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 -
Yeah, BAP just seems to be crying about more effecient and higher fit humans taking their rightful place near the top of the western hierarchy. It's literally no different to the usual complaints black people have about whites. BAPs laments come from the same place as those ones (namely envy) and should be discarded. The only difference is that unlike whites who for some reason listen to the unfounded complaints of blacks, we're not going to listen to the ones of whites. You set up this system, and now we're beating you at your own game!
Also this Indian Bronson dude (first time I am hearing of him) has a profile picture of a dude holding up a gun with no trigger discipline. That on its own makes me negatively predisposed to him, people have died because others couldn't keep their index fingers straight. It's something which needs to be shamed and removed from society.
I feel I should at least devil's advocate on this since while I think @SecureSignals believes this (please correct me if I'm wrong), he didn't actually spit it out and an argument unspoken cannot be debated.
HBDers aren't only interested in intelligence differences among races, although that's what they're most (in)famous for. Many of them also consider personality traits to plausibly differ substantially among the races. If true, this is relevant to policy because the proportion of a population with certain personality traits can greatly affect its ability to thrive, potentially even more so than raw intelligence. The most commonly-cited as relevant would probably be %sociopaths and %WEIRD, although I'm not especially-well-versed in HBD so people may have made other claims.
In particular, there is a claim by some white supremacists (including, from what I recall of that post, BAP) that East Asians have high relative intelligence but low %WEIRD (and thus high propensity to corruption). The conjectured scenario is that allowing East Asians to float to the top of Western society will result in institutional decay because they are statistically more likely to be corrupt.
I am not especially convinced of this; I have a low prior on cognitive differences between various groups of non-Africans due to the smaller timescales involved, and while shame cultures are currently quite common in East Asia and rare in white countries, I'm not convinced that that's more than a cultural coincidence. This is also, shall we say, a very convenient hypothesis for white supremacists, which increases the likelihood of it being floated even if false.
One case where I absolutely am sold on this, though, is thinking that eugenics on personality traits has a large potential to explode societies that practice it. I may doubt differential evolution for 40,000 years is capable of producing large gaps in these kinds of statistics, but artificial selection probably is and gene editing certainly is. And of course, if your designer babies are all geniuses in addition to being 10% sociopaths, that makes it worse, not better.
What is religion and culture, if not a mechanism for coordinating the breeding behavior of the masses? Culture itself is eugenics on personality traits. So when we talk about European culture throughout the ages, including the innumerable pressures on those populations (Kingdoms and Empires, Black Death, European feudal system, etc.) that is synonymous with discussion of eugenic selection for a European type. In the Roman era that culture looked different in some ways, but similar in other ways, to Christianized Europe.
Another, more explicit instance of this, is Judaism as a eugenic program for the selection of a Jewish type. The myths, the rituals, the symbols held dearly by the flock, actually lead to the formation of a type of person. One of the myths in Genesis is the patriarch of the Jewish people, Jacob, using media and "culture" to direct the breeding behavior of a flock of sheep, which he inherits by making them all speckled. Of course, in the bible flocks of sheep are symbolic for people. This is ancient and esoteric knowledge.
So given your own premises, accepting this fact, you should have an extremely high prior probability that people who were selected throughout the millennia in Asian culture are not the same as people who were selected in European culture, because culture is nothing except a program of eugenics or dysgenics depending on the frame of reference.
In the same way, my chief concern is dysgenics, not on maintaining a stasis that has never really existed. What would a eugenic culture look like in the 21st century? That is the question that concerns me, not maintaining homogeneity or something for its own sake, and certainly not a myopic obsession with IQ nationalism like you see in the rationalist sphere. At the same time, I am extremely concerned with a culture that accelerates dysgenic behavior and dysgenic changes in population.
The distinction I'm making is selection power. Culture does have selection effects, but they're noisy and very weak compared to "generate 10,000 embryos via IVF, the one with the highest genetic score for trait X is selected, rest are destroyed". And I'm not even sure that the cultural traits we're concerned with go back that full 40,000 years; Confucianism doesn't exactly predate Confucius.
Selection is a thing, yes, obviously, but honestly at this point I don't think it's currently worth worrying about. High-power eugenics techniques are coming to fruition, nuclear war's pretty likely in the near future, and we could all be killed by AI or whatever in the next couple of centuries. It's like worrying about rain acidification eroding a limestone cave when the cave also has an armed nuclear bomb in it; the current direction of the trendline is of no consequence because there is essentially no chance that it will have enough time to go anywhere before getting scrambled.
You sorely underestimate how quickly evolution happens. It only took a few very silly ideas to become memetically enshrined in our collective consciousness to radically alter the genetic trajectory of the United States. And that's only within our own lifetime.
Evolution does not take hundreds of thousands of years. Events like the Black Death, Feudal Law which likely led to a genetic pacification of European people due to persistent executions of something like 2% of the most criminal population annually, will change a population within several generations. The feudal system likewise brought higher TFR for the upper classes which functionally led to the genetic replacement of the lower classes and the emergence of a Middle Class. You cannot ignore the millennia of evolution in Europe and assume that they are selecting for the same type of personality as in Indonesia, or that these differences are not radical enough to lead to powerful selection effects. They absolutely are.
And I've already presented a very clear example of memes becoming genes in the form of the Jewish religion, although I don't mean to single Jews out because we are all products of the same forces, it's just one of the clearest cases out there of myths and symbols leading to the selection of types of people, and not over tends of thousands of years, either- much faster than that.
Embryonic selection is not high-power, it is extremely low power. High-power eugenics is filming a Movie that convinces people they should be really concerned about demographic change and organize to mass deport illegal immigrants to keep the country majority white. Or making a movie that convinces them they are an evil person if they care about racial demographics (high-power dysgenics!).
Embryonic selection cannot hold a candle to the high-power eugenic technique of planting an idea into the heads of the collective consciousness. And the rationalists most eager to pretend that something like embryonic selection is a substitute for the harder task of memetically challenging the Culture are just proving they are still slaves to it just the same.
Ah, perhaps I should specify more fully. Widely-deployed embryo selection is far higher-power than culture. This is because, if you kill/sterilise the most offensive 2% of the population every generation, you're only cutting off a bit of the tail - and a tail imperfectly correlated with the genes, because penetrance is not 100%. Embryo selection is powerful because you can cut off 90%+ of the distribution, and you can select on genes directly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link