This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I find it really frustrating how often HBD gets dismissed, and then an alternative explanation is given that is perfectly compatible with HBD. Usually connected to the assumption that HBD is about either differences between people being either 100% genetics and/or that it's just about black vs white.
No, HBD is simply about the finding that genes/biology in humans matter for everything, even for those attributes where the implications are a bit unpleasant. Yes, some people are just more violent. Some people are just less conscientious. And yes, some people are just less intelligent. It's not even their fault so I have a lot of sympathy with them, in a way. But it's not claiming that environment has no influence at all; That's just silly.
Once you accept this, group differences follow directly. Let's take brain drain. If we accept that intelligence is, say 60% genetic, and that a place suffers from a large percentage of intelligent people leaving, what does this imply about the group that has left vs the group that stayed behind? It's nearly mathematically impossible for both groups to have the same genetic mean afterwards! It would require some convoluted simultaneous anti-selection. And this applies in one way or another to every large migration wave. There is always some reason why people leave, and that reason will have implications for group differences between the stayers vs the leavers. Also, this applies of course to the average, not to literally every single person in each group.
Of course, this is hardly the only dynamic; The recent Reich paper shows clear evidence for ongoing selection even just inside west eurasia and in particular shows that the idea of cultural evolution supplanting biological evolution is simply wrong; They work in tandem with each other. Which makes perfect sense: If a society requires substantial long-term planning for winter months, then you will have both cultural adaption to do so and biological selective pressure towards more conscientiousness, intelligence, etc. Likewise, living in literal centuries of civilization with a highly developed tax code such as China will plainly have different selective pressures than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Also, an aside: It's perfectly sensible to say that HBD is more important for differences inside developed states than for the differences between the developed vs the undeveloped world, since the latter has larger environmental differences. The black-white gap inside the US is probably substantially more genetic than the Europe-Africa gap. And this fits very well with the data, since the latter is significantly larger, even accounting for admixture.
Coming back to this post, assuming HBD is true, it makes sense that people with
will also have substantially biologically adapted to that environment. Or the other way around, if we assume the differences currently holding them back were pre-existing, than we would of course expect them to fare badly in international warfare and regularly get conquered and colonized. I agree with @SecureSignals that at least part of the difference here is likely pre-existing.
Now you may ask, if HBD is so compatible with everything, when does it really fail? That's simple: I lean towards cultural/environmental explanations where the split is historically recent, and/or where there is little evidence for plausible, sufficiently large genetic differences. NK vs SK is the gold-standard here. Korea has historically always been relatively developed and well-managed. Koreans are of course not perfectly homogenous, every group has subgroups, but it's relatively isolated and as homogenous as it gets. The split is an inheritance of WW2, which is quite recent. And it's at this point well-known that neither communism nor most other autocratic governments are very conducive to economic development, so the cultural explanation makes very plain sense.
I can't remember if we had a top-level thread on the Reich paper, but it's an important one validating the notion that Culture War is directly tied to biological evolution of society. The intersection of Culture War and HBD has been why I attribute so much importance to it and it seems like that association is becoming mainstream. But given the persistent taboo on serious HBD analysis, that also means we will continue to have academics who seriously study Culture War, some academics like Reich that seriously study HBD (while steering clear of societal implications), but an enormous gap in the study of the interaction between the two: how cultural memes, religion, and symbols influence the biological evolution of the nation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link