younger folks trained in computer science and coding who at least get how these black boxes 'think' and can manipulate them to some degree, but I doubt this unlocks full understanding of how the world's social systems work.
There's a point at which technique ceases to trump size and strength.
I should know, I've been training techniques for damn near 10 years, and I've got one buddy with ~40 pounds on me who can still ragdoll me at will if he decides to/I don't execute the technique perfectly. I can beat him at striking, though.
Look at Connor McGregor attempt to fight The Mountain from Game of Thrones.
I have yet to see any 'convincing' demonstration of a female submission artist defeating a male of similar size who did not want to be submitted. I will grant it can happen, but it is probably a fluke.
For demo purposes, it is hard to override the male instinct to 'play nice' with women so as not to inadvertently hurt them.
Thus, I think it is far, far better to not feed female ego on this point and just tell them straight up "your attacker will probably be a male, and probably be larger than you. Give up any hope of beating him on skill or strength and just CHEAT LIKE HELL and beat him on brutality." And carry a weapon and train with said weapon.
faceh
1mo ago
Well I did discuss that and I think the risk is overstated, and is certainly the wrong risk to hedge against. Allowing fear of this risk to dissuade you from partnering up is a sign of excess neuroticism. And 'ironically' excess neuroticism makes it more likely your relationship will fail.
It does appear that strengthening the marriage covenant (i.e. making the expectations and restrictions on both parties clear and strict) is a necessary preceding step.
faceh
2mo ago
outside of some form of codified decorum the half drunk guy with a gun wins more martial contests than all the other combat disciplines except sober guy with a gun
In a 1 v. 1 scenario, I would no-shit bet on a guy with a knife who sort of knows what he's doing vs. the guy with a gun.
We've tested this under pressure. Unless the gunman gets a shot off that actually incapacitates the other guy instantly, once the distance closes a blade does more damage more quickly and reliably. If its already close quarters, good luck actually deploying the weapon and getting a shot off under pressure.
And if the gun jams or slips from your grasp or the other guy manages to take it, you're screwed.
You're almost better off using it as a bludgeon.
There's dozens of bodycam videos out there of a cop getting jumped by knife-wielding attacker and they almost always get cut before the attacker is neutralized. And oftentimes the only reason the attacker is neutralized is because another cop shoots them in time.
faceh
2mo ago
Well, are we starting with grappling or does the woman have to take him down?
I guess I can clarify, if 'dirty' tactics like eye gouges and groin strikes are on the table, then size isn't an insurmountable factor.
Problem is a dude can win literally by just dropping all his weight on her and holding her down.
faceh
2mo ago
Yep, but it is worth asking what problem Jiu Jitsu solves and how common that problem is.
Arguably the way its practiced has so many constraints that in practice it fails if any of those constraints are violated.
If you're fighting a guy who boxes, is not wearing a gi, on a concrete surface, and he may be carrying a weapon, I dunno if its reliable.
Excellent conditioning though.
That said, wrestling (specifically Sambo) seems to dominate everything in a 1 v 1 context.
faceh
2mo ago
And a "real" fight is chaotic so there's an irreducible element of chance involved.
The secret to winning fights is mostly "bring more guys, with better discipline."
The coach is not based enough to flat out announce the single best way to improve your running performance is to lose weight.
Interesting but not surprising.
What's really funny is now GLP-1 drugs have made it a simple matter of adhering to an injection schedule, so these difficult conversations need not happen. Someone just loses a bunch of weight out of 'nowhere' and their life quality and performance improves, everyone cheers, and then nobody has to acknowledge that being fat just sucks in about every way no matter what you do.
Martials arts well, as they say "weight classes exist for a reason." There's a bit more dimensionality to it, but simply put you will never EVER find a woman who can beat a man in her weight class without the guy being severely handicapped.
faceh
2mo ago
There is an ongoing theory that BJJ is fake in the sense it doesn't work against someone unwilling to engage in BJJ with you. Although I think that only counts with regard to the sport aspect.
faceh
2mo ago
That era was a mistake in a number of ways
Not clear to me, looking WAY back in hindsight, how it could have gone differently, though.
Like, I can see how the 2000's could have gone differently if, for example
A) 9/11 never happened. Or
B) Our response to 9/11 was more measured but also reaffirmed our national commitment to not letting other countries fuck with us.
But things like the 2008 financial crisis seem baked into the cake given the incentives involved.
Not sure how to interpret the 1960's in terms of 'the forces of history.' Mistakes were made but seemingly made from a bit of ignorance and irrational exuberance and as you say, the guys trying to keep things sane must have looked like real spoilsports.
And with that you saw an attendant shift in the social values of the population with the abundant wealth that was following in.
Well yeah I can actually sort of understand the logic there actually.
"Hey we've got this brand new drug that heightens sensory experiences but has seemingly zero side effects! Miraculous! And all these extremely talented musicians innovating genres with meaningful messages! And contraceptives so we can have the pleasure of sex without the risk! Truly this is an age of wonders, we can surely solve the world's problems if we just unite around something we all have in common!"
Then sprinkle some marxism in there. Can't forget to mention Jonestown where a bunch of self-professed Marxist-Communists got froggy and killed themselves along with a bunch of kids. That was later in the game, though.
Oh, and the Manson murders. 1969-1971 really killed any presumption of 'innocence' in this culture, didn't it?
The extra layer of weird spirituality that permeated much of the hippie era was a bit harder for me to understand. Lot of cults in that time period.
Whatever mindsets of the 60's has been repeated in the current era, it seems to be a firmly secular movement this time around, although most here can point out how "wokeism" is just a secular religion.
but I think it's still a more arduous obligation than what the average man in the west will be called upon to do in their lifetime.
You might need to recalibrate your perception of the sort of work the average dude has to complete in his life, and the pains they will suffer as a result of them.
Looking at the top, call it 20% of guys and assuming they represent all men is the EXACT issue that leads to intersex resentment, I think.
And just as modern society has relieved a lot of the risks that men are otherwise expected to deal with... it has also made the entire childbearing process less painful and FAR, FAR less risky for women.
(thanks to men)
So this sentiment doesn't move me an inch, although I'm on record with saying that bearing and raising children SHOULD afford a woman high status!
In reading some accounts of the culture of the '60s and '70s, it seems like there were a LOT of true believers who genuinely thought that free love, LSD, and rock music was going to save the world and fix everything. And a lot of opportunists who saw how they could exploit this sentiment.
And as the quote implies, turns out there are some downsides to each of those things. The drugs in fact ended up killing a lot of the musicians.
To hear some tell it, the Altamont Free Concert was the day (four months after Woodstock, the apotheosis of the era) that dream died/the illusion popped.
"Wow, turns out getting people hopped up on drugs at a free concert with a Biker Gang (paid in beer) running security DOESN'T result in a peaceful, money-free utopia." And like a number of recent culture issues, the death of a black guy was the precipitating incident.
Richard Nixon was... more right than wrong about hippies.
For my part I think it was fully doomed when the Corporations Co-opted their sentiment to sell sugar water. Note this was the same year John Lennon released "Imagine."
faceh
2mo ago
Yeah, the one they'd specifically been antagonizing for a couple decades and thus was actually geared for repelling them.
Yeeup.
To take a direct example, Europe has gotten so far from the era where they had to worry about Russian/Soviet Invasion that they don't even maintain the basic military capacity to defend their own shores if there was ever a 'serious' outbreak of war.
This was brought into stark relief with the Ukraine war, but they still seem to work on the assumption that the U.S. will backstop things.
That's the reason Martial Arts has been able to resist infiltration, the traditions are strong and they DEMAND seriousness of effort.
You can't easily fake the 'seriousness of the effort' anymore. McDojos are still a thing, but thanks to the rise of MMA, there's an 'objective' measure of what works and what doesn't. "Oh you have trained in an ancient, secret style of martial arts passed down by a tribe of Eskimos for centuries? Cool. Take an amateur MMA fight and let us see how you do."
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is RIDICULOUSLY popular still. I literally drive past FOUR separate BJJ gyms on the way to my gym. Where I train Krav Maga and Boxing, but also offers BJJ.
You CANNOT fake BJJ ability.
So in short, you can't be an entryist in the MMA world without actually getting good at martial arts. And if you get good at martial arts, why would you want to then destroy your own hobby?
Likewise, there's not really any one central organization to infiltrate to overthrow everything. Even if a lefty ascended to the top of, say, the Gracie Family, there's a dozen other competing orgs that will just branch off if you try to turn it into another lefty political org.
And of course, the difference between the sexes cannot be papered over. "Girls are just as good at fighting as boys" blows up instantly when you see that a teenage boy can demolish all but the very-best trained women in a 'serious' sparring session.
So in short, its hard for politics to infect martial arts, you can't fake the skills, and it shows many lefty shibboleths to be flat out lies.
And its fun. So I expect it'll remain 'safe' from infiltration for a long time.
I can imagine claiming some largeish planetoid in the asteroid belt and converting it over to suitability for human habitation, and have a couple Aldrin Cyclers that can drop off and pick up visitors.
Fuck a house in a nice neighborhood, I want my nearest neighbor to be 400,000 km away.
That's what I'D do with an AI-induced boon.
Buying comfortable solitude might be the next frontier in that sense, There's only so many private islands out there, although we can certainly build more.
More options
Context Copy link