The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
Getting the Babes But Not the Babies
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Who’s making more babies? “Good boys” or “bad boys”? Originally, the good boys were, thanks to parental monitoring of relations between single men and single women. The pendulum then swung toward the bad boys in the 1940s, only to swing back after the 1960s.

A recent Swedish study has found that “bad boys” are outbreeding “good boys”:

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. (Yao et al., 2014)

This study has been much talked about, yet few people have noticed its one big flaw. Sweden has many citizens of foreign origin whose crime and fertility rates exceed those of the native population (Crime in Sweden, 2014; Landes, 2008). Reproductive success may thus correlate with criminality simply because both tend to be higher among non-natives than among natives. Admittedly, this alternate explanation had been foreseen by the authors of the study and they tried to correct for it:

We included variables potentially associated with both criminal and reproductive behavior as covariates. [...] Immigrant status has been associated with both rule breaking, primarily through associations with other familial and socioeconomic risk markers (Moehling & Piehl, 2009), and adherence to cultural norms influencing fertility and monogamy-related outcomes (Coleman, 2006). The migration register provided information on immigrant status defined as being born in Sweden or not. (Yao et al., 2014)

Unfortunately, country of birth is no longer a satisfactory proxy for cultural identity, at least not in Sweden’s case. There is now a large Swedish-born population that self-identifies as Pakistani, Somali, or Afghan, including the youths who rioted in Malmö last year. The Swedish crime rate is influenced almost as much by the Swedish-born of foreign background as by the foreign-born:

During the period 1997-2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences for which a perpetrator was convicted were committed by people born in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, while almost 20% were committed by people with a foreign background who were born in Sweden. (Crime in Sweden, 2014)

If we could examine only people of Swedish descent, I doubt reproductive success would still correlate with criminality or, more exactly, with a tendency to “love and leave” one woman after another. Such a correlation used to exist in the U.S. but disappeared almost half a century ago. This was the conclusion of Jason Malloy and JayMan (2012) when they used General Social Survey data to find out the number of children fathered by monogamous men (“good boys”) versus men who had several female sex partners (“bad boys”). It seems that the reproductive success of bad boys has varied a lot over time:

Men born before 1920 – courtship under parental supervision

In this cohort, good boys were the top breeders. No need to think hard to find the reason. Any man wishing to meet a single woman, other than a prostitute, had to run a gauntlet of parental supervision. The preferred form of courtship was still “calling.” If a woman struck your fancy, you could “call” on her at her home. If she and her parents were favorably impressed, you could come back for further visits and eventually start taking her out to social events. Otherwise, that would be the end of it. A more direct approach could get you in big trouble, as a reference book for American lawmakers explained in 1886:

The state should punish, not only treacherous inducements to incontinence or to unchastity when accompanied by the violation of particular duties, and the seduction of minors, or girls under sixteen, but also seduction when it assumes a character dangerous to the interests of the community. It is not the duty of the state to make the individual moral, or to protect her against temptations to immorality; but it should endeavor to prevent all acts of immorality calculated to poison family life and the life of the nation. (Lalor, 1886, vol.III, p. 211)

The concern here is not just venereal disease, but also a family’s genetic heritage. In the 19th century, people believed that a part of their essence was reincarnated in their children and grandchildren. Their concern over sex was fueled not by irrational hang-ups but by a very rational desire to maintain the integrity of their family line. Bad boys threatened that integrity, and it was not for nothing that many ended up in jail … or at the end of a rope.

Men born between 1920 and 1939 – rise of dating, illegitimacy, and adoption

In this cohort, bad boys were the top breeders. Parental supervision had slackened with the replacement of calling by dating, thus creating new opportunities for them to sow their seed. A sharp rise in illegitimacy led to a sharp rise in adoption:

[...] The period 1945 to 1974, the baby scoop era, saw rapid growth and acceptance of adoption as a means to build a family. Illegitimate births rose three-fold after World War II, as sexual mores changed. Simultaneously, the scientific community began to stress the dominance of nurture over genetics, chipping away at eugenic stigmas. In this environment, adoption became the obvious solution for both unwed mothers and infertile couples. (Adoption, 2014)

Adoption had previously been very rare. As late as 1923, only 2% of children without parental care ended up in adoptive homes, the others going to foster homes or orphanages (Adoption, 2014). And a large chunk of that 2% involved adoptions between related families. These statistics are mirrored by my family tree: whenever children were left with no provider, they would be adopted by an aunt or an uncle or placed in a foster home. In those days, changing your family identity was as unthinkable as changing your religion or nationality.

To deal with the surge of illegitimacy, progressive-minded people now turned toward a seemingly great idea. On the one hand, there were babies abandoned by deadbeat dads. On the other, there were middle-class families with loving homes. Why not transfer these babies from the dads who don’t love them to the ones who can?

The 20th century is littered with great ideas that proved to be not so great. Adoption is no exception. One negative outcome, which could have been foreseen, is that adopted children tend to replicate the psychological profile of their biological fathers. In one study, Gibson (2009) notes:

Adoptees were more likely than genetic offspring to have ever received public assistance, been divorced or been arrested. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to have ever required professional treatment for mental health, alcohol and drug issues.

[...] This supports other research showing that, compared to genetic children, American adoptees have a higher overall risk of contact with mental health professionals, specifically for eating disorders, learning disabilities, personality disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [...] They also have lower achievement and more problems in school, abuse drugs and alcohol more, and fight with or lie to parents more than genetic children [...]

These problems are not due to adoptive parents shortchanging adoptees. In fact, the reverse seems true:

This study categorically fails to support the hypothesis that parents bias investment toward genetically related children. Every case of significant differential investment was biased toward adoptees. Parents were more likely to provide preschool, private tutoring, summer school, cars, rent, personal loans and time with sports to adopted children. (Gibson, 2009)

Adoption does seem to improve the behavior of these children. It lowers their risk of committing violent crime, although they remain just as likely to commit other offences:

The possibility that genetic factors are among the causes of criminal behavior was tested by comparing court convictions of 14,427 adoptees with those of their biological and adoptive parents. A statistically significant correlation was found between the adoptees and their biological parents for convictions of property crimes. This was not true with respect to violent crimes. There was no statistically significant correlation between adoptee and adoptive parent court convictions. Siblings adopted separately into different homes tended to be concordant for convictions, especially if the shared biological father also had a record of criminal behavior. (Mednick et al., 1984)

With respect to intellectual capacity, adoptees likewise seem to benefit from their new homes, although the benefit tends to wash out over time. When children with two white biological parents were adopted into white middle-class homes, they initially did somewhat better than their non-adopted siblings, as seen on IQ tests at the age of 7. By the age of 17, however, the situation had reversed, with the adoptees falling behind their non-adopted siblings in terms of IQ, GPA, class ranking, and school aptitude (Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, 2014).

Clearly, adoptees are getting some benefit although the benefit is less than what some may think. It also comes at a price. When the family unit is reoriented toward social welfare goals, it can no longer serve its original purpose of perpetuating a genetic heritage.

Men born after 1939 – separation of sex from reproduction

In this cohort, good boys have once again been the top breeders. This might seem counterintuitive. After all, sexual morality has become even more liberal since the 1960s, and this change has paralleled a growing infatuation with thuggish males in popular culture. Yet something seems to have kept bad boys from translating their sexual success into reproductive success.

That “something” is easier access to contraception and … Roe v. Wade. More and more good girls are making out with bad boys, but fewer and fewer are making babies with them.

Pro-lifers see this as proof that pro-choicers are secret eugenicists. I think it’s just an unintended consequence. Paradoxically as it may seem, modern culture is favoring the reproduction of stable couples who plan for the long term and invest in their children.

Just think. What is the core message of modern culture? It’s live for today, live for yourself, and avoid long-term commitments, such as family and children. And who responds the most to that message? It’s people whose time orientation is already focused on the present and who already invest as little as possible in their offspring. Modern culture is sterilizing those individuals who are most susceptible to its message.

And so, when it comes to having babies and raising them to adulthood, America’s white middle class is slowly but surely closing in on first place (Frost, 2012).

Conclusion

Perhaps this is all for the best. What other choices are there? Conservative politicians talk a lot about traditional values, but not one in ten believe what they say. To judge by their personal lives, many seem happy with the current climate of sexual permissiveness. Anyhow, if conservatives really do try to turn back the clock, their efforts will be blocked by the libertarian right and the liberal left. And if they manage to outflank both groups, they’ll be lucky to take us back to the policies and practices of the 1950s. Unfortunately, this is one case where half-measures will make things worse. We’ve come to where we are because of the 1950s.

So what political option is left for someone like me? I wish to preserve our existing genetic heritage, if only because we don’t fully understand what we are about to lose. If you feel the same way, the best course of action seems to be the present one of separating sex from reproduction. Call it “tactical liberalism” if you wish, but I see no other realistic alternative.

References

“Adoption” (2014) Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption

“Crime in Sweden” (2014). Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden

Frost, P. (2012). Obama: White America’s bogeyman? Evo and Proud, November 24
/pfrost/obama-white-americas-bogeyman/

Gibson, K. (2009). Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children, Evolution and Human Behavior,30, 184-189.
http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-260-edward-h-hagen/evil_step-parents.pdf

JayMan. (2012). Some guys get all the babes – not exactly, JayMan’s Blog, November 8
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/some-guys-get-all-the-babes-not-exactly/

Lalor, J.J. (1886). Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, Chicago: A.H. Andrews & Co.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=AsM6AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Cyclopaedia+of+Political+Science,+Political+Economy,+and+of+the+Political+History+of+the+United+States&ots=VqItRo_7kY&sig=aL3srydNpIpMoKOlKnd5gXqnp0g#v=onepage&q=Cyclopaedia%20of%20Political%20Science%2C%20Political%20Economy%2C%20and%20of%20the%20Political%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States&f=false

Landes, D. (2008). Higher birth rates among Sweden’s foreign born,The Local, November 3
http://www.thelocal.se/20081103/15408

Mednick, S.A., W.F. Gabrielli Jr., & B. Hutchings. (1984). Genetic influences in criminal convictions: evidence from an adoption cohort,Science, 224, 891-894
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/224/4651/891.short

“Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study” (2014), Wikipedia
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/224/4651/891.short

Yao, S., N. Langstrom, H. Temri, and H. Walum. (2014). Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data,Evolution and Human Behavior, in press
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2814%2900077-4/abstract

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Adoption, Antisocial Behavior, Genetics, Sweden 
Hide 59 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hmm. You might even get desperate, find a good girl and have a large family.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    This article is … off the wall. The unspoken, underlying assumption is that ‘crime’ is genetic. Maybe it’s a sleeper, implanting the urge to sterilize criminals? At least to revive eugenics.

    The world’s most egregious murderer has a Nobel Peace Prize that he waves as his license to kill. Too late to sterilize him … he already has two daughters.

    Won’t even bring up the Dulles family. Or the Bushes. ‘Congenital’ criminals since well before XLI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Apples and oranges. What are the odds Obama or George W mugs you in a parking garage?

    Criminals are high-T with poor impulse control, which correlates with lower IQ, which is at least 50% hereditary, so yes, it makes no sense at all to pay women to have babies by thugs who make terrible husbands and fathers.

    Ron - can you create a separate playpen for all the Mother Jones readers who come here to read Juan Cole?
    , @reiner Tor

    The unspoken, underlying assumption is that ‘crime’ is genetic.
     
    That's not an assumption, much less unspoken, that's explicitly stated in the article, even cites sources for it. Not that any sane person with some knowledge of evolutionary psychology would doubt that to the least extent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Anonymous
    This article is ... off the wall. The unspoken, underlying assumption is that 'crime' is genetic. Maybe it's a sleeper, implanting the urge to sterilize criminals? At least to revive eugenics.

    The world's most egregious murderer has a Nobel Peace Prize that he waves as his license to kill. Too late to sterilize him ... he already has two daughters.

    Won't even bring up the Dulles family. Or the Bushes. 'Congenital' criminals since well before XLI.

    Apples and oranges. What are the odds Obama or George W mugs you in a parking garage?

    Criminals are high-T with poor impulse control, which correlates with lower IQ, which is at least 50% hereditary, so yes, it makes no sense at all to pay women to have babies by thugs who make terrible husbands and fathers.

    Ron – can you create a separate playpen for all the Mother Jones readers who come here to read Juan Cole?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    @jfmxl might have a point. It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think. It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe, maybe even the same traits that make someone mug you in a parking garage. From what I've read, Obama is a distant cousin of Cheney on his mother's side, explains a lot if the genetics guys are right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Rich says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Apples and oranges. What are the odds Obama or George W mugs you in a parking garage?

    Criminals are high-T with poor impulse control, which correlates with lower IQ, which is at least 50% hereditary, so yes, it makes no sense at all to pay women to have babies by thugs who make terrible husbands and fathers.

    Ron - can you create a separate playpen for all the Mother Jones readers who come here to read Juan Cole?

    @jfmxl might have a point. It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think. It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe, maybe even the same traits that make someone mug you in a parking garage. From what I’ve read, Obama is a distant cousin of Cheney on his mother’s side, explains a lot if the genetics guys are right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Rich:
    If you doubt that "the genetics guys are right", then how can you believe
    that even being "distant cousin of Cheney on his mother’s side" can have any effect ?
    , @B and B

    It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think.
     
    Really?

    More like the film If, or that Werner Herzog one where the dwarves crucify a monkey.

    Just look at the 'peaceful' Arabs of Shengal as soon as they get the opportunity to loot their neighbours. This sort of thing happened throughout history.

    The desire to pin the blame upon the one who actually orders the killings, is a form of scapegoating for wider human failingss.
    , @fnn
    " It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe..."


    Add Wilson, FDR and Civil Rights hero LBJ. Is it news that guys who want to be the Big Chief tend to sociopaths? Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Rich
    @jfmxl might have a point. It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think. It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe, maybe even the same traits that make someone mug you in a parking garage. From what I've read, Obama is a distant cousin of Cheney on his mother's side, explains a lot if the genetics guys are right.

    Dear Rich:
    If you doubt that “the genetics guys are right”, then how can you believe
    that even being “distant cousin of Cheney on his mother’s side” can have any effect ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. IA says:

    All sorts of half-truths here.

    You didn’t break down the Minnesota study by race. Blacks adopted by white couples do far worse in IQ tests than white adoptees.

    What percent of births in the chart at evo and proud are mixed race? There is no mixed race category presented. If the mother is white with a non-white father The birth should be mixed, not white. Obama would be classified as white according to the chart. Correct? That would be news to him and the black block-voters.

    And why do they/you use such ancient time frame in the swedish study? Many more non-swedes now.

    You have another problem. According to the census bureau over 70% of blacks in the US today are born as, what a traditional society called, bastards. In 1960 the ratio was 20%. While today 30% of whites are illegitimate and 5% in 1960. This would indicate more bad boys since the 50s, not less. Also indicates federal programs that encourage.

    I think you need to change your reference also. Rather than repub/dem, or conservative/liberal try traditional vs. modern.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Hepp says:

    I responded to this at Frost’s blog. I’m sorry, but this is wishful thinking. Notice that Frost does not provide any data on fertility and criminality or education level, even though this info is widely available.

    Actual data on education completion rate and number of children for women:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/lets-not-panic-over-women-with-more-education-having-fewer-kids/273070/2/

    Women without high school diplomas have a TFR of 2.6, compared to less than 2.0 for every other education cohort. One thing that the author doesn’t mention is that generation times are shorter for the low IQ, exacerbating the differences in TFR.

    We’re getting dumber, there’s no getting around it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @Anonymous
    This article is ... off the wall. The unspoken, underlying assumption is that 'crime' is genetic. Maybe it's a sleeper, implanting the urge to sterilize criminals? At least to revive eugenics.

    The world's most egregious murderer has a Nobel Peace Prize that he waves as his license to kill. Too late to sterilize him ... he already has two daughters.

    Won't even bring up the Dulles family. Or the Bushes. 'Congenital' criminals since well before XLI.

    The unspoken, underlying assumption is that ‘crime’ is genetic.

    That’s not an assumption, much less unspoken, that’s explicitly stated in the article, even cites sources for it. Not that any sane person with some knowledge of evolutionary psychology would doubt that to the least extent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. george says:

    Article is mosly nostalgia

    The Orphan Train Movement was a supervised welfare program that transported orphaned and homeless children from crowded Eastern cities of the United States to foster homes located largely in rural areas of the Midwest. The orphan trains operated between 1853 and 1929, relocating about 250,000 orphaned, abandoned, or homeless children.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. B and B says:

    Crime is not genetic, indirect predisposition through personality traits is. But predisposition towards committing different crimes have different underlying genes. Hands up, how many people condemning petty crime would be happy having their kid turn out something like a politician or a CEO. The personality traits would be different yes, but still criminal, just never the concern of eugenicists or society.

    I’ve become convinced that the only genetic or neurological predispositions towards crime, as is measured in the convicted, is cognitive-behavioral traits favoring getting caught. And that means the most harmful rule breakers like bankers are unaffected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    I certainly wouldn't want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he's a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don't see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He's a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us - the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That's scary, it's far worse than Milgram's experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. B and B says:
    @Rich
    @jfmxl might have a point. It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think. It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe, maybe even the same traits that make someone mug you in a parking garage. From what I've read, Obama is a distant cousin of Cheney on his mother's side, explains a lot if the genetics guys are right.

    It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think.

    Really?

    More like the film If, or that Werner Herzog one where the dwarves crucify a monkey.

    Just look at the ‘peaceful’ Arabs of Shengal as soon as they get the opportunity to loot their neighbours. This sort of thing happened throughout history.

    The desire to pin the blame upon the one who actually orders the killings, is a form of scapegoating for wider human failingss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. fnn says:
    @Rich
    @jfmxl might have a point. It does take a certain kind of personality to order the murder of innocent civilians, I think. It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe, maybe even the same traits that make someone mug you in a parking garage. From what I've read, Obama is a distant cousin of Cheney on his mother's side, explains a lot if the genetics guys are right.

    ” It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe…”

    Add Wilson, FDR and Civil Rights hero LBJ. Is it news that guys who want to be the Big Chief tend to sociopaths? Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    "Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?"

    Sounds like a good idea to me. We've given democracy a fair trial. It didn't work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. That “something” is easier access to contraception and … Roe v. Wade. More and more good girls are making out with bad boys, but fewer and fewer are making babies with them.

    One glaring problem. This doesn’t apply to poorer, underclass Non-Asian minority (liberal) females. High abortion rates might mean less thugs in theory, but in practice it just means that poorer NAM (Non-Asian minority) liberal women are having less children with the same thuggish men (they still go after the thugs, just less offspring from them). A great example would be American blacks. The black American community is flooded with the children of violent thugs and it has the highest abortion rate in America. It doesn’t really transfer the underclass female preference from “bad boys” to “good boys”, just that while there’s still a lot of thugs in black America, they’re having less offspring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Peter,

    If what you say is true (and I see no reason to doubt you), it further undermines the argument of the social conservatives and pro-life advocate in particular. The “Economist” just came out with an article detailing the decrease in crime despite a poor economy:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/where_have_all_the_burglars_gone_

    The decline in teen pregnancy over the past 20 years is well documented. Drug abuse seems to have declined as well. There is even evidence that gays are becoming less promiscuous as well. If indeed middle-class people are having the majority of the kids in today’s America, the much ballyhooed “dysgenic” trend is likely fictitious. If long-term social trends are positive, what legitimacy is there in “pro-life” arguments? More generally, it calls into question all of the dire predictions on the part of the social conservatives and, indeed, renders the whole social conservative movement as unnecessary and superfluous.

    We all know the fears of the liberal-left (global warming, peak oil, etc.) are all fictitious non-sense. Its becoming increasing clear to me that the fears of the social conservatives are also equally fictitious non-sense.

    Someone remind me once again. Why ARE the social conservatives so obsessed about what people do in the privacy of their own homes (and bedrooms)? Is it mental illness?

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    Abelard,

    Can't queers find their own cake decorators?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. B and B says:

    Abelard Lindsey sounds like a libertarian, unable to see why people are concerned for society, be they left- or right-wing, religious or secular.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. IA says:
    @Abelard Lindsey
    Peter,

    If what you say is true (and I see no reason to doubt you), it further undermines the argument of the social conservatives and pro-life advocate in particular. The "Economist" just came out with an article detailing the decrease in crime despite a poor economy:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/where_have_all_the_burglars_gone_

    The decline in teen pregnancy over the past 20 years is well documented. Drug abuse seems to have declined as well. There is even evidence that gays are becoming less promiscuous as well. If indeed middle-class people are having the majority of the kids in today's America, the much ballyhooed "dysgenic" trend is likely fictitious. If long-term social trends are positive, what legitimacy is there in "pro-life" arguments? More generally, it calls into question all of the dire predictions on the part of the social conservatives and, indeed, renders the whole social conservative movement as unnecessary and superfluous.

    We all know the fears of the liberal-left (global warming, peak oil, etc.) are all fictitious non-sense. Its becoming increasing clear to me that the fears of the social conservatives are also equally fictitious non-sense.

    Someone remind me once again. Why ARE the social conservatives so obsessed about what people do in the privacy of their own homes (and bedrooms)? Is it mental illness?

    Abelard,

    Can’t queers find their own cake decorators?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Don't look at me
    Yes, but they can sue the straight ones for fun and profit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. rod1963 says:
    @B and B
    Crime is not genetic, indirect predisposition through personality traits is. But predisposition towards committing different crimes have different underlying genes. Hands up, how many people condemning petty crime would be happy having their kid turn out something like a politician or a CEO. The personality traits would be different yes, but still criminal, just never the concern of eugenicists or society.

    I've become convinced that the only genetic or neurological predispositions towards crime, as is measured in the convicted, is cognitive-behavioral traits favoring getting caught. And that means the most harmful rule breakers like bankers are unaffected.

    I certainly wouldn’t want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he’s a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don’t see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He’s a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us – the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That’s scary, it’s far worse than Milgram’s experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M
    It's nothing personal. It's just business.
    , @B and B

    I certainly wouldn’t want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he’s a sociopath.
     
    There is no actual evidence that CEOs or politicians are literally sociopaths, but I agree about them ignoring the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' to go after low class criminals.

    Blindeds by statistics, they do not think critically about what statistics represent. Faced with statistically high brain structures among criminals, they assume the brain structures represent crime and not failure to get away with it. This thinking is sadly not just limited to eugenics but is even widespread in neurology. Paedophiles, we are told, have impulse control problems - based upon prison samples of active offenders (not kiddy porn downloaders who don't molest children.)

    Skeem and others have ripped apart this kind of thinking about neuroscience and psychology, but it still persists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Alat says:

    More and more good girls are making out with bad boys, but fewer and fewer are making babies with them.

    Nice argument. Has a ring of plausibility to it. But it would be even better if you gave some evidence on its behalf instead of naked assertion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Bill P says:

    The children of several generations of white good boys are disproportionately liberal, homosexual and effeminate. I’m using upper-middle-class as a proxy for “good boys,” because their behavior reflects good boy values.

    We might want to pause and reflect on the fact that good boys are obedient, conflict-avoidant and conformist. Instead of open and straightforward, they tend to be passive aggressive. In contemporary America, this is not such a blessing as people might think.

    We need more white “bad boys”; people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. What we don’t need is more Stephen Colberts and Conor Friedersdorfs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Bill M says:
    @rod1963
    I certainly wouldn't want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he's a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don't see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He's a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us - the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That's scary, it's far worse than Milgram's experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.

    It’s nothing personal. It’s just business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Was in agreement until I got near the end. But you seem to be offbase when it comes to claiming that the modern situation favors reproduction by the good boys, instead of bad boys/those of low IQ/poor future time orientation.

    This may hold for who fathers the children of “good girls” (white and Asian girls from Upper middle class and higher social castes, etc [barring the occasional Karadashian]), who tend to have the intelligence and means to practice responsible birth controls, be raised with at least some level of morals, etc. but I doubt it holds for most other groups- how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators? The bad boys and the girls they live around are procreating at an exponential rate, and they don’t care as much about the consequences as they did in the past because they don’t have to- Obama Claus and his liberal reindeer pay the tab.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Abelard Lindsey sounds like a libertarian, unable to see why people are concerned for society, be they left- or right-wing, religious or secular.

    My point is that those concerns are misplaced and unnecessary. Well recognized metrics of social decay or what some might refer to as “decadence” include crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and the much ballyhooed “dysgenic” trend of the “bad boys” out breeding the “good boys”. If all of these metrics are, in fact, improving (as they have over the past 20 years), what exactly do we need to fear about the future of society? It seems to me that there is nothing to fear but fear itself and that the future (say, 2050 or 2100) will turn out to be perfectly fine.

    Again I ask, what exactly do we need to be concerned about?

    I stand by my point. The fears expresses by social conservatives are as much a figment of the imagination as those of the liberal-left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. B and B says:
    @rod1963
    I certainly wouldn't want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he's a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don't see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He's a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us - the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That's scary, it's far worse than Milgram's experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.

    I certainly wouldn’t want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he’s a sociopath.

    There is no actual evidence that CEOs or politicians are literally sociopaths, but I agree about them ignoring the ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’ to go after low class criminals.

    Blindeds by statistics, they do not think critically about what statistics represent. Faced with statistically high brain structures among criminals, they assume the brain structures represent crime and not failure to get away with it. This thinking is sadly not just limited to eugenics but is even widespread in neurology. Paedophiles, we are told, have impulse control problems – based upon prison samples of active offenders (not kiddy porn downloaders who don’t molest children.)

    Skeem and others have ripped apart this kind of thinking about neuroscience and psychology, but it still persists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Peter Frost says: • Website

    First, I’m not a eugenicist. If you want to call me names, call me a genetic conservationist.

    Second, I don’t consider myself to be a “conservative,” since that term has been pre-empted by a lot of hucksters. So please don’t accuse me of supporting the Bush Dynasty or Wall St. I’m a Canadian! I had no part in electing any members of the Bush family! Honest!

    As for the Wall St. bailout, my country had no part in that either. I personally feel that some people on Wall St. should have done jail time, preferably in a typical prison where they would have likely been sodomized. But that’s just my opinion.

    Finally, I agree that everything is interconnected, but I cannot carry on an intelligent discussion if everyone wanders off on to other subjects. I’d love to talk about George Bush, but not right now. O.K.?

    “how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators?”

    Easy, there are no rampant birth rates in those groups. Hispanic American fertility is now down to replacement level, and African American fertility is now well below replacement. The fertility decline in low SES groups appears to be a robust trend and not easily reversible.

    “We need more white “bad boys”; people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.”

    We seem to disagree on the meaning of “bad boys.” By “bad boys” I mean men with the following psychological profile:

    - little or no desire to care for one’s offspring, i.e., low level of paternal investment
    - strong tendency to love and leave women, i.e., weak pair bonding
    - poor impulse control
    - tendency to live in the present, i.e., weak future time orientation
    - reluctance to endure short-term pain for long-term gain
    - low anger thresholds, i.e., tendency to express anger for trivial reasons
    - “Big Man” characteristics, i.e., bombastic speech, ostentatious mannerisms and behavior, strong desire for “respect” from others, etc.

    I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether corporate CEOs (or George Bush) are really “good boys”. They aren’t, but they’re socially detrimental in a very different way. Their crimes are on a larger and more collective scale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B and B
    Peter, I'm not calling you a eugenicist as a smear, but because any attempt to consciously engineer society through the mode of reproduction is eugenics. I don't actually feel any kind of moral objection in itself to the idea of eugenics, but I object to the assumptions and double standards of 21st C eugenicists, and also their habit of comitting the is-ought fallacy when they confuse their value judgments about social class with scientific objectivity.

    'Bad boys' as you describe them, seem to have the DSM antisocial disorder, in no society or social class is such a straw man typical of the majority they're just a dysfunctional minority.

    To curtail serial impregnators, and women who have children by several different fathers, what we need is birth control, not the violence of abortion. And its life history not background that should be used to say who it is demanded of. Bad breeders can consent to either sterilisation or long term contraception if they wish to recieve the hand outs most of them rely upon. This way it avoids the issue of coercion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. B and B says:
    @Peter Frost
    First, I'm not a eugenicist. If you want to call me names, call me a genetic conservationist.

    Second, I don't consider myself to be a "conservative," since that term has been pre-empted by a lot of hucksters. So please don't accuse me of supporting the Bush Dynasty or Wall St. I'm a Canadian! I had no part in electing any members of the Bush family! Honest!

    As for the Wall St. bailout, my country had no part in that either. I personally feel that some people on Wall St. should have done jail time, preferably in a typical prison where they would have likely been sodomized. But that's just my opinion.

    Finally, I agree that everything is interconnected, but I cannot carry on an intelligent discussion if everyone wanders off on to other subjects. I'd love to talk about George Bush, but not right now. O.K.?


    "how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators?"

    Easy, there are no rampant birth rates in those groups. Hispanic American fertility is now down to replacement level, and African American fertility is now well below replacement. The fertility decline in low SES groups appears to be a robust trend and not easily reversible.


    "We need more white “bad boys”; people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson."

    We seem to disagree on the meaning of "bad boys." By "bad boys" I mean men with the following psychological profile:

    - little or no desire to care for one's offspring, i.e., low level of paternal investment
    - strong tendency to love and leave women, i.e., weak pair bonding
    - poor impulse control
    - tendency to live in the present, i.e., weak future time orientation
    - reluctance to endure short-term pain for long-term gain
    - low anger thresholds, i.e., tendency to express anger for trivial reasons
    - "Big Man" characteristics, i.e., bombastic speech, ostentatious mannerisms and behavior, strong desire for "respect" from others, etc.

    I don't want to get into a discussion about whether corporate CEOs (or George Bush) are really "good boys". They aren't, but they're socially detrimental in a very different way. Their crimes are on a larger and more collective scale.

    Peter, I’m not calling you a eugenicist as a smear, but because any attempt to consciously engineer society through the mode of reproduction is eugenics. I don’t actually feel any kind of moral objection in itself to the idea of eugenics, but I object to the assumptions and double standards of 21st C eugenicists, and also their habit of comitting the is-ought fallacy when they confuse their value judgments about social class with scientific objectivity.

    ‘Bad boys’ as you describe them, seem to have the DSM antisocial disorder, in no society or social class is such a straw man typical of the majority they’re just a dysfunctional minority.

    To curtail serial impregnators, and women who have children by several different fathers, what we need is birth control, not the violence of abortion. And its life history not background that should be used to say who it is demanded of. Bad breeders can consent to either sterilisation or long term contraception if they wish to recieve the hand outs most of them rely upon. This way it avoids the issue of coercion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Peter Frost says: • Website

    B&B

    Please, I’m not a eugenicist. I don’t wish to create a biologically new man or new woman. I simply wish to conserve what already exists.

    I guess I should discuss the actual policies I’d like to see; otherwise, people will make a lot of dumb assumptions about what I really want. In general, I’d like to see the sort of policies that already exist in Russia and Israel. We should create fiscal incentives for births to stable couples with stable incomes. Single mothers should be fined unless they can demonstrate they have the means to raise the child on their own. Surrogacy should be made available to sterile couples. International adoption should be banned.

    I, too, favor birth control over abortion. Unfortunately, many people live entirely in the present and are incapable of almost any planning, including the sort of planning that is inherent to contraception. In any case, abortion will always be necessary for cases of rape and for cases of seduction of people with weak impulse control.

    You seem to think that other people are like yourself, with the exception of a “dysfunctional minority.” I’m sorry but you’re naïve. Yes, there are many societies in this world where bad boys are the norm and where good boys like you are the stigmatized minority (if you’re lucky enough to survive). Bad boys were the norm in England a thousand years ago, when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is today. Burning cats alive was a popular form of public entertainment, as were many blood sports. Then, gradually, that personality type lost ground and eventually became so rare that we came to see it as a pathological condition.

    Words like “dysfunctional” and “abnormal” are relative terms. Right now, we have the luxury of thinking that we’re normal and that only “sick people” aren’t like us. Don’t count on that situation lasting always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B and B
    Peter,
    I appreciate that you don't want the eugenicist stigma, but you are by definition advocating eugenics. If you ask any bioethicist what eugenics means, we are both eugenicists by definition.

    I agree with you about the financial incentives, although they have limited effects, as well as surrogacy and interracial adoption.

    But as well as feeling we should support those of our people when they need it, I object to fining single mothers because the problem is mothers (who are not always single at the time) who are impregnated by several males. Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.

    Also you seem yourself to conceptually conflate contraception with reproductive rights arguments. If bbirth control is instead seperated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails

    Last thing, you take a 'peace at any price' attitude to the past, but in the past of 'bad boys' we were free of the social problems we have now, that are down to attitudes such as tolerance and the decline over time of the purity/sanctity moral foundation. Bad boys who misbehaved used to be put to death, if not by the state, then by rival families. The impulse to avoid violence lets these people out onto the street.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Why did the Swedes let all those Somalis, Pakistanis and other riff-raff from the third world into their beautiful and safe country? Talk about suicidal stupidity!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. B and B says:
    @Peter Frost
    B&B

    Please, I'm not a eugenicist. I don't wish to create a biologically new man or new woman. I simply wish to conserve what already exists.

    I guess I should discuss the actual policies I'd like to see; otherwise, people will make a lot of dumb assumptions about what I really want. In general, I'd like to see the sort of policies that already exist in Russia and Israel. We should create fiscal incentives for births to stable couples with stable incomes. Single mothers should be fined unless they can demonstrate they have the means to raise the child on their own. Surrogacy should be made available to sterile couples. International adoption should be banned.

    I, too, favor birth control over abortion. Unfortunately, many people live entirely in the present and are incapable of almost any planning, including the sort of planning that is inherent to contraception. In any case, abortion will always be necessary for cases of rape and for cases of seduction of people with weak impulse control.

    You seem to think that other people are like yourself, with the exception of a "dysfunctional minority." I'm sorry but you're naïve. Yes, there are many societies in this world where bad boys are the norm and where good boys like you are the stigmatized minority (if you're lucky enough to survive). Bad boys were the norm in England a thousand years ago, when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is today. Burning cats alive was a popular form of public entertainment, as were many blood sports. Then, gradually, that personality type lost ground and eventually became so rare that we came to see it as a pathological condition.

    Words like "dysfunctional" and "abnormal" are relative terms. Right now, we have the luxury of thinking that we're normal and that only "sick people" aren't like us. Don't count on that situation lasting always.

    Peter,
    I appreciate that you don’t want the eugenicist stigma, but you are by definition advocating eugenics. If you ask any bioethicist what eugenics means, we are both eugenicists by definition.

    I agree with you about the financial incentives, although they have limited effects, as well as surrogacy and interracial adoption.

    But as well as feeling we should support those of our people when they need it, I object to fining single mothers because the problem is mothers (who are not always single at the time) who are impregnated by several males. Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.

    Also you seem yourself to conceptually conflate contraception with reproductive rights arguments. If bbirth control is instead seperated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails

    Last thing, you take a ‘peace at any price’ attitude to the past, but in the past of ‘bad boys’ we were free of the social problems we have now, that are down to attitudes such as tolerance and the decline over time of the purity/sanctity moral foundation. Bad boys who misbehaved used to be put to death, if not by the state, then by rival families. The impulse to avoid violence lets these people out onto the street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. jtgw says:

    Slightly OT, but does Clark provide data on pre- versus post-Conquest England? There’s a venerable school of history that sees pre-Norman England as generally peaceful and well-ordered, at least internally (externally, of course, the Danes created a lot of violence). I’m wondering if this pro-Saxon reading of history holds up to scrutiny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. B&B,

    If I feared being stigmatized, I wouldn’t be writing this sort of stuff. I’m not afraid of the ‘e’ word. It just doesn’t apply to me. A eugenicist is someone who wishes to improve the human race according to some predetermined criteria. I don’t want to improve anything. I’m not interested in creating a race of 140+ IQ people who will live twice as long and look like Hollywood celebrities.

    I just want to keep things from getting worse.

    Of course, if you expand the definition of eugenics to include my position, you win the argument. Anyone can win an argument by changing the definitions.

    “Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.”

    If the woman became single after conception (i.e., her husband abandoned her), the fine wouldn’t apply. This is why we have marriage contracts, to provide abandoned women with the power of legal recourse.

    “If birth control is instead separated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails”

    No, I’m not saying that birth control should be mandatory for certain people. People should be free to do as they wish, but they should pay the full cost of their choices. Single parenthood does impose a high cost on society, and I don’t see why the right to reproduce should include the right to have one’s reproduction subsidized by the taxpayer. At that point, the taxpayer has the right to impose certain conditions in exchange.

    “in the past of ‘bad boys’ we were free of the social problems we have now”

    You’re talking about a past when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is now and when life was very nasty. Thomas Hobbes had this to say about that past:

    “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ”

    I like living in a society where minor personal disputes don’t lead to killing. I like being left alone. I’m critical of modernity but I’m not an anti-modernist.

    Jonathan,

    Clark doesn’t, and there’s not much in the way of quantitative data, but you might want to read:

    Fletcher, R. (2004). Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford University Press.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Hepp says:

    If I feared being stigmatized, I wouldn’t be writing this sort of stuff. I’m not afraid of the ‘e’ word. It just doesn’t apply to me. A eugenicist is someone who wishes to improve the human race according to some predetermined criteria. I don’t want to improve anything. I’m not interested in creating a race of 140+ IQ people who will live twice as long and look like Hollywood celebrities.

    I just want to keep things from getting worse.

    Peter, that’s a pretty odd position. Let’s say you succeeded and stopped things from getting worse, but your plans were too successful and now people were becoming happier, healthier, and smarter. Would you then advocate reversing the trend, so things can go back to where it was when you started?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Sean says:

    There is no politically mainstream school of thought that accepts genetic factors substantially explain criminality, a tendency to “love and leave”, or intellectual capacity. Paul Gottfried got kicked out of a conservative organisation for implying that mainstream people could believe that. A single value is supreme: human personality. Left or right, Enlightenment worshipping rationalist or Christian, no one says that biological inheritance is a valid way to understand social behavior in society. (That is not quite true. because for stone age cultures, humanists like Steven Pinker and Daniel C. Dennett can accept Naploleon Chagnon’s work.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Our society is not declining, but is actually improving:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-birth-rates-on-the-decline-says-cdc/

    More evidence that society is actually improving and that we are becoming less “decadent” (whatever that word is supposed to mean). So again I ask, if these improvements are occurring in a society that is largely disregarding the beliefs and influences of the social conservative movement, what exactly do we need a social conservative movement to do for us?

    One more point. Social conservatives say they want to improve society. Eugenicists make the same claim. How are these two methods necessarily mutually exclusive?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Hepp,

    Of course not, but my “plan” would involve people being free to make their own choices. In fact, it would just be a consolidation of what already exists.

    My plan basically comes down to two principles:

    1. When sexual freedom is separated from reproductive freedom, most people will voluntarily make different choices in each case. The men who father the next generation of children will no longer be the sort of men who provide the most exciting sexual experience. The State should encourage this separation of sex from reproduction but not dictate the actual reproductive choices. Most people can be trusted to choose responsibly.

    2. If some people make reproductive choices that impose high external costs on the rest of us, they should be made to pay at least part of that cost.

    Sean,

    I suspect a significant number of liberals agree with the above, just as a significant number of conservatives hold positions that are officially rejected by mainstream conservatives. As actually practiced, however, liberalism holds more promise than conservativism when one goes beyond the rhetoric and looks at what will likely happen.

    Abelard,

    Some problems we worry a lot about will resolve themselves on their own. Unfortunately, the reverse also holds true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Hepp says:

    1. When sexual freedom is separated from reproductive freedom, most people will voluntarily make different choices in each case. The men who father the next generation of children will no longer be the sort of men who provide the most exciting sexual experience. The State should encourage this separation of sex from reproduction but not dictate the actual reproductive choices. Most people can be trusted to choose responsibly.

    You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them.

    2. If some people make reproductive choices that impose high external costs on the rest of us, they should be made to pay at least part of that cost.

    How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?

    You’re trying to have it both ways. You want the government to leave people alone, and just trust everything will work out.

    Tell me, what would you do with men like this? Just trust them, as they multiply by 20 every generation?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159476/Tennessees-deadbeat-dads-The-men-81-children-46-different-women–theyre-paying-child-support-them.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Peter Frost says: • Website

    “You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them.”

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else’s fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    “How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?”

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp
    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don't know, but they're on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It's simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I'm genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let's say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?
    , @Hepp

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

     

    Peter, I'm a great fan of your work, but I have to say that I suspect you're not looking at the data because you're afraid of what you'll find.


    http://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

    What would be so bad about discouraging births among the low IQ and irresponsible? Your plan to "separate sex from reproduction" would have unpredictable consequences. For an issue this important, we should call for achieving public policy goals by tackling them directly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Hepp says:
    @Peter Frost
    "You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them."

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else's fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    "How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?"

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It’s simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I’m genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?
     
    Exactly my thoughts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Hepp says:
    @Peter Frost
    "You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them."

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else's fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    "How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?"

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    Peter, I’m a great fan of your work, but I have to say that I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find.

    http://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

    What would be so bad about discouraging births among the low IQ and irresponsible? Your plan to “separate sex from reproduction” would have unpredictable consequences. For an issue this important, we should call for achieving public policy goals by tackling them directly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Hepp
    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don't know, but they're on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It's simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I'm genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let's say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    Exactly my thoughts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Sean says:

    “Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.”

    The mothers don’t have to be the same demographic as the fathers. By the way, I don’t think you ought to cite bloggers (especially Jayman, you might as well cite one of my comments as Jaymans’s blog). To cite a blog, it needs to be by someone authoritative such as Henry Harpending, otherwise it is non-credible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. “How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot.”

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?

    “Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible.”

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

    “I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find.”

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?
     
    Yes, the fact that the Maury Povitch show can find so many of these men indicates to me that they do make up a subset of the population. Maybe it's 0.1 or 0.2%. The point is, it's a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

     

    Yes, I do believe that someone with an IQ of 75 is able to see that he's had a lot of children and then feel good about the fact. Among some inner city blacks a large brood is seen as a source of prestige, just as it in some third world cultures. Why is it so hard to believe that 1% or less of the population thinks like that?

    Not even that is required, however. All it takes is a man who doesn't like wearing condoms bedding women not responsible enough to take birth control. The link between sex and reproduction has only been broken for those with average and above average IQ.

    You do realize that 50% of blacks have IQ below 85 and another 16% have IQs below 70, right? What evidence do you have that the link between sex and reproduction has been broken for that demographic?

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?
     
    We should do both. Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don't have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that? If we do that, we should also be able to take away the freedom to procreate among the very low IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Sean,

    JayMan does good work. More to the point, he provides his sources.

    I would love to cite authoritative scholars, like Henry Harpending. But he is one of a few who will discuss these issues, as Greg Cochran has noticed:

    “A certain person we will not name, famous for the discovery of the double helix, once said “Harpending must really have balls of steel, in order to take a genetic look at Jewish intelligence.” Why should it take balls of steel? And, for that matter, why are balls of steel so rare in academia? Do they undergo a procedure?”

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/i-cant-afford-to-think-about-that/

    There is a strange kind of Pavlovian training in academia. You learn what you should say and what you shouldn’t. After a while, it becomes second-nature. It sickens me when I read things by certain academics that run counter to what they actually say in private. But that’s the reality of academia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    --------
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don't necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.


    I don't think Greg Laden is like that. "TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking."


    Elsewhere Laden muses: 'Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?'

    Obviously it would be bad news for the 'make love not war' bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp 'cultural norms' make chimps act like chimps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Hepp says:
    @Peter Frost
    "How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot."

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?


    "Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible."

    That won't happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. "I'm not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations."

    You usually don't get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.


    "I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find."

    Yes, I'm familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn't it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?

    Yes, the fact that the Maury Povitch show can find so many of these men indicates to me that they do make up a subset of the population. Maybe it’s 0.1 or 0.2%. The point is, it’s a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

    Yes, I do believe that someone with an IQ of 75 is able to see that he’s had a lot of children and then feel good about the fact. Among some inner city blacks a large brood is seen as a source of prestige, just as it in some third world cultures. Why is it so hard to believe that 1% or less of the population thinks like that?

    Not even that is required, however. All it takes is a man who doesn’t like wearing condoms bedding women not responsible enough to take birth control. The link between sex and reproduction has only been broken for those with average and above average IQ.

    You do realize that 50% of blacks have IQ below 85 and another 16% have IQs below 70, right? What evidence do you have that the link between sex and reproduction has been broken for that demographic?

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    We should do both. Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don’t have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that? If we do that, we should also be able to take away the freedom to procreate among the very low IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. “it’s a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.”

    The statistics say otherwise. Fertility has fallen below the replacement level among African Americans in general, and the decline has been especially steep among single men with multiple sex partners. I realize you have strong feelings on this issue, but shouldn’t you give more weight to that kind of evidence than to Maury Povitch?

    “Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don’t have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that?”

    Let’s say I have mixed feelings. I know of cases where people have been placed in institutions for dubious reasons (often financially related). In any event, I don’t believe in radical measures if they are unnecessary.

    “We should do both.”

    No, “we” shouldn’t. If you want to make changes in the real world, you’ll have to limit yourself to goals that are realistic and justified. You’ll also have to get off the Internet and use your real name, but that’s another story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Hepp says:

    No, “we” shouldn’t. If you want to make changes in the real world, you’ll have to limit yourself to goals that are realistic and justified. You’ll also have to get off the Internet and use your real name, but that’s another story.

    I’m hoping you can pave the way for those who both see the problem and want actual solutions that will work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Hepp says:

    Peter, where is your evidence that high fertility among the low income is driven exclusively or near exclusively by immigration?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Sean says:
    @Peter Frost
    Sean,

    JayMan does good work. More to the point, he provides his sources.

    I would love to cite authoritative scholars, like Henry Harpending. But he is one of a few who will discuss these issues, as Greg Cochran has noticed:

    "A certain person we will not name, famous for the discovery of the double helix, once said “Harpending must really have balls of steel, in order to take a genetic look at Jewish intelligence.” Why should it take balls of steel? And, for that matter, why are balls of steel so rare in academia? Do they undergo a procedure?"

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/i-cant-afford-to-think-about-that/

    There is a strange kind of Pavlovian training in academia. You learn what you should say and what you shouldn't. After a while, it becomes second-nature. It sickens me when I read things by certain academics that run counter to what they actually say in private. But that's the reality of academia.

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    ——–
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don’t necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.

    I don’t think Greg Laden is like that. “TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking.”

    Elsewhere Laden muses: ‘Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?’

    Obviously it would be bad news for the ‘make love not war’ bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp ‘cultural norms’ make chimps act like chimps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
     
    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. B and B says:

    Two points on nature vs nurture.

    1. People leaning towards cultural explanations, hold opposing hereditary explanations to far higher standards than their own. They seldom seem to cite a specific mechanism by which culture has worked to create cognitive-behavioural differences between the two stocks involved.

    2. Gene-culture co-evolution observes culture as driving heredity, making the discussion obsolete. Indeed at the time depth for the split between certain populations, like Euros and West Africans, cultural divergence actually predicts psychological divergence as well.

    As for chimps, not all bonobos are ‘sexy’, not all are nonviolent and some eat red meat. Culture does play a role in the other apes. Apes are cultured animals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Sean says:

    B&B sticks up for bonobos, the paedo primate.

    Culture! Chimps or bonobos take years to learn how to bash open a nut with a rock, which is the limit of their acheivement ).

    Bonobos are a different species from chimps , yet Laden thinks a few conflict resolution memes might let them all get along.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. B and B says:

    Of course there are biological differences between bonobos and (other) chimps.

    But they’re still chimps and cultural practices drove them apart. These cultural differences are under ecological pressure but so are those of Homo sapiens at the subsdistence level.

    Mating patterns resulted in bonobos reducing sexual dimorphism (and therefore feminised males.) If you just look at female skulls, bonobos are simply not that much apart from the other chimps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Kievsky says: • Website

    I have one daughter, and I found that the secret to raising successful children is to make sure that out in the world, they will be able to hold their own in the Lord of the Flies world of public school and beyond.

    No TV right from the get go. The kid will actually have an attention span. Ten years from now, they will be doing studies on children with and without TV who grew up, and find that the world is divided between the TV kids and no TV kids. The no TV kids have a longer attention span and are generally better at social skills. You say hi to a TV kid and he looks at his sneakers and mumbles. You say hi to my kid, and she will get into a conversation with you. This has translated into her being very successful at selling clothes and getting people to sign up for credit cards at her first job. She found her career niche at 16 years old! As an aside, I think it is a serious human rights violation to not have jobs for kids younger than 16. Kids should have summer jobs by age 10, even if they only work 4 hours a day.

    No processed food. According to the book, “The Science of Skinny,” written by a PhD biochemist Dee McCaffrey, it’s the chemicals added to processed food that makes people fat. No kidding! It’s not about discipline, or exercise, it’s that people are fat because they are being poisoned. My kid grew up eating old world Russian-Ukrainian food, much of it from a garden I grew. Also, when she was 10 years old I forced her to run track and cross country. I said, “Being fat or stupid is not an option for you, kid.”

    Sex education from me amounted to playing the song “Violet” by the band Hole, in the car over and over again when she was 10 or 11 years old and explaining the lyrics and talking about them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLKNXjo-ig

    None of that “keep yourself pure” bullshit. Just “this is how the world works, and it’s your choice how you are going to be.” She saw the other girls give up their bodies to the boys, and then get immediately abandoned and she told me she recalled the song Violet, particularly “when they get, what they want, then they NEVER WANT IT AGAIN!”

    So she knew I didn’t lie to her. I told her how to navigate the world of predators and bullies and purveyors of pretty lies. I didn’t tell her what to think,or what to do, I just made sure she had a very deep and broad understanding of reality, and what her own options are.

    As for boys — you got to force them to do fight training from a young age — judo, boxing, wing chun, BJJ, muy thai, aikido. If your sons go out and get their asses kicked by bullies, they will despise you their father. If your sons go out and kick those bullies asses, they will revere their father. It’s that simple.

    White boys go through puberty later than NAMs, and so white boys are at a physical disadvantage in the crucial adolescent years. I got beat up real real bad, 3 times, by a half Greek, half Lebanese kid who was a trained boxer and could bench 160 and had a full mustache at 12. I was 13 at the time, I didn’t even have armpit hair until I was 16 and I could only bench press 80 pounds. I saw this same Greek-Lebanese kid flee in terror from a skinny Irish boxer with long arms, very fast hands, a big goofy smile, and a high tolerance for pain. His name was Robert but he was known as “Dobber” because he always had a swollen lips from getting punched and when asked his name he couldn’t say “Robert” he would say “Dobber.” Dobber was also a late bloomer, but he had so much boxing training that everyone was afraid of him, and he would accept money from bullied kids to go beat up bullies. Therefore, white boys need to be given the edge of intense fight training from a young age so they gain physical dominance from kindergarten and never ever lose it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Sean
    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    --------
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don't necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.


    I don't think Greg Laden is like that. "TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking."


    Elsewhere Laden muses: 'Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?'

    Obviously it would be bad news for the 'make love not war' bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp 'cultural norms' make chimps act like chimps.

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.

    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Sean says:

    Benching 160 at 12, even a limited motion movement, is not credible.

    Female bonobo bite fingers off males who annoy them and a gang of female bonobos has been seen tearing a male to pieces

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don't know what's credible and what isn't, but what I've read about strongmen of old, they mostly started out as child workers moving incredible (for a child) weights in mines or steel works. Probably our understanding of what is possible for a child (or even an adult) is not very good. I personally never knew any twelve-year-old who bench pressed any weight at all, so I have no idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Sean
    Benching 160 at 12, even a limited motion movement, is not credible.

    Female bonobo bite fingers off males who annoy them and a gang of female bonobos has been seen tearing a male to pieces

    I don’t know what’s credible and what isn’t, but what I’ve read about strongmen of old, they mostly started out as child workers moving incredible (for a child) weights in mines or steel works. Probably our understanding of what is possible for a child (or even an adult) is not very good. I personally never knew any twelve-year-old who bench pressed any weight at all, so I have no idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Sean says:
    @reiner Tor

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
     
    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.

    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Not necessarily. Let's assume Blogger Joe writes a blog post about how thing A is similar to things B and C, because all three have property X. He provides three sources for that: source #1 proves that thing A has X, source #2 proves that thing B has X, and source #3 proves that thing C has X. Now of course you can read sources #1 through #3 and then write a paragraph about how A, B and C are similar because of property X, and cite all three of the sources separately, but I would tend to think that was plagiarism, because you write about an idea (the similarity) that you got from Blogger Joe without properly attributing it to Blogger Joe. In fact, without even mentioning his name, as if he never existed. Am I missing something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Sean
    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.

    Not necessarily. Let’s assume Blogger Joe writes a blog post about how thing A is similar to things B and C, because all three have property X. He provides three sources for that: source #1 proves that thing A has X, source #2 proves that thing B has X, and source #3 proves that thing C has X. Now of course you can read sources #1 through #3 and then write a paragraph about how A, B and C are similar because of property X, and cite all three of the sources separately, but I would tend to think that was plagiarism, because you write about an idea (the similarity) that you got from Blogger Joe without properly attributing it to Blogger Joe. In fact, without even mentioning his name, as if he never existed. Am I missing something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Sean says:

    Re strength, but a lot of those old-time manual worker strongmen were Finns ect, they’re naturally strong people. You aren’t ever going to turn a greyhound pup into a sled dog. I was told by a doorman ‘don’t try to be something you’re not, because they’ll see through you’. Of course if you go looking for trouble you will find it.

    Peter appreciates those who do some calculations, and if they are relied on in a post, the calculations ought to be cited. What I object to is Jayman and Jason Malloy’s naive rationalism. They think a calculation is superior to opinion; with a few calculations they can show the gut feeling of everyone else is wrong. It’s a big temptation to come up with startlingly counter-intuitive findings that show that things are actually the opposite to what mass opinion would have. It gets you published, and cited.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @IA
    Abelard,

    Can't queers find their own cake decorators?

    Yes, but they can sue the straight ones for fun and profit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. dfordoom says: • Website
    @fnn
    " It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe..."


    Add Wilson, FDR and Civil Rights hero LBJ. Is it news that guys who want to be the Big Chief tend to sociopaths? Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?

    “Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?”

    Sounds like a good idea to me. We’ve given democracy a fair trial. It didn’t work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS