The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
We Are Not Equally Empathic
🔊 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
The Child at Your Door (c. 1917-1919). Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Child at Your Door (c. 1917-1919). Credit: Wikimedia Commons

In a previous post, I discussed why the capacity for affective empathy varies not only between individuals but also between populations. First, its heritability is high: 68% (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013). So natural selection has had something to grab hold of. Second, its usefulness varies from one culture to another. It matters less where kinship matters more, i.e., where people interact mainly with close kin and where non-kin are likely to be enemies. The threat of retaliation from kin is sufficient to ensure correct behavior.

Affective empathy matters more where kinship matters less. This is a situation that Northwest Europeans have long known. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that kinship has been weaker among the English—and individualism correspondingly stronger—since at least the 12th century and perhaps since Anglo-Saxon times (Macfarlane, 2012;Macfarlane, 1992, pp. 173-174). A weaker sense of kinship seems to underlie the Western European Marriage Pattern (WEMP), as seen by its defining characteristics: late age of marriage for both sexes; high rate of celibacy; strong tendency of children to form new households; and high circulation of non-kin among families. The WEMP has prevailed since at least the 12th century west of the Hajnal Line, a line running approximately from Trieste to St. Petersburg (Hallam, 1985; Seccombe, 1992, p. 94).

Can natural selection specifically target affective empathy?

So if affective empathy helps people to survive and reproduce, there will be more and more of it in succeeding generations. If not, there will be less and less.

But what exactly is being passed on or not passed on? A specific capacity? Or something more general, like pro-social behavior? If it’s too general, natural selection could not easily make some populations more altruistic than others. There would be too many nasty side-effects.

Although pro-social behavior superficially looks like affective empathy, the underlying mental processes are different. Pro-social behavior is a willingness to help others through low-cost assistance: advice, conversation, a helping hand, etc. The logic is simple: give some help now and perhaps you’ll receive a lot later from the grateful beneficiary. By the same logic, you may stop helping someone who seldom reciprocates.

Affective empathy is less conscious. It seems to have developed out of cognitive empathy: the ability to simulate what is going on in other people’s minds, but not necessarily for the purpose of helping them. Con artists have plenty of cognitive empathy. Empathy is affective when you not only simulate how other people feel but also experience their feelings (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen,2013). Their wellbeing comes to matter as much as your own.

Empathy of either sort relies on unconscious mimicry: “empathic individuals exhibit nonconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, and facial expressions of others (the chameleon effect) to a greater extent than nonempathic individuals” (Carr et al., 2003). The ability to mimic is key to the empathic process of relaying information from one brain area to another via “mirror neurons”:

- The superior temporal cortex codes an early visual description of another person’s action and sends this information to posterior parietal mirror neurons.

- The posterior parietal cortex codes the precise kinesthetic aspect of the action and sends the information to inferior frontal mirror neurons.

- The inferior frontal cortex codes the purpose of the action.

- Parietal and frontal mirror areas send copies of motor plans back to the superior temporal cortex in order to match the visual description of the person’s action to the predicted sensory consequences for that person.

- The mental simulation is complete when the visual description has been matched to the predicted sensory consequences (Carr et al., 2003).

By simulating the sensory consequences of what someone does or intends to do, we gain an understanding of that person that goes beyond what our senses immediately tell us.

[...] we understand the feelings of others via a mechanism of action representation shaping emotional content, such that we ground our empathic resonance in the experience of our acting body and the emotions associated with specific movements. As Lipps noted, ”When I observe a circus performer on a hanging wire, I feel I am inside him.” To empathize, we need to invoke the representation of the actions associated with the emotions we are witnessing. (Carr et al., 2003)

Affective empathy exists when this mental representation is fed into our own emotional state. We feel what the other person feels and we act appropriately. This is much more than pro-social behavior.

From psychopaths to extraordinary altruists

The capacity for affective empathy varies from one person to the next. It is least developed in psychopaths:

Psychopathy is a heritable developmental disorder characterized by an uncaring nature, antisocial and aggressive behavior, and deficient prosocial emotions such as empathy, guilt, and remorse. Psychopaths exhibit consistent patterns of neuroanatomical and functional impairments, such as reductions in the volume of the amygdala and in the responsiveness of this structure to fear-relevant stimuli. These deficits may underlie the perceptual insensitivity to fearful facial expressions and other fear-relevant stimuli observed in this population.(Marsh et al., 2014)

Mainstream opinion accepts that psychopaths are heritably different because they are “sick.” Heritable differences are thus thought to be unusual and even pathological. “Normal” individuals may vary in their capacity for affective empathy, but surely that sort of variability is due to their environment, isn’t it?

No it isn’t. That variability, too, is largely genetic. Affective empathy varies over a largely heritable continuum, and an arbitrary line is all that separates psychopaths from “normal” individuals. There may be many psychopaths or there may be few; it depends on where you set the cut-off point.

At the other end of this continuum is another interesting group: extraordinary altruists. A research team has recently looked at the brains of such people, specifically individuals who had donated one of their kidneys to a stranger:

Given emerging consensus that psychopathy is a continuously distributed variable within the general population and that psychopaths represent one extreme end of a caring continuum, we hypothesized that extraordinary altruism may represent the opposite end of this continuum and be supported by neural and cognitive mechanisms that represent the inverse of psychopathy; in particular, increased amygdala volume and responsiveness to fearful facial expressions.(Marsh etal., 2014)

In extraordinary altruists, the right amygdala is larger and responds more to fearful facial expressions. This is the inverse of what we see in psychopaths, who have smaller amygdala and are less responsive to fearful facial expressions.

Affective empathy is thus a specific mental trait, like psychopathy. It is not a form of pro-social behavior any more than psychopathy is a form of antisociality:

[...] it is important to distinguish between antisociality that results from psychopathy, which is specifically associated with reduced empathy and concern for others, as well as with reduced sensitivity to others’ fear and distress, and antisociality that results from any of a variety of other factors, such as impulsivity or trauma exposure, that are not closely related to empathy. (Marshet al., 2014)

Marsh et al. (2014) cite a number of studies to show the relative independence of these two behavioral axes: prosociality / antisociality and affective empathy / psychopathy.

Conclusion

Affective empathy is specific and largely heritable. People differ continuously in their innate capacity for affective empathy, and it is only by setting an arbitrary cut-off point that we classify some as “psychopaths” and others as “normal,” including extraordinary altruists who may be a small minority.

Affective empathy is an intricate adaptation that must have evolved for some reason. Initially, it may have served to facilitate the relationship between a mother and her children, this being perhaps why it is stronger in women than in men (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004). In some cultures, natural selection may have increased this capacity in both sexes and extended it to a wider range of social interactions. This scenario would especially apply to Northwest Europeans, who have long had relatively weak kinship. They have consequently relied more on internal means of behavior control, like affective empathy (Frost, 2014).

References

Baron-Cohen, S. and S. Wheelwright. (2004).The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163-175.
http://ftp.aspires-relationships.com/the_empathy_quotion_of_adults_with_as.pdf

Carr, L., M. Iacoboni, M-C. Dubeau, J.C. Mazziotta, and G.L. Lenzi. (2003). Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 100, 5497-5502.
http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ICS/GNC/ArtigosGNC/AlexandreCastroCaldas/7_CaIaDuMaLe03.pdf

Chakrabarti, B. and S. Baron-Cohen. (2013). Understanding the genetics of empathy and the autistic spectrum, in S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, M. Lombardo. (eds). Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Social Neuroscience, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=eTdLAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA326&ots=fHpygaxaMQ&sig=_sJsVgdoe0hc-fFbzaW3GMEslZU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Frost, P. (2014). Affective empathy. An evolutionary mistake? Evo and Proud, September 20
/pfrost/affective-empathy-an-evolutionary-mistake/

Hallam, H.E. (1985). Age at first marriage and age at death in the Lincolnshire Fenland, 1252-1478, Population Studies, 39, 55-69.

Macfarlane, A. (1992). On individualism, Proceedings of the British Academy, 82, 171-199.
http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/TEXTS/On_Individualism.pdf

Macfarlane, A. (2012). The invention of the modern world. Chapter 8: Family, friendship and population, The Fortnightly Review, Spring-Summer serial
http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2012/07/invention-8/

Marsh, A.A., S.A. Stoycos, K.M. Brethel-Haurwitz, P. Robinson, J.W. VanMeter, and E.M. Cardinale. (2014). Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 15036-15041.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15036.short

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 87 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The bankster as an evolved species; perhaps a harmful mutation?

    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pfrost/we-are-not-equally-empathic/#comment-774386
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. So this is why there are all these stereotypes about north and northwest Europeans as warm and empathetic people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    I don't think "warm" has anything to do with affective empathy. Affective empathy is the 'feel another's pain' thing, and probably correlates negatively with 'warmth'.
    , @Volksverhetzer
    Because you are compelled by your emotions of sympathy once you get to know somebody, it is best to keep your distance and not get involved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Sam J. says:

    I’m going to make a statement that if true would be extremely helpful to Whites in the US but even if false seems to be a reliable predictor of behavior.

    The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

    Kevin B. MacDonald has talked about Judaism being a “group evolutionary strategy.” I believe this is true but the essence of this is they are psychopaths. Not all. Probably not even the majority. The reason I say this is their pattern of behavior is psychopathic. I’m going to give a few examples.

    Extreme confidence. Jews from all over came to Russia, took over the country and proceed to slaughter very large numbers of people. This takes serious balls. Look at these guys on TV saying the most ridiculous things and just refusing to back down.

    A inhuman ability ability to lie. Lying so well as to convince people of the the most ridiculous things. Like White people should allow all other races to move to their country even though it will be the ruin of us.

    Elaborate schemes. Prime example is the attack on 9-11. Building #7 fell for about 108 feet at the same speed as a rock dropped in mid-air. To do this all the columns for about ten stories would have to be almost sanctimoniously disconnected. Even more strange the building stays mostly level as it falls meaning all across the building the column destruction timing would have to be in the millisecond range. The the gov. said this was due to fires. This is just not possible. Not improbable, or unlikely, it’s impossible. It doesn’t take any weird theories to see this.

    There was a person who said psychopaths seem to have to have a need for dirt or perversions at times. Fits very well with the choke, slap and puke pornography the Jews are putting out.

    No compassion. Look at what they do to the Palestinians. It’s horrible but they seem to revel in the bloodshed. The Checka in Russian were brutal to abnormal levels.

    A very good book to read that’s free is “The Mask of Sanity”. Excellent book. Here’s a link to an short excerpt that talks about one spath individual, Stanley, that seems to show a lot of these behaviors.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    If you base your world view on the idea that the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and many things that don’t make sense will suddenly make a great deal of sense. It also would explain how every country the Jews have gone to they’ve eventually been kicked out of. People can only stand so much of psychopaths behavior and then something must give. They must go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Like convincing white people that we should allow all other races to move to our own countries even though it will mean the end of us".

    So true. Its called Jewish cultural Marxism. The greatest fraud ever perpetrated.

    I would also add extreme hypocrisy to the list. Note how Israel has a strict Jewish-only immigration policy, the EXACT OPPOSITE of the one Jews have so vigorously imposed upon white countries in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @skepticaldonkey
    So this is why there are all these stereotypes about north and northwest Europeans as warm and empathetic people?

    I don’t think “warm” has anything to do with affective empathy. Affective empathy is the ‘feel another’s pain’ thing, and probably correlates negatively with ‘warmth’.

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

    From introspection, I’d say that I’m at most empathic (1) if I have experienced the problems myself (2) they can be associated to sensual stimuli and (3) the sufferer/artist/propagandist finds the right stimulus for me to revive the experience. So introspection – as so often – emphasizes the impact of “environment” resp. “nurture”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @skepticaldonkey
    So this is why there are all these stereotypes about north and northwest Europeans as warm and empathetic people?

    Because you are compelled by your emotions of sympathy once you get to know somebody, it is best to keep your distance and not get involved.

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

    The Italian Mafia were not composed of mentally sick people but only the smartest of their culture. Also the Nazi death camp commandants were politically connected elitists who wanted the job. Cruel job holders are only opportunists and family men who love an easy buck. Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @melpeexxx:

    Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.
     
    Where do "social factors" come from?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Natural selection isn’t involved unless a trait is structured in the chromosomes and results in those exact chromosomes getting reproduced more in succeeding generations. The attempt to analyze human nature as a composite of genetic gadgets is just silly. It apes the look and feel of science, but it isn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Human nature is not the result of a soul or a "ghost in the machine". It is a result of the complex biochemical processes occurring in the human neurological system. Nucleotides play a role in virtually all biochemical processes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. michael says:

    Peter Frost do you have any sources of information about the HOLODOMoR(Ukrainian famine)? Just as this Maidan Square moment seemed impossible, I believe an in depth explanation of Lazar Kaganovich, chernozem, DE-KULAKAZATION, and perhaps some names of WESTERN FINANCIERS that needed to be payed back during a bad growing year would speak volumes to our present world , your poster instigated this Query. thank you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Wow, what a dumb essay. This would get maybe a B- or C+ in your average Evolutionary Psychology 201 class.

    So what’s the conclusion? Is empathy adaptalicious or not so much? It’s a fact that empathic people are far less likely to do things that might hurt someone else, whereas unempathic people are more likely to see other people as a means to end, such as satisfying sexual urges.

    So what’s the empathy of your average criminal thug? Not very high, of course, and criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn’t everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now because they don’t care whether someone else is even interested in reproducing with them and thus they make more babies? Because it’s a fact that thugs have more children. So by this point, all men should be rapists first and foremost, and yet they aren’t.

    More evidence, as if any more were needed, that belief in evolution leads to extraordinarily stupid analysis and conclusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn’t everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now"

    It seems likely that criminals have *not* always had more children. If it is a recent trend then the current situation is explicable.
    , @Sean
    I agree, this article is codswallop. I have to admit, I am surprised it was even published. However, Fred Reed is published here as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Jim says:
    @Bro. Steve
    Natural selection isn't involved unless a trait is structured in the chromosomes and results in those exact chromosomes getting reproduced more in succeeding generations. The attempt to analyze human nature as a composite of genetic gadgets is just silly. It apes the look and feel of science, but it isn't.

    Human nature is not the result of a soul or a “ghost in the machine”. It is a result of the complex biochemical processes occurring in the human neurological system. Nucleotides play a role in virtually all biochemical processes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Grate Deign
    Jim, is this something you have proved by the scientific method, or is it something you *believe*?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @dumpstersquirrel
    Wow, what a dumb essay. This would get maybe a B- or C+ in your average Evolutionary Psychology 201 class.

    So what's the conclusion? Is empathy adaptalicious or not so much? It's a fact that empathic people are far less likely to do things that might hurt someone else, whereas unempathic people are more likely to see other people as a means to end, such as satisfying sexual urges.

    So what's the empathy of your average criminal thug? Not very high, of course, and criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn't everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now because they don't care whether someone else is even interested in reproducing with them and thus they make more babies? Because it's a fact that thugs have more children. So by this point, all men should be rapists first and foremost, and yet they aren't.

    More evidence, as if any more were needed, that belief in evolution leads to extraordinarily stupid analysis and conclusions.

    “criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn’t everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now”

    It seems likely that criminals have *not* always had more children. If it is a recent trend then the current situation is explicable.

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

    Given the hypothesis of Mesolithic fish processing, the coastline along the North Sea and Baltic would be the obvious place to look for affective empathy in action, and a possible excess of extraordinary altruists. Presumably, if the coast was the ground zero for affective empathy, there would still be a high concentration in those areas, which would translate into more cohesive societies.

    WHAT made the Smith/Franklin project of ethics in commerce conceivable was the rise of the middle class around the North Sea, merchant communities hurrying about their busy-ness with ships packed with herring, lumber, wheat. The league of Hansa towns from Bergen to Novgorod never took national form. [...] The “German Ocean” became a new Mediterranean, a watery forum of the Germanic speakers — of the English, Scots, Norse, Danish, Low German, Frisian, Flemish, and above all the Dutch — who in the end showed the world how to be bourgeois. [...] Yes, but surely the Dutch of the Golden Age did not actually carry out their painted and poemed project of the Virtues? Surely the bourgeoisie then as now were mere hypocrites,…No, it appears not.

    “Charity,” for example, “seems to be very national among them,” as Temple wrote at the time. The historian Charles Wilson claimed that “it is doubtful if England or any other country [at least until the late 18th century] could rival the scores of almshouses for old men and women, the orphanages, hospitals and schools maintained by private endowments from the pockets of the Dutch regents class.” The fact is indisputable. But its interpretation has made recent historians uneasy. Their problem is that like everyone else nowadays the historians are not comfortable with a rhetoric of virtues. An act of love or justice is every time to be reinterpreted as, somehow, prudence… of how hard it is to believe in altruistic motives from these hard bourgeois and bourgeoises. A compassionate motivation for transfers from the wealthy to the poor is said to be “unlikely” and “can be neither modeled nor rationally explained.” Altruistic explanations are “not to be lightly dismissed as implausible.” … dismissed … on the light grounds of a scientific method misapprehended — altruism, she says, holds “little predictive power.” ‘

    In 2012,”The Netherlands has around 9,000 charities, many of which overlap, and the Dutch are being driven mad with all the appeals they receive” Compare Greece The disabled children locked up in cages.

    DENMARK comes out as one of the absolutely most egalitarian countries in the world; i.e. a country where age, rank and family name are considered essentially to be without great importance. Where there should be equality and equal opportunity. If you take a look at Richard Gestelan’s illustrated cultural pattern, you can see the cultural relationship to authorities and hierarchical differences, and here Denmark comes out in an extreme position as illustrated below.”one looks at the organizational culture in Denmark seen in relation to the Dutch professor Geert Hofstede’s classic culture studies, the southern variety of the Scandinavian management style appears. The figure below illustrates that Denmark is characterized by: A high score on individualism (IDV), i.e that connections between single individuals are relatively loose and it is expected that people can work independently.
    A low score on masculinity (MAS), i.e that “feminine” values such as modesty, consensus, care and empathy are high on the agenda while a competitive mentality, assertion (impact and dominance) and inequality come a long way down the list.
    A low score on uncertainty avoidance (UAI), i.e that a willingness to take risks and a readiness for change are high.”

    East of Denmark there is less evidence of extraordinary altruism that I can see

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Sean says:
    @dumpstersquirrel
    Wow, what a dumb essay. This would get maybe a B- or C+ in your average Evolutionary Psychology 201 class.

    So what's the conclusion? Is empathy adaptalicious or not so much? It's a fact that empathic people are far less likely to do things that might hurt someone else, whereas unempathic people are more likely to see other people as a means to end, such as satisfying sexual urges.

    So what's the empathy of your average criminal thug? Not very high, of course, and criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn't everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now because they don't care whether someone else is even interested in reproducing with them and thus they make more babies? Because it's a fact that thugs have more children. So by this point, all men should be rapists first and foremost, and yet they aren't.

    More evidence, as if any more were needed, that belief in evolution leads to extraordinarily stupid analysis and conclusions.

    I agree, this article is codswallop. I have to admit, I am surprised it was even published. However, Fred Reed is published here as well.

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

    Wouldn’t this indicate that the amygdala of inbred populations should be smaller than outbred? Is there any evidence for this?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Sam J. says:

    Some say the article is not true but twin studies show twins behaviors to be extremely, sometimes uncannily, alike even if separated from birth. It would seem to me that those expressing negativity would need to prove their position. Plenty of work has already been done to prove the authors general idea that personality can be inherited. Prove them wrong. What you saw on TV doesn’t count.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Seran says:

    The kid looks scary, they could use him for a horror movie.

    Is it me or did the people in the past look different? People seem today more “cute”, this could enhance empathy even more, because we evaluate how much we can trust each other based on our looks. For example, I wouldn’t trust Putin (much less the young Putin), he looks like a ruthless guy.


    There was a time when most successful had the most offspring, now it has reversed, thanks to welfare and immigration. A thug in the past had to face much harder punishment and couldn’t rely on welfare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    OT (not really): The definition of corrupt elites: Mahbod Moghadam got fired as the co-founder of RapGenius because he was an asshole. Now, less than 6 months later, he’s shamelessy advocating stealing from Whole Foods.

    CHOOSE YOUR CASHIER WISELY: the worst thing in the world is a Nazi cashier!
    Sorry to get all sexist/racist here – I love all people, I swear it – but, in case you’re at a new Whole Foods and you don’t know who the cool cashiers are yet, the most sympathetic cashiers are young, male minorities. Women, old-timers and whites are far, far more likely, in my experience, to fuck with your shit.

    Before he got fired from RapGenius, he was charging the company $100 a day for his Whole Foods habit. Read the whole article of his depravity. In which 3rd-world shithole did he learn this? Moghadam is an Iranian surname.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I've never heard of him. Why do you say he is "elite"?

    Maybe he learned to shoplift from American celebrity elites like Lindsay Lohan, Farrah Fawcett, Winona Ryder, Britney Spears, etc.:

    http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-celebshoplifters/1/

    Or actually maybe all these American celebrity elites are really secretly Iranian or something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    OT (not really): The definition of corrupt elites: Mahbod Moghadam got fired as the co-founder of RapGenius because he was an asshole. Now, less than 6 months later, he's shamelessy advocating stealing from Whole Foods.

    CHOOSE YOUR CASHIER WISELY: the worst thing in the world is a Nazi cashier!
    Sorry to get all sexist/racist here – I love all people, I swear it – but, in case you’re at a new Whole Foods and you don’t know who the cool cashiers are yet, the most sympathetic cashiers are young, male minorities. Women, old-timers and whites are far, far more likely, in my experience, to fuck with your shit.
     
    Before he got fired from RapGenius, he was charging the company $100 a day for his Whole Foods habit. Read the whole article of his depravity. In which 3rd-world shithole did he learn this? Moghadam is an Iranian surname.

    I’ve never heard of him. Why do you say he is “elite”?

    Maybe he learned to shoplift from American celebrity elites like Lindsay Lohan, Farrah Fawcett, Winona Ryder, Britney Spears, etc.:

    http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-celebshoplifters/1/

    Or actually maybe all these American celebrity elites are really secretly Iranian or something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Mahbod Moghadam is elite because he's a former co-founder of a notable tech startup who has been featured across the tech press.

    What's different from Britney Spears etc. is he has a genius-level IQ, steals on a daily basis, and seems to have no concept that what he did was wrong. He's proud of it. Even worse, he has a Stanford law degree that presumably included an ethics courses. He's not some starlet.

    What's relevant to Peter Frost's work is that Moghadam notes Whites annoyingly enforce rules of honesty on him.

    To be fair, an Iranian commenter on his article says if he tried that in Tehran, they'd "cut his balls off." That seems consistent with that Middle Eastern societies have developed systems that work well for the temperament of the local population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    If you think of altruism as a trait that developed in band-level societies, it makes sense. If an occasional person is born with strong altruistic urges, that person will help close relatives survive, prosper, and pass on their genes. In a band-level society, everyone the altruist knows will either be a relative or an in-law. Strangers will rarely be encountered.

    But if a person with altruistic genes lives in a modern society where blood relatives are few/distant, and he still insists of being altruistic to a lot of strangers–who do not return the favor or are harmful to the altruist–it’s like you have a junkie who can’t stay off drugs. The person keeps wanting to get that mental hit of satisfaction by being beneficial, but ends up only enabling selfish people. Even worse, by not being thanked or appreciated, the altruist can end up with his motivational pedal pressed all the way to the floor as he keeps trying and trying to get a positive reaction he rarely or never gets. He thinks if he only tries harder, everything will be all right. Altruistic urges can take over his mind like a type of emotional insanity.

    This explains liberals shriek to the rooftops that whites ought to be altruistic to the entire world because that’s the only way the rest of the world will like us, and why liberals are in absolute hysterics about it. They’re not seeing positive results from their altruism. Blacks aren’t getting smarter, loss violent, or more grateful with our handouts. Neither are Mexicans grateful when they’re given our jobs. Countries aren’t becoming more stable with American military interference intended to turn them into nice little democracies, etc. Ultimately, altruism isn’t based on rationality, but pure feeling, which is why liberals are nuts about bending over backwards for outsiders. At this point, altruism, as an irrational instinct still operating full-bore in modern society, has become maladaptive and self-harming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam J.
    I'm going to make a statement that if true would be extremely helpful to Whites in the US but even if false seems to be a reliable predictor of behavior.

    The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

    Kevin B. MacDonald has talked about Judaism being a "group evolutionary strategy." I believe this is true but the essence of this is they are psychopaths. Not all. Probably not even the majority. The reason I say this is their pattern of behavior is psychopathic. I'm going to give a few examples.

    Extreme confidence. Jews from all over came to Russia, took over the country and proceed to slaughter very large numbers of people. This takes serious balls. Look at these guys on TV saying the most ridiculous things and just refusing to back down.

    A inhuman ability ability to lie. Lying so well as to convince people of the the most ridiculous things. Like White people should allow all other races to move to their country even though it will be the ruin of us.

    Elaborate schemes. Prime example is the attack on 9-11. Building #7 fell for about 108 feet at the same speed as a rock dropped in mid-air. To do this all the columns for about ten stories would have to be almost sanctimoniously disconnected. Even more strange the building stays mostly level as it falls meaning all across the building the column destruction timing would have to be in the millisecond range. The the gov. said this was due to fires. This is just not possible. Not improbable, or unlikely, it's impossible. It doesn't take any weird theories to see this.

    There was a person who said psychopaths seem to have to have a need for dirt or perversions at times. Fits very well with the choke, slap and puke pornography the Jews are putting out.

    No compassion. Look at what they do to the Palestinians. It's horrible but they seem to revel in the bloodshed. The Checka in Russian were brutal to abnormal levels.

    A very good book to read that's free is "The Mask of Sanity". Excellent book. Here's a link to an short excerpt that talks about one spath individual, Stanley, that seems to show a lot of these behaviors.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    If you base your world view on the idea that the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and many things that don't make sense will suddenly make a great deal of sense. It also would explain how every country the Jews have gone to they've eventually been kicked out of. People can only stand so much of psychopaths behavior and then something must give. They must go.

    “Like convincing white people that we should allow all other races to move to our own countries even though it will mean the end of us”.

    So true. Its called Jewish cultural Marxism. The greatest fraud ever perpetrated.

    I would also add extreme hypocrisy to the list. Note how Israel has a strict Jewish-only immigration policy, the EXACT OPPOSITE of the one Jews have so vigorously imposed upon white countries in the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    I've never heard of him. Why do you say he is "elite"?

    Maybe he learned to shoplift from American celebrity elites like Lindsay Lohan, Farrah Fawcett, Winona Ryder, Britney Spears, etc.:

    http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-celebshoplifters/1/

    Or actually maybe all these American celebrity elites are really secretly Iranian or something?

    Mahbod Moghadam is elite because he’s a former co-founder of a notable tech startup who has been featured across the tech press.

    What’s different from Britney Spears etc. is he has a genius-level IQ, steals on a daily basis, and seems to have no concept that what he did was wrong. He’s proud of it. Even worse, he has a Stanford law degree that presumably included an ethics courses. He’s not some starlet.

    What’s relevant to Peter Frost’s work is that Moghadam notes Whites annoyingly enforce rules of honesty on him.

    To be fair, an Iranian commenter on his article says if he tried that in Tehran, they’d “cut his balls off.” That seems consistent with that Middle Eastern societies have developed systems that work well for the temperament of the local population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He doesn't seem that notable or "elite". And I don't see any indication that he has a 'genius-level IQ" or that he has a significantly higher IQ than female celebrities.

    At any rate, if he didn't learn it from them, maybe he learned it from Tom Campbell, former aide to London mayor Boris Johnson? He sounds just like him:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-city-hall-high-flyer-the-book-he-wrote-at-work-and-his-curious-claims-about-needing-to-shoplift-6411561.html

    "I have a rule. If I ever go into a chain store or a chain place for lunch, I always have to steal something."

    Does he mean he actually pinches things? "It's a little team rule, yeah? So they don't make a profit out of me. I always steal the pudding or the soup or something." He breaks into his infectiously jokey laughter again.

    I realise that I too have started to laugh quite loudly, which seems to egg him on. "I do loads of that. I got caught yesterday." He's nodding his head, still laughing, when I ask what happened next.

    "Nothing much. When you're like, 40, they don't grab you or anything. They just say 'Sir, I think you've made a mistake' or 'You don't seem to have paid for this'. It's funny. I say, 'Oh, sorry, sorry' and take it out of my bag. It was embarrassing yesterday. Someone told me it's so expensive to prosecute a shoplifter that all they ever do is say 'Excuse me, sir'. And I say, 'Oh, God, I'm sorry. How did that get in my bag?' That's how I justify going into the chains. That's the rule. If you go into a chain you have to steal."
     
    Or maybe Tom Campbell is actually Iranian?

    England really took off and had a golden age starting int he Elizabethan era when it was hanging, drawing, and quartering people. Maybe that's the kind of system that really works for English society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Mahbod Moghadam is elite because he's a former co-founder of a notable tech startup who has been featured across the tech press.

    What's different from Britney Spears etc. is he has a genius-level IQ, steals on a daily basis, and seems to have no concept that what he did was wrong. He's proud of it. Even worse, he has a Stanford law degree that presumably included an ethics courses. He's not some starlet.

    What's relevant to Peter Frost's work is that Moghadam notes Whites annoyingly enforce rules of honesty on him.

    To be fair, an Iranian commenter on his article says if he tried that in Tehran, they'd "cut his balls off." That seems consistent with that Middle Eastern societies have developed systems that work well for the temperament of the local population.

    He doesn’t seem that notable or “elite”. And I don’t see any indication that he has a ‘genius-level IQ” or that he has a significantly higher IQ than female celebrities.

    At any rate, if he didn’t learn it from them, maybe he learned it from Tom Campbell, former aide to London mayor Boris Johnson? He sounds just like him:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-city-hall-high-flyer-the-book-he-wrote-at-work-and-his-curious-claims-about-needing-to-shoplift-6411561.html

    “I have a rule. If I ever go into a chain store or a chain place for lunch, I always have to steal something.”

    Does he mean he actually pinches things? “It’s a little team rule, yeah? So they don’t make a profit out of me. I always steal the pudding or the soup or something.” He breaks into his infectiously jokey laughter again.

    I realise that I too have started to laugh quite loudly, which seems to egg him on. “I do loads of that. I got caught yesterday.” He’s nodding his head, still laughing, when I ask what happened next.

    “Nothing much. When you’re like, 40, they don’t grab you or anything. They just say ‘Sir, I think you’ve made a mistake’ or ‘You don’t seem to have paid for this’. It’s funny. I say, ‘Oh, sorry, sorry’ and take it out of my bag. It was embarrassing yesterday. Someone told me it’s so expensive to prosecute a shoplifter that all they ever do is say ‘Excuse me, sir’. And I say, ‘Oh, God, I’m sorry. How did that get in my bag?’ That’s how I justify going into the chains. That’s the rule. If you go into a chain you have to steal.”

    Or maybe Tom Campbell is actually Iranian?

    England really took off and had a golden age starting int he Elizabethan era when it was hanging, drawing, and quartering people. Maybe that’s the kind of system that really works for English society.

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

    Affective empathy for kind lacking in NW Europeans have been kicked upstairs . It has been removed from the expected duties or responsibilities of the individual or family. The system or the supra system known as nation state has taken over at least since the age of the colonization starting with occupation of Ireland .
    The emotion and the attitude persist from generation to generation within the Nation State since the supra structure protects,fortifies,and perpetuates the needs of the citizen by transferring the violence ,conflicts,and the costs to the non citizen colonized occupied foreigners . Any remnant of old kinship will now hurt the supra structure . Nepotism at the judiciary,education,law and order,business and ownership of ideas and platform to spread those ideas will not benefit the empire or the upraised structure . This is why affective kinship ,empathy based on family or genetically similar local groups are not needed and not promoted .
    This is a behavior that in every generation the nation strives to promote and forces it to stay as the binding principle.
    There is gene here . Nothing genetic. It is a phenomena similar to enkephalization that happens in species as it go up on phylogenetic tree . But it is happening in this case not within the individual but within the super structure known as Nation State . Once the state crumbles,it will revert .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. AG says:

    You should measure amygdala from KKK, NeoNazi, or last few old nazi before they die off. That is real science. Not armchair talking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. The Grate Deign [AKA "Bro. Steve"] says:
    @Jim
    Human nature is not the result of a soul or a "ghost in the machine". It is a result of the complex biochemical processes occurring in the human neurological system. Nucleotides play a role in virtually all biochemical processes.

    Jim, is this something you have proved by the scientific method, or is it something you *believe*?

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

    Skepticaldonkey,

    “Warmth” falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It’s a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don’t kid yourself. “Warm” people aren’t necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don’t assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the “criminally minded”, i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don’t understand, or perhaps don’t want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space — marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn’t mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a “marker” for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It’s less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you’re always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don’t act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.
     
    You need to justify this. Why cannot good morals spread indefinitely by pulling in what you call "empathetic" people into the circle, and making membership of that circle something to aspire to? It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism.

    (By the way, my question is inspired by my skepticism of your theory that the ability for what you call "affective empathy" is hardwired in some human beings and not in others. I will believe it the day geneticists can produce a gene, or combination of genes, that infallibly determine who is empathetic and who is not. Until then, I'll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture.)
    , @Sean
    "There are no historical records to support that [theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic] aspect of my argument"

    The northern coast above the west European plain is where the ME farmers were stopped. It is also where even the Indo Europeans were considerably slowed down, even though the plain is absolutely perfect for invaders, especially highly mobile ones.

    "The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behaviour ."

    Why were the coastal people so formidable? I think one reason may have been was because the coastal peoples ( the western especially) were less inclined to run away when the chips were down. A weakness of non-hardwiring, that is, rewarding or punishing by using reputation in the community as a guide, is that people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community. In war, bullshitters would have been a big liability. The coastal peoples would have been more sincerely selfless people.

    , @Sam J.
    @Peter Frost said,"...There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement..."

    If I'm a farmer and I look around and pig shit is everywhere then I don't blame Elephants or Cows or Wildebeest or Kangaroos. I blame the pigs. If I look around at the decay that's my country. The immigration policy, the WTC building #7 that fell as fast as a rock dropped in mid air even though it was not hit by a plane, the wars for Israel in the Middle East, the leveraged buy outs in the 80's that concentrated huge portions of American industry into the hands of the Jews and bankers (redundant I know), the then movement of industry after takeovers to overseas, the choke and puke pornography in Hollywood, the crass anti-White hatred from Hollywood, the huge funding from Jews corrupting our legislative process, I could go on but I'll stop here. Just what am I supposed to believe?

    Like the Jews caught on 9-11 filming the towers hit by planes as it happened, riding in a van that test positive for explosives told us," We aren't your problem, the Palestinians are your problem". Maybe we should just believe everything the Jews say. Maybe it's the Albanians or the Sami's or the Andamanese but I don't think so.

    Well excuse my simple farmer method of, if it's pig shit, it's pigs. This kind of Occam's razor thinking must be out of date. Shows my lack of sophistication I guess. Maybe the latest phrase,"It's more complicated than you posit" is more accurate.

    One thing I do know is in the past the Jews took over Russia and proceeded to kill the Russians, Ukrainians and everyone else in profligate numbers. They took over the banks, legislature and industrial production and attempted to kill off the Germans. There is a pattern.

    Jews have the same pattern over and over because it works. They go to another country. They say the last country oppressed them and they’ve always been oppressed because they love God and only serve him.

    They rise to the top of the country by these methods. They flatter the people who control the country, get them in their debt. Possibly black mail them. They take control of the information and media of the country. After this point the country goes down rapidly. Here’s where the psychopaths always mess up. They have no off switch. Have you ever watched a documentary on wolverines? They are just like wolverines. Wolverines are insatiable eaters. They will eat til they pass out. The Jews are they same. Anyone can get rich if all they do is pursue wealth constantly. This obsession is worse for the Jews as there is nothing they will not do. Psychopaths have no shame so they will do any crime or break any taboo to get money and power. Psychopaths think that the rest of are stupid and we deserve to get taken for being idiots. It’s not really a crime to con people because victims deserve what they get.

    Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    The Jews may not be responsible for everything but they are at the root of corruption in the West. They support corrupt people to undermine societies. Over time this builds til the whole society is corrupt. Like a corruption amplifier they up the levels of dysfunction. Any trivial amount of study of what the Jews have promoted over the last fifty years or so will see that it promotes dysfunction. It doesn't make sense that such a small amount of people could do such damage but if they are focused, have no morals and keep at it long enough over time they replace the half way decent rulers with the completely corrupt. Just a matter of money and priorities. Doesn't hurt they control all of the major media sites.

    If you read about psychopaths and apply this information to Jews you will never be surprised.

    Voltaire on the Jews,
    ''They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race..."

    Are we there yet?
    , @ben tillman

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.
     
    This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

    First, you begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

    Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that appears to require racial suicide.

    Third, the actual problem has eluded you. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive in some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

    Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    You need to justify this. Why cannot good morals spread indefinitely by pulling in what you call “empathetic” people into the circle, and making membership of that circle something to aspire to? It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism.

    (By the way, my question is inspired by my skepticism of your theory that the ability for what you call “affective empathy” is hardwired in some human beings and not in others. I will believe it the day geneticists can produce a gene, or combination of genes, that infallibly determine who is empathetic and who is not. Until then, I’ll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last. A few hundred years will not trump millions of years. Chimps choose sides which tells me that our common ancestors chose sides. When it comes down to choosing, race and ethnicity are natural fault lines. In the end the choosing of sides will determine the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Jo s'more says:

    Not very high, of course, and criminals have far more children than law-abiding folks, so then after millions and gazillions of years of evomolution, shouldn’t everyone be a psychopathic criminal by now

    Right, because as we all know criminals take great care of their kids and for the past gazillion years every child survived.

    Oh, wait…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Peter,
    I believe words mean what they mean and that science shouldn’t try to redefine them. Now the fact that nearly no other nation in the world in history has ever had a stereotype about north and northwest Euros as “warm and empathetic” is a problem for your claim that you should take more seriously.

    It’s true that “warmth” can be different, in the sense of “hot blooded” and “passionate.” But I wasn’t using it that way here, I was using it as a kind of synonym for “empathetic.” So then if you will, just take this latter, it’s still the case that north and northwest Euros have never been seen as empathetic by others, but even rather as merciless and lacking in humanity or common human feeling.

    I would say you are dealing with a real phenomenon here but you do bad by calling it “empathy,” because that’s not what’s behind north and northwest Euro behavior with RE to immigration and so on, nor is it “altruism.” It is rather a variation on the same emotional and psychological elements that underpin Kantianism. That is to say, a rigid reliance on moral abstraction, on moral universalism and “duty for the sake of duty,” and on conformism, precisely at the expensive of empathy or of any affects whatsoever. While these may superficially seem to be motivated by “empathy,” they are not.

    There is a long tradition of north and northwest Euro thinkers–Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Dostoyevsky–who have criticized and analyzed German and English psychology and moral psychology and you would do well to study what they have to say. I agree with you that you’re studying a real phenomenon here, but I think you’re distorting it by calling it “empathy.” The force in play is rather the feeling for self-righteousness, the feeling of “election” (that undergirds Calvinism), intellectual abstraction and universalism, moralism and intellectual rigidity, conformism and rule-following. Not affective empathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. One more thing: a very common and in my opinion accurate stereotype about Americans (Anglos in general maybe) is that they have no sense of friendship and that friendship is superficial and rare in the US. Stereotypes like these should be studied to measure to what extent “empathy” is actually a major player in north and northwest Euro moral psychology.

    As an immigrant to the US myself (from a European but not NW European country) I can say that almost all my dealings with Anglo Americans (including Anglofied Jews, who are very different from Russian Jews) is that they have a very rigid moralism. In this sense they are indeed “upright” and “selfless” but also fundamentally untrustworthy as friends. They are ever-willing to sacrifice a friend to their sense of morality, and even in their dealings with you, while superficially “correct” and “upright,” one senses they are being so because they are following moral rules or laws rather than out of any empathy or affect toward you as a friend. Personally I am not reassured to know that a friend isn’t harming me because they are following universal moral rules rather than out of their strong emotional bond to me. That’s also not what empathy means.

    In fact I’ve often found friendships with NW Euros (in the US) to be very short-lasting because they are even willing to betray or at least ignore your interests based on a technicality of moral casuistry (following the letter rather than the spirit of moral law, something usually Jews get accused of). This is impossible between friends. Overall such experiences have taught me that guilt doesn’t really come into their moral and psychological life, at least not as the word is normally understood. The only thing that matters is if they feel they are a “good person,” which they judge entirely by whether they have followed some pre-fab moral rules (moralism). This rule-following makes them feel “elect” (same impetus behind Calvinism). It is more accurate to say the Anglo feels a strong need to be a “good person,” which is why there are books in America like “The Ethical Slut,” which is inconceivable somewhere like France or Spain. There people don’t need to justify their peccadiloes or pleasures with some universal morality, but it seems everything the Anglo-American/north/NW Euro does, must also work to make them feel like they’re a “good and moral person.” Whether it’s eating or sex or anything else. This isn’t “empathy” though, this kind of moralistic universalism and Kantianism is motivated by something else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You shouldn't generalize for all of the US. In some subcultures in the US, loyalty and bonding still trump everything else. I know plenty of people who look to see which side their friend is on before deciding what the "facts" are. I have come to realize that I am this way and during my early years it was the wider culture that was sending the message that loyalty should give way to "morality".

    See Peter DeScioli on the development of morality as a means to defeat this loyalty and bonding mechanism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. “It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism.”

    You forgot porn. And democracy. Yes, many Western values can be spread elsewhere through cultural transmission. But a Western value, even when successfully adopted, can have different impacts in different societies because other things are not so easily changed. The effects of Western fast food are more devastating in Amerindian communities because their physiology is more oriented to a “feast and famine” lifestyle. Their ancestors had to eat food whenever it became available … because tomorrow there might be none.

    I’m not saying that everything is biologically determined. I’ll hope you’ll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    “Until then, I’ll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture”

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation? We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It’s not a side-effect of something more general.

    But that’s not good enough for you. I have to bring back the witch’s broom. You want me to pinpoint the actual genes that lead to affective empathy. And if I show you those genes, what will be your response? Will you raise the bar higher still?

    Skepticaldonkey,

    No, pro-social behavior doesn’t mean being “hot-blooded” or “passionate.” It means being willing to help others in the hope that such help will be reciprocated. Yes, that looks like empathy but it’s not. In fact, to some degree, there is a trade-off between the two.

    If most people around you have a low capacity for affective empathy, you’ll have to invest more effort in being pro-social. You’ll be more willing to offer compliments, make conversation, and tell jokes. You’ll also offer presents and flatter people. You have to do this because you can’t count on basic human kindness. Basic human kindness doesn’t exist in most of the world.

    Conversely, if most people around you have a high capacity for affective empathy, you don’t have to work so hard at being pro-social. You don’t have to be so “warm.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I’m not saying that everything is biologically determined. I’ll hope you’ll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    If, by "everything", you mean behavioral and cognitive characteristics, I do believe that there are differences among individuals that seem to be heritable. So, yes, I'll concede your point. But the current state of evidence does not convince me that such differences in characteristics can be clearly mapped to racial groupings. I believe that the there is significant variability within races. The distribution functions (bell curves) overlap to large extents, except for the tails. I believe the non-overlap (or displacement) of tails is due to culture.

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation?

    It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation (to me at least). Within "culture", I include historical experiences (e.g., persistent invasions can really mess up peoples' psyches; empathy could go for a toss; yet no significant genetic mutations take place), social and political institutions, and religion. Move individuals (not large groups, mind you) from one culture to another; they seem to adapt to the norms of the host society.

    We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It’s not a side-effect of something more general.

    Peter, you are the expert and I'll defer to your knowledge of the research in this field. Now, I may have a bias when I try to evaluate these results, as my background is in a scientific discipline where precision is not just valued, it is demanded. So figures like 32% seems rather large to me, and my brain immediately tries to list all possible variables that may not have been controlled and eliminated (like culture, history, etc.) This is a problem (or bias, or prejudice) I have with all social science (including economics), where theories are framed by correlating aggregate population characteristics with aggregate results. As Hayek said, one should always be wary of science turning into scientism. So my skeptical radar is turned on when I read articles on these topics.

    Now, with genes, we have something approaching natural science, whereby we can model human beings through their basic building blocks, which seem to have predictable behavior. So if and when conclusive genetic evidence emerges for the theories you outline (i.e., medical tests on large representative sets of people, not questionnaires), I will believe it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I wrote considerably more in response to your claims, even granting that you’re right about your interpretation of warmth vs. basic human kindness. But to go with that, unless there’s evidence that shows otherwise, it goes to figure that people who have warm affects are also empathetic, and those who are cold are not actually acting out of empathy but out of something else; which is what I’ve been arguing.

    “Basic human kindness” is not the first thing that comes to anyone’s mind to describe the north or NW Euro historically. Never been such a stereotype about these peoples and nations, but the opposite. I gave you an alternative explanation, supported furthermore by the writings of many north Euro philosophers who criticized north Euro moral sense. The reason they act this way is the need to feel “elect” and “more righteous” than their neighbor. It’s the same impulse behind Calvinism and also Kantianism in a secularized form. It’s a kind of moral universalism/abstraction, combined with conformism and the need to feel self-righteous. The reason behind modern immigration is not altruism or basic human kindness, but the desire to have strong backs for cheap labor; that this is covered up with typical north Euro moral cant about universal human rights and helping the poor doesn’t mean this is the actual motivation, or that empathy is in play. And moral self-congratulation isn’t what will save the US and West Europe (which, I agree, does need saving from 3d world immigration, leftism, etc.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Skepticaldonkey,

    I guess this discussion will go nowhere if you ignore my distinction between affective empathy and pro-social behavior. The two look similar but the latter has lower heritability and is much more a learned response to circumstances. “Warmth” is a response to a low-trust society where you have to work hard at building relationships of mutual help and support.

    I never said that a “cold” temperament is a sign of empathy. It’s just that people in an empathic high-trust society don’t have to invest as much in gestures of hospitality and the like. But I’m repeating myself ….

    On a lighter note, it’s been shown that the amygdala is bigger in self-described conservatives than in self-described liberals.

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

    This finding is interpreted as meaning that conservatives are needlessly anxious and fearful. I guess that’s one way of looking at it. I also can’t help wondering whether the two groups also differ in ethnic background. What do you think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    So if affective empathy helps people to survive and reproduce, there will be more and more of it in succeeding generations. If not, there will be less and less.

    But what exactly is being passed on or not passed on?

    Idiocy seems to prevail in the area of human eusociality — and not just among the liberal elites, mind you. Even the race “realists” and “HBD” crowd seem unable to fathom the possibility that eusociality is, as Nowak, et al have mathematically argued with due rigor, primarily extended phenotypic:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279739/

    If you follow that lead, a lot of such “idiocy” makes a lot more sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Affective empathy is an intricate adaptation that must have evolved for some reason. Initially, it may have served to facilitate the relationship between a mother and her children, this being perhaps why it is stronger in women than in men (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004). In some cultures, natural selection may have increased this capacity in both sexes and extended it to a wider range of social interactions. This scenario would especially apply to Northwest Europeans, who have long had relatively weak kinship. They have consequently relied more on internal means of behavior control, like affective empathy (Frost, 2014).

    Let me offer a simple argument for why race “realists” are being unrealistic in their ignorance of the extended phenotypic “altruism” of “Northwest Europeans”:

    Even mainstream figures like Carl Zimmer are admitting that parasitic castration is a major feature of the natural world — albeit limited to interspecies extended phenotypics.

    I posit that extended phenotypic parasitic castration might be intraspecific and point to interethnic “absurdities” wherein vast populations of one ethnicity sacrifice their reproductive potential for vast populations of other ethnicities.

    Is such intraspecific parasitic castration via extended phenotypics absurd? Why is it absurd? Is it absurd because members of the same species are too closely related to each other to support the evolution of such virtulent parasitism?

    If that is the case, then it is even more absurd for Nowak, et al to posit that a mother parasitically castrates her offspring for her own benefit — and that is exactly what Nowak, et al posit.

    Is it absurd because members of other ethnicities don’t get into a position where they can act as does the eusocial mother in parasitically castrating her brood?

    Perhaps so if the species weren’t so dependent on co-evolved memes for reproductive viability — but if a foreign ethny can interpose itself memetically between generations of a host ethny, is it really absurd to posit that an ethny might evolve the capacity to parasitically castrate host ethnies by specializing in the takeover of memetic programming of the impressionable via, say, religion (Jews don’t have anything to do with Christianity do they?), media (Jews don’t have anything to do with the media do they?) or academia (Jews don’t have any substantial influence on academia do they?).

    Perhaps it is absurd of me to argue this — not because it isn’t glaringly obviously the correct working hypothesis to adopt — but because the vast majority are already so abjectly dominated by virulence that there is little hope they can read and comprehend the glaringly obvious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Peter,
    OK I will answer your question first and then ask my own. About the amygdala and conservative vs. liberal, I’m very skeptical of that too. Why? Because liberal-conservative, even if the people who ran the study should have accurately defined the positions (very doubtful), are categories that only make sense post-1789. And so this idea that human nature and brain can be divided according to political categories and opinions that are only 200 years old is very strange. This could mean any number of things. It could mean that culture is so strong as to change nature in a mere 200 years to the point of determining the size of amygdala, something I find hard to believe. It could mean that the study is measuring something else–that maybe the subjects sensed they were being tested and the ones who gave “conservative” answers were trying to be in-your-face or confrontational toward the scientists carrying out the study. Certainly for example I would give “conservative” answers in such a case to piss off the shitlib scientists even though I myself am a right wing radical who doesn’t really agree with any mainstream conservative positions. So then the study would be studying nonconformism or desire to be antagonistic to dominant ideas rather than actual “liberal vs. conservative,” or would be studying some other third trait in this way. Or it could mean that liberal and conservative, even limited categories that they are, still measure some innate human inclinations that have always existed but were expressed differently before 1789 (but how?) This is also a difficult case to make. It could be, again, that this study is only valid in a particular historical situation in England in the year 2000 and therefore is studying only the nature of modern English man and not humans in general. It says the sample size is 90 students. Without a lot more information it’s hard to say what this study represents. The idea that it could represent different ethnicities or races is interesting too though. It’s possible that ancient racial or ethnic divisions still exist within Europe under the surface. In England that might represent a Norman upper caste, but I don’t know enough about English history. 19th century European thinkers like Gobineau and Nietzsche believed most of Europe was pre-Aryan, that some remnants of the aristocracy were more Aryan in origin and that e.g. the French Revolution was a slave revolt (interpreted by some French historians later also as a racial or ethnic revolt). I think all of this is possible and interesting as well. But much historical work would have to be done to judge what the study really means, and a bigger study with people from different cultures (and preferably historic eras) would be necessary.

    Would you then comment on the stereotype RE weak friendships in the USA? Is weak or nonexistent friendships a hallmark of “affective empathy” societies?

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

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    “There are no historical records to support that [theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic] aspect of my argument”

    The northern coast above the west European plain is where the ME farmers were stopped. It is also where even the Indo Europeans were considerably slowed down, even though the plain is absolutely perfect for invaders, especially highly mobile ones.

    “The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behaviour .”

    Why were the coastal people so formidable? I think one reason may have been was because the coastal peoples ( the western especially) were less inclined to run away when the chips were down. A weakness of non-hardwiring, that is, rewarding or punishing by using reputation in the community as a guide, is that people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community. In war, bullshitters would have been a big liability. The coastal peoples would have been more sincerely selfless people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That doesn't seem to make much sense. Affective empathy presumably would have made them more vulnerable to the farmers and Indo-Europeans. Furthermore war would have bred out and decreased such "pro-social behavior", even when successfully prosecuted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost
    "It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism."

    You forgot porn. And democracy. Yes, many Western values can be spread elsewhere through cultural transmission. But a Western value, even when successfully adopted, can have different impacts in different societies because other things are not so easily changed. The effects of Western fast food are more devastating in Amerindian communities because their physiology is more oriented to a "feast and famine" lifestyle. Their ancestors had to eat food whenever it became available ... because tomorrow there might be none.

    I'm not saying that everything is biologically determined. I'll hope you'll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    "Until then, I’ll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture"

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation? We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It's not a side-effect of something more general.

    But that's not good enough for you. I have to bring back the witch's broom. You want me to pinpoint the actual genes that lead to affective empathy. And if I show you those genes, what will be your response? Will you raise the bar higher still?

    Skepticaldonkey,

    No, pro-social behavior doesn't mean being "hot-blooded" or "passionate." It means being willing to help others in the hope that such help will be reciprocated. Yes, that looks like empathy but it's not. In fact, to some degree, there is a trade-off between the two.

    If most people around you have a low capacity for affective empathy, you'll have to invest more effort in being pro-social. You'll be more willing to offer compliments, make conversation, and tell jokes. You'll also offer presents and flatter people. You have to do this because you can't count on basic human kindness. Basic human kindness doesn't exist in most of the world.

    Conversely, if most people around you have a high capacity for affective empathy, you don't have to work so hard at being pro-social. You don't have to be so "warm."

    I’m not saying that everything is biologically determined. I’ll hope you’ll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    If, by “everything”, you mean behavioral and cognitive characteristics, I do believe that there are differences among individuals that seem to be heritable. So, yes, I’ll concede your point. But the current state of evidence does not convince me that such differences in characteristics can be clearly mapped to racial groupings. I believe that the there is significant variability within races. The distribution functions (bell curves) overlap to large extents, except for the tails. I believe the non-overlap (or displacement) of tails is due to culture.

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation?

    It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation (to me at least). Within “culture”, I include historical experiences (e.g., persistent invasions can really mess up peoples’ psyches; empathy could go for a toss; yet no significant genetic mutations take place), social and political institutions, and religion. Move individuals (not large groups, mind you) from one culture to another; they seem to adapt to the norms of the host society.

    We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It’s not a side-effect of something more general.

    Peter, you are the expert and I’ll defer to your knowledge of the research in this field. Now, I may have a bias when I try to evaluate these results, as my background is in a scientific discipline where precision is not just valued, it is demanded. So figures like 32% seems rather large to me, and my brain immediately tries to list all possible variables that may not have been controlled and eliminated (like culture, history, etc.) This is a problem (or bias, or prejudice) I have with all social science (including economics), where theories are framed by correlating aggregate population characteristics with aggregate results. As Hayek said, one should always be wary of science turning into scientism. So my skeptical radar is turned on when I read articles on these topics.

    Now, with genes, we have something approaching natural science, whereby we can model human beings through their basic building blocks, which seem to have predictable behavior. So if and when conclusive genetic evidence emerges for the theories you outline (i.e., medical tests on large representative sets of people, not questionnaires), I will believe it.

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

    Clarification : when I wrote “people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community”, I didn’t mean freeriding. I meant that without affective empathy an individual can behave prosocially in an apparently selfless fashion but do so with the ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation. In everyday life, dissimulating by putting oneself out through prosocial behaviour and work towards community objectives would pay off handsomely through the acquisition of a reputation as a self-sacrificing individual.

    However, in war where pro-social behaviour would mean risking life and limb for neighbours, the insincere dissimulating men would not find it worth it to come to the fore and take a genuinely active role in the fighting. The pay-off would be too likely a posthumous reputation. A group that had just a few calculating-the-odds dissimulators would be less likely to effectively to cohesively go at the the enemy as one man, and stand fast when things looked grim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. JayMan says: • Website
    @melpeexxx
    The Italian Mafia were not composed of mentally sick people but only the smartest of their culture. Also the Nazi death camp commandants were politically connected elitists who wanted the job. Cruel job holders are only opportunists and family men who love an easy buck. Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.

    Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.

    Where do “social factors” come from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Sam J. says:
    @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    said,”…There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement…”

    If I’m a farmer and I look around and pig shit is everywhere then I don’t blame Elephants or Cows or Wildebeest or Kangaroos. I blame the pigs. If I look around at the decay that’s my country. The immigration policy, the WTC building #7 that fell as fast as a rock dropped in mid air even though it was not hit by a plane, the wars for Israel in the Middle East, the leveraged buy outs in the 80′s that concentrated huge portions of American industry into the hands of the Jews and bankers (redundant I know), the then movement of industry after takeovers to overseas, the choke and puke pornography in Hollywood, the crass anti-White hatred from Hollywood, the huge funding from Jews corrupting our legislative process, I could go on but I’ll stop here. Just what am I supposed to believe?

    Like the Jews caught on 9-11 filming the towers hit by planes as it happened, riding in a van that test positive for explosives told us,” We aren’t your problem, the Palestinians are your problem”. Maybe we should just believe everything the Jews say. Maybe it’s the Albanians or the Sami’s or the Andamanese but I don’t think so.

    Well excuse my simple farmer method of, if it’s pig shit, it’s pigs. This kind of Occam’s razor thinking must be out of date. Shows my lack of sophistication I guess. Maybe the latest phrase,”It’s more complicated than you posit” is more accurate.

    One thing I do know is in the past the Jews took over Russia and proceeded to kill the Russians, Ukrainians and everyone else in profligate numbers. They took over the banks, legislature and industrial production and attempted to kill off the Germans. There is a pattern.

    Jews have the same pattern over and over because it works. They go to another country. They say the last country oppressed them and they’ve always been oppressed because they love God and only serve him.

    They rise to the top of the country by these methods. They flatter the people who control the country, get them in their debt. Possibly black mail them. They take control of the information and media of the country. After this point the country goes down rapidly. Here’s where the psychopaths always mess up. They have no off switch. Have you ever watched a documentary on wolverines? They are just like wolverines. Wolverines are insatiable eaters. They will eat til they pass out. The Jews are they same. Anyone can get rich if all they do is pursue wealth constantly. This obsession is worse for the Jews as there is nothing they will not do. Psychopaths have no shame so they will do any crime or break any taboo to get money and power. Psychopaths think that the rest of are stupid and we deserve to get taken for being idiots. It’s not really a crime to con people because victims deserve what they get.

    Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    The Jews may not be responsible for everything but they are at the root of corruption in the West. They support corrupt people to undermine societies. Over time this builds til the whole society is corrupt. Like a corruption amplifier they up the levels of dysfunction. Any trivial amount of study of what the Jews have promoted over the last fifty years or so will see that it promotes dysfunction. It doesn’t make sense that such a small amount of people could do such damage but if they are focused, have no morals and keep at it long enough over time they replace the half way decent rulers with the completely corrupt. Just a matter of money and priorities. Doesn’t hurt they control all of the major media sites.

    If you read about psychopaths and apply this information to Jews you will never be surprised.

    Voltaire on the Jews,
    ”They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race…”

    Are we there yet?

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

    @numinous
    “It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation”
    It is not. This is not explanation at all. It simply avoids the question altogether by waving hand and saying “the culture makes people do it”. HOW culture makes people do things? WHY cultures are different? WHY cultures change? HOW culture evolved in first place? E.g. your explanation “the culture makes some people more emphatic than the others”. But then HOW this culture arised in the first place? HOW this culture acts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I cannot say anything that will convince you either way, but people have written books on these subjects (just like people have written books on innate/genetic differences among people and races). I know most people on forums like Unz has contempt for Jared Diamond, but he did present a plausible theory to explain why human societies have seen varied histories.

    Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what's the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    "There are no historical records to support that [theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic] aspect of my argument"

    The northern coast above the west European plain is where the ME farmers were stopped. It is also where even the Indo Europeans were considerably slowed down, even though the plain is absolutely perfect for invaders, especially highly mobile ones.

    "The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behaviour ."

    Why were the coastal people so formidable? I think one reason may have been was because the coastal peoples ( the western especially) were less inclined to run away when the chips were down. A weakness of non-hardwiring, that is, rewarding or punishing by using reputation in the community as a guide, is that people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community. In war, bullshitters would have been a big liability. The coastal peoples would have been more sincerely selfless people.

    That doesn’t seem to make much sense. Affective empathy presumably would have made them more vulnerable to the farmers and Indo-Europeans. Furthermore war would have bred out and decreased such “pro-social behavior”, even when successfully prosecuted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. iffen says:
    @Numinous

    By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.
     
    You need to justify this. Why cannot good morals spread indefinitely by pulling in what you call "empathetic" people into the circle, and making membership of that circle something to aspire to? It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism.

    (By the way, my question is inspired by my skepticism of your theory that the ability for what you call "affective empathy" is hardwired in some human beings and not in others. I will believe it the day geneticists can produce a gene, or combination of genes, that infallibly determine who is empathetic and who is not. Until then, I'll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture.)

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last. A few hundred years will not trump millions of years. Chimps choose sides which tells me that our common ancestors chose sides. When it comes down to choosing, race and ethnicity are natural fault lines. In the end the choosing of sides will determine the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Numinous says:
    @szopen
    @numinous
    "It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation"
    It is not. This is not explanation at all. It simply avoids the question altogether by waving hand and saying "the culture makes people do it". HOW culture makes people do things? WHY cultures are different? WHY cultures change? HOW culture evolved in first place? E.g. your explanation "the culture makes some people more emphatic than the others". But then HOW this culture arised in the first place? HOW this culture acts?

    I cannot say anything that will convince you either way, but people have written books on these subjects (just like people have written books on innate/genetic differences among people and races). I know most people on forums like Unz has contempt for Jared Diamond, but he did present a plausible theory to explain why human societies have seen varied histories.

    Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Numinous says:
    @iffen
    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last. A few hundred years will not trump millions of years. Chimps choose sides which tells me that our common ancestors chose sides. When it comes down to choosing, race and ethnicity are natural fault lines. In the end the choosing of sides will determine the future.

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.

    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their “tribes”) will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? ...The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package"

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). "To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them"

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don't want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the 'global ideal' available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can't help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups' rise and fall?

    , @iffen
    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it's just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Sean says:
    @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    “Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? …The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package”

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). “To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them”

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don’t want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the ‘global ideal’ available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can’t help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups’ rise and fall?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .
     
    I completely agree with you.

    I am not entirely sure that what you state above is indeed happening in the prosperous (mostly Western) countries, at least in the US. It seems to me (based on my personal experiences, and some reading) that it's not the tough-minded individuals from the unsuccessful groups who periodically try to defect to more successful groups (like the West), but rather the relatively more tender-minded people. Why would a predator want to leave his habitat, where he is guaranteed to be on top of the food chain? Taking Mexico as an example, it's not the powerful drug lords or corrupt elite who are clamoring to emigrate to their successful northern neighbor; it's the victimized middle and poor classes. And from countries that do not share land borders with the US, the source of immigrants are overwhelmingly likely to be from the middle/upper middle classes; lack of knowledge and travel expense is a deterrent to the poor people.

    Do these people retain tough-minded attitudes in their new host societies. Undoubtedly yes, for a while, but it wears off once they realize that there are few or no predators of the kind they encountered back home.

    None of the above should be construed as an argument for immigration though. There are indeed cultural and economic reasons to put barriers. I just don't think that undue alarm is warranted though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. iffen says:
    @skepticaldonkey
    One more thing: a very common and in my opinion accurate stereotype about Americans (Anglos in general maybe) is that they have no sense of friendship and that friendship is superficial and rare in the US. Stereotypes like these should be studied to measure to what extent "empathy" is actually a major player in north and northwest Euro moral psychology.

    As an immigrant to the US myself (from a European but not NW European country) I can say that almost all my dealings with Anglo Americans (including Anglofied Jews, who are very different from Russian Jews) is that they have a very rigid moralism. In this sense they are indeed "upright" and "selfless" but also fundamentally untrustworthy as friends. They are ever-willing to sacrifice a friend to their sense of morality, and even in their dealings with you, while superficially "correct" and "upright," one senses they are being so because they are following moral rules or laws rather than out of any empathy or affect toward you as a friend. Personally I am not reassured to know that a friend isn't harming me because they are following universal moral rules rather than out of their strong emotional bond to me. That's also not what empathy means.

    In fact I've often found friendships with NW Euros (in the US) to be very short-lasting because they are even willing to betray or at least ignore your interests based on a technicality of moral casuistry (following the letter rather than the spirit of moral law, something usually Jews get accused of). This is impossible between friends. Overall such experiences have taught me that guilt doesn't really come into their moral and psychological life, at least not as the word is normally understood. The only thing that matters is if they feel they are a "good person," which they judge entirely by whether they have followed some pre-fab moral rules (moralism). This rule-following makes them feel "elect" (same impetus behind Calvinism). It is more accurate to say the Anglo feels a strong need to be a "good person," which is why there are books in America like "The Ethical Slut," which is inconceivable somewhere like France or Spain. There people don't need to justify their peccadiloes or pleasures with some universal morality, but it seems everything the Anglo-American/north/NW Euro does, must also work to make them feel like they're a "good and moral person." Whether it's eating or sex or anything else. This isn't "empathy" though, this kind of moralistic universalism and Kantianism is motivated by something else.

    You shouldn’t generalize for all of the US. In some subcultures in the US, loyalty and bonding still trump everything else. I know plenty of people who look to see which side their friend is on before deciding what the “facts” are. I have come to realize that I am this way and during my early years it was the wider culture that was sending the message that loyalty should give way to “morality”.

    See Peter DeScioli on the development of morality as a means to defeat this loyalty and bonding mechanism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. iffen says:
    @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it’s just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Thank you for your kind words. Let us all keep learning more about the world, and let the dialogue continue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Viewer says:

    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:

    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?"

    Or a society in which whites' extraordinary altruism is not acceptable unless it takes the form of ethnic masochism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Sean says:
    @Viewer
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:

    Who's more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?

    “Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?”

    Or a society in which whites’ extraordinary altruism is not acceptable unless it takes the form of ethnic masochism.

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

    says:

    Cracker1 said,”…All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe…

    Numinous said,”…We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes…”

    I actually agree with you but if this mode of thought is used to disadvantage your people to the advantage of other tribes and it is not countered then this thinking is dysfunctional. They will not be reformed so there is great danger in betting all your cards on a hand that will probably never materialize.

    says:”
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:
    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?”

    What exactly is wrong with being racist? If noticing that different people have different IQ’s is racist and different IQ’s exist, then why is this bad? If noticing that people have different behaviors and these are genetically related is racist, then what’s wrong with that?

    This White guy wasn’t racist and look what happened to him.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/11/07/white-liberal-beaten-and-chased-through-ferguson/

    Racist merely means, give me what I want, think what I say or I’ll call you names. We should embrace racism. It’s rational, correct and a functional way to live. The continuous cry of racism against Whites is nothing but anti-White sentiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "What exactly is wrong with being racist? "

    As far as I know it is not the 11th Commandment.

    However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems.

    Knowledge of racial differences is not racist; it is what one does with that information that determines whether one is racist.

    Numinous thinks the entire world can be one tribe and you seem to think that white people can be a tribe. IMHO you are both incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. iffen says:
    @Sam J.
    @Numinous says:

    Cracker1 said,"...All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe...

    Numinous said,"...We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes..."

    I actually agree with you but if this mode of thought is used to disadvantage your people to the advantage of other tribes and it is not countered then this thinking is dysfunctional. They will not be reformed so there is great danger in betting all your cards on a hand that will probably never materialize.

    @Viewer says:"
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:
    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?"

    What exactly is wrong with being racist? If noticing that different people have different IQ's is racist and different IQ's exist, then why is this bad? If noticing that people have different behaviors and these are genetically related is racist, then what's wrong with that?

    This White guy wasn't racist and look what happened to him.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/11/07/white-liberal-beaten-and-chased-through-ferguson/

    Racist merely means, give me what I want, think what I say or I'll call you names. We should embrace racism. It's rational, correct and a functional way to live. The continuous cry of racism against Whites is nothing but anti-White sentiment.

    “What exactly is wrong with being racist? ”

    As far as I know it is not the 11th Commandment.

    However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems.

    Knowledge of racial differences is not racist; it is what one does with that information that determines whether one is racist.

    Numinous thinks the entire world can be one tribe and you seem to think that white people can be a tribe. IMHO you are both incorrect.

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

    Skepticaldonkey’s comments are interesting. They bring to my mind my interactions with Scandinavians in particular.

    I think he’s still reaching as much as Frost and the other commenters are, though.

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

    Numinous “It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. [...] Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)?”

    They run run computer simulations in which various strategies compete. The implacably mean strategies get off to a flying start and quickly dominate, but they eventually take each other out, and ‘tit for tat’ wins. But the problem with a population all using tit for tat done with micro chip accuracy is that it does not allow for mistakes or what is called ‘noise’. So (in the real world) someone might do something to offend you, you retaliate, but so will he. So you end up taking each other out. Yet what gets it started might be a mistake. Hence nasty types will tend to take each other out, and as I said above the altruistic strategies tend to predominate in the latter stages, but because nasty strategy wins against an extremely nice strategy, a nice strategy population often ends up getting wiped out by a nasty holdout or interloper.

    In real life people want to become part of a group (called a tribe if you want to be pejorative) when they are in need of help, whereby conflict makes for strong group allegiance. So, a feeling of group allegiance that was not based on individual self interest is a puzzle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It may be a puzzle for you but not for everyone.

    The groups that did not have sufficient numbers or strength of individuals who valued the group more than themselves are no longer with us.

    People not only want to be a part of a group; there are no people who are not in a group.

    Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group(tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. iffen says:
    @Sean
    Numinous "It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. [...] Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)?"


    They run run computer simulations in which various strategies compete. The implacably mean strategies get off to a flying start and quickly dominate, but they eventually take each other out, and 'tit for tat' wins. But the problem with a population all using tit for tat done with micro chip accuracy is that it does not allow for mistakes or what is called 'noise'. So (in the real world) someone might do something to offend you, you retaliate, but so will he. So you end up taking each other out. Yet what gets it started might be a mistake. Hence nasty types will tend to take each other out, and as I said above the altruistic strategies tend to predominate in the latter stages, but because nasty strategy wins against an extremely nice strategy, a nice strategy population often ends up getting wiped out by a nasty holdout or interloper.

    In real life people want to become part of a group (called a tribe if you want to be pejorative) when they are in need of help, whereby conflict makes for strong group allegiance. So, a feeling of group allegiance that was not based on individual self interest is a puzzle.

    It may be a puzzle for you but not for everyone.

    The groups that did not have sufficient numbers or strength of individuals who valued the group more than themselves are no longer with us.

    People not only want to be a part of a group; there are no people who are not in a group.

    Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group(tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long.

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

    @Cracker1

    “…However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems…”

    It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do. I’m completely done with this attitude. I want to know what other races are going to do. Whether this attitude is correct or not I’m not interested in debating any more. As far as I’m concerned all we have done has been to little avail. Doing for other races has been a complete waste of time and money.

    If all these “social and political problems” can not be solved by Whites that leads us to the idea that maybe we can’t live in a “multi-racial country”. Maybe you’re aghast at the idea but after WWII what happened to the Germans? They were deported in mass. What happened to the Dutch in Indonesia? Deported. A country without a majority of Whites appears to be a huge failure for Whites. It is not necessary for this to be so.

    What would it be like if the country was 90% White again? People could walk in the parks again. Housing long abandoned could be rebuilt. I see some of those houses in Detroit and think what absolute treasures. Now they have trees growing through them. We’re often abused for not having a good public transportation system but why should Whites pay for a system they will be attacked on if they ride it? We could have an excellent transportation system. With less population we each could have more room to live, less traffic and less pollution. We can choose our future. We’re told that this is our lot now and we can’t change things. I disagree. We can choose our future and we will one way or another.

    @Cracker1
    “…you seem to think that white people can be a tribe…”

    I don’t care about that but I would like to see us support each other to the extent that we come first in our countries. We’re very diverse and will never agree. Jews never agree but they do support each other first. We could learn a lot from the Jews if we pay attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do."

    This is more or less true in that "whites" are responsible for the creation of the US.(With a little borrowing and stealing here and there.)

    Jews have a religion with sacred writings that go back for thousands of years. They have a language. They have territory from which they exclude non-Jews. They intermarry.

    "White people" have many religions, many sacred writings, many languages and many territories.

    I agree with most of what you have written here except for the part where you expect "white" people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Sean says:

    “Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long”

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn’t.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn't pull that off.
    , @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. iffen says:
    @Sam J.
    @Cracker1

    "...However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems..."

    It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do. I'm completely done with this attitude. I want to know what other races are going to do. Whether this attitude is correct or not I'm not interested in debating any more. As far as I'm concerned all we have done has been to little avail. Doing for other races has been a complete waste of time and money.

    If all these "social and political problems" can not be solved by Whites that leads us to the idea that maybe we can't live in a "multi-racial country". Maybe you're aghast at the idea but after WWII what happened to the Germans? They were deported in mass. What happened to the Dutch in Indonesia? Deported. A country without a majority of Whites appears to be a huge failure for Whites. It is not necessary for this to be so.

    What would it be like if the country was 90% White again? People could walk in the parks again. Housing long abandoned could be rebuilt. I see some of those houses in Detroit and think what absolute treasures. Now they have trees growing through them. We're often abused for not having a good public transportation system but why should Whites pay for a system they will be attacked on if they ride it? We could have an excellent transportation system. With less population we each could have more room to live, less traffic and less pollution. We can choose our future. We're told that this is our lot now and we can't change things. I disagree. We can choose our future and we will one way or another.

    @Cracker1
    "...you seem to think that white people can be a tribe..."

    I don't care about that but I would like to see us support each other to the extent that we come first in our countries. We're very diverse and will never agree. Jews never agree but they do support each other first. We could learn a lot from the Jews if we pay attention.

    “It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do.”

    This is more or less true in that “whites” are responsible for the creation of the US.(With a little borrowing and stealing here and there.)

    Jews have a religion with sacred writings that go back for thousands of years. They have a language. They have territory from which they exclude non-Jews. They intermarry.

    “White people” have many religions, many sacred writings, many languages and many territories.

    I agree with most of what you have written here except for the part where you expect “white” people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. iffen says:
    @Sean
    "Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long"

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn't.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn’t pull that off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I disagree. Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group. The real tribes are in non white countries like Nigeria, hence my point was that when whites animadvert other whites for some non-altruistic behaviour by calling them tribalistic, the connotation is that the other whites are not acting like white people ought to act. For polite white society, the essence of being white is to be instinctively empathetic..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Sean says:
    @iffen
    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn't pull that off.

    I disagree. Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group. The real tribes are in non white countries like Nigeria, hence my point was that when whites animadvert other whites for some non-altruistic behaviour by calling them tribalistic, the connotation is that the other whites are not acting like white people ought to act. For polite white society, the essence of being white is to be instinctively empathetic..

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

    “Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group.”

    This is not an accurate statement.

    I was not trying to prescribe or proscribe any particular white behavior.

    I was just saying that the idea that there could be some politically effective umbrella ethnic group called white people is not feasible.

    As a proof I offer your last sentence which writes me out of the white people group because I don’t share your opinion on empathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    "Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long"

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn't.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that.

    If you’ve ever been in “liberal elite” circles, you’d know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The “liberal elites” ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it’s in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That’s because it’s only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the ‘commanding heights”, at least on an international or global level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc. "

    I have heard that from a lot of well read people, Brazil is the country that is oft-cited for western elite whites having a well-founded expectation of their children being able to rule over an unwhite majority.

    Sure, individuals can behave in an apparently selfless fashion, while having ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation that boosts their social status . But you seem to be saying that whites elite individuals are behaving in that mercenary way and they are deluded about the consequences long term. I think they are clever enough as a group to know what is coming in the west and they are sincere.

    , @iffen
    ''involves no personal cost to liberal elites"

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don't have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Rudy says:

    @ Peter Frost, Could you expand on your assertions below. We’ve all heard the NW Europeans empathy hypothesis before. Why do you save the interesting details for the comment section discussion? And why not provide sources?

    You say 68% of altruism is heritable. Source?

    “Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the “criminally minded”, i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.” Source?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.

    “They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc. ”

    I have heard that from a lot of well read people, Brazil is the country that is oft-cited for western elite whites having a well-founded expectation of their children being able to rule over an unwhite majority.

    Sure, individuals can behave in an apparently selfless fashion, while having ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation that boosts their social status . But you seem to be saying that whites elite individuals are behaving in that mercenary way and they are deluded about the consequences long term. I think they are clever enough as a group to know what is coming in the west and they are sincere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. iffen says:
    @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.

    ”involves no personal cost to liberal elites”

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don’t have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Keith Vaz [AKA "Marco Mobley"] says:

    One of my only feminine traits is that I love kids and get on well with them. When I see White kids abused, hungry or orphaned I always have sympathy and feel an impulse to help. However, I see all those ads with starving black kids in Africa and I feel nothing but contempt. My main feeling is: ebola will be a net benefit for the civilized races. Now I know these ads work – else they wont show them – and I think it must be something to do with an exceptionally strong but unfocused maternal instinct in White women. I really don’t have sympathy for idiots like Kassig and Henning who go to paki lands and get beheaded; there are so many Whites you could have helped. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Numinous says:
    @Sean
    "Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? ...The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package"

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). "To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them"

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don't want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the 'global ideal' available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can't help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups' rise and fall?

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    I completely agree with you.

    I am not entirely sure that what you state above is indeed happening in the prosperous (mostly Western) countries, at least in the US. It seems to me (based on my personal experiences, and some reading) that it’s not the tough-minded individuals from the unsuccessful groups who periodically try to defect to more successful groups (like the West), but rather the relatively more tender-minded people. Why would a predator want to leave his habitat, where he is guaranteed to be on top of the food chain? Taking Mexico as an example, it’s not the powerful drug lords or corrupt elite who are clamoring to emigrate to their successful northern neighbor; it’s the victimized middle and poor classes. And from countries that do not share land borders with the US, the source of immigrants are overwhelmingly likely to be from the middle/upper middle classes; lack of knowledge and travel expense is a deterrent to the poor people.

    Do these people retain tough-minded attitudes in their new host societies. Undoubtedly yes, for a while, but it wears off once they realize that there are few or no predators of the kind they encountered back home.

    None of the above should be construed as an argument for immigration though. There are indeed cultural and economic reasons to put barriers. I just don’t think that undue alarm is warranted though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Numinous says:
    @iffen
    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it's just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.

    Thank you for your kind words. Let us all keep learning more about the world, and let the dialogue continue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Marco Mobley is a rotten human being. May he find NO COMFORT when he is of old age!! If he has a black caretaker in a nursing home when he gets there, hope he refuses her help!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    ''involves no personal cost to liberal elites"

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don't have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.

    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”. In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn’t really a “white ethnic group” either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”.

    What I mean is that it does not exist and cannot be created.

    It is a wasted effort to try and create one.

    Please read my comments.
    , @iffen
    Should have put this in my 1st reply.

    "arguably one developing"

    I doubt that we will have time for this to play out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Sam J. says:

    @Cracker1
    “…you expect “white” people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?…”

    You may very well be right and no amount of pleading on my part will convince some Whites that mass immigration will eventually destroy the country. Someone brought up Brazil. I saw a story about a guy who helicoptered from work to home every day because the threat of blackmail was so high. I don’t want to live like this.

    What’s going on in Ferguson is an example of the problem of tribalism. No matter what Blacks do they support the Black person. Mind you I’m not particularly pro-police in their present beat everyone to death, ask questions later incarnation. There are areas in my town where I can’t go because I’m White but I’m expected to allow those from that side of town to freely move about my side of town. To extrapolate ver time my area that I can travel will get smaller and smaller.I see, reasonably in my opinion, that you can’t fight something with nothing. It’s also my believe that mass immigration is channeled long term plan by the Jews to fracture the country. Maybe I’m wrong but they’re the ones who paid for it. All the way back to putting the graffiti on the statue of liberty, “..Give me your tired, your poor…”. To hell with that. I’m tired and poor myself I don’t need any more. It’s a huge insult for the Jews to put propaganda on the statue of liberty which was given to us by the France people because of our constitution and had nothing to do with immigration.

    Is there a way. Yes. Take control of the House and Senate. Repeal all civil rights and other type laws. Pass laws so that intelligence tests can be a requirement for voting. Consolidate power. Pass constitutional amendment removing all Blacks and Jews. Deport them. Deport all Mexican illegal immigrants. hose that are caught in the country who wish to migrate as they say today. We’ll help them. Find an African tribe to take them at $100 a head and deport them to the Congo. Repeal the Regan amnesty. Deport all these people. Deport any one who came to the US and used any government program. We shouldn’t have to support them. That includes low interest loans which would nicely cover all the Indian and Pakistani shop owners.

    The real problem is the Northern States and California. For some reason even though the North beat the South and have been fairly well subjected by them all these years they just can can not seem to pass up the ability to poke the South in the eye every chance they get. It may be that if we get enough voes we could throw out the 16 States that consistently vote against Whites. It would be difficult. Let’s list the States that are anti-White
    Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Minnesota, New York, Delaware, New Hampshire, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, Illinois, Iowa and California.

    The problem being that you need 38 States to pass a constitutional amendment. One way to do this is get a pro White President and just not let these States vote on the amendment. Tell them they’re being thrown out and deport all the fore mentioned people into their territory. Maybe some of these could be picked off. The Northern States that are heavy Democratic party but White would never go along with deportation as they don’t have any minorities. Doesn’t cost them anything as they hold their nose up at everyone else. So another strategy is to capture enough of the House, Senate and the Presidency and move ALL section eight housing to their territory. We could mass produce buildings like the Chinese. Maybe that would at least get their attention. Maybe change their mind. They would be hard pressed, morally anyways, to argue that they don’t need diversity but everyone else does. May be enough to pass the other bills. This could be done but White people would have to decide they wish to live in a majority White country. I would also entertain the idea that older people could stay but if that got too complicated then it would be better for a clean break.

    People in the North and West and wherever could still hate the South all they want. So they could get their jollies but we wouldn’t have to see the country immigrated away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. iffen says:
    @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”.

    What I mean is that it does not exist and cannot be created.

    It is a wasted effort to try and create one.

    Please read my comments.

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

    Cracker1 may be Hasbara. He keeps insisting,

    “…“act as one ethnic group”…does not exist and cannot be created…”

    Nonsense. White people have looked after each other first in the past and anything that has been can be again. It’s no big stretch to say,”We look after Whites first”. A simple look at the trajectory of our country and it would seem to be a fairly straightforward idea that this makes sense. Agreeing on anything else has nothing do with the simple statement above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. iffen says:
    @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    Should have put this in my 1st reply.

    “arguably one developing”

    I doubt that we will have time for this to play out.

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

    Interesting how IQ scores always come up from these people who think that those from northern Europe are so superior to the rest of the population.

    We are all just a standard deviation from the mean. If a certain ethnic group has a higher average IQ than another, this should not give the whole population of that group a separate status. Each individual should be given equal opportunity.

    And if an IQ test for citizenry were to be given that would exclude a specific group to say disqualify 90 percent of that population, I would guess that those asking for the test the loudest would not make the cut either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Regarding the Marsh study, I was disappointed that the researchers stopped short of causal explanations. I think that it would have been within the scope of the study had the researchers continued on to examine what may have happened in the subjects’ lives to possibly cause their neurobiological and psychological attributes.

    An accompanying PNAS commentary from a Harvard researcher made some interesting points. However, the author showed his biases that the thinking brain rules human behavior with an out-of-left-field question at the end of a paragraph in which he developed specious reasoning.

    He was completely off base when he stated: “Could it be that extraordinary altruists such as Maupin [a study participant] and the 19 individuals studied by Marsh et al. [the researchers] are special, not only because of how they feel when they see people in distress, but because of how they think?” I don’t imagine that the brilliant commentator’s attempt to upstage the study’s subjects and get the spotlight on himself for some brilliant idea was much appreciated by anyone involved.

    The amygdala is the central hub of a person’s feeling brain. The study’s findings had very little to say about the subjects’ thinking brains.

    To postulate that the researchers missed that there was something different about the subjects’ thinking brains was out of touch with the realities of both the researchers’ scientific bases and the subjects. It’s another example of the current research mindset/social meme of thinking brain dominance.

    http://surfaceyourrealself.com/2015/05/14/a-larger-amygdala-in-people-who-donated-a-kidney-to-strangers-surfaceyourrealself/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.

    This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

    First, you begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

    Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that appears to require racial suicide.

    Third, the actual problem has eluded you. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive in some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

    Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Sean says:
    @ben tillman

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.
     
    This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

    First, you begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

    Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that appears to require racial suicide.

    Third, the actual problem has eluded you. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive in some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

    Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn’t happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn’t always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one’s own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one’s reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can’t make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It’s social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews weren't helpless to stop Germany. Other countries stopped Germany, and there were many Jews in other countries.

    The New Imperialism of the British Empire which saw the incorporation of India and incursions into Afghanistan and Africa were under Disraeli.
    , @ben tillman

    (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).
     
    And that would be you.
    , @ben tillman

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.
     
    Dangerous? That's hilarious.

    Altruism needs to be more and more extreme....
     
    What? Why? What are you talking about?

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.
     
    They did not live in the 19th century and could not have engaged in "the empire building of the 19th century", so they are irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Sean says:

    Michael Paul “The Situation” Sorrentino appeared in a PETA ad campaign promoting the spaying and neutering of pets. Think about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    Jews weren’t helpless to stop Germany. Other countries stopped Germany, and there were many Jews in other countries.

    The New Imperialism of the British Empire which saw the incorporation of India and incursions into Afghanistan and Africa were under Disraeli.

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

    nutzi, you are a bit like Mike “the Situation” yourself

    Sorrentino was offered a “substantial” sum of money by fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch not to wear the company’s clothes. A spokesman for the company explained that “Mr Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.

    You are a liability to your people’s brand image.

    ‘Other countries stopped Germany’ Er, why WW1 (heard of it) then ? Jewish influence in Germany before WW1 was great. Ballin the shipping tycoon who was a close friend of the Kaiser and some say responsible the Dreadnaught building competition that Germany got into with Britain was Jewish. So was Walter Rathenau, Germany’s industry maestro in WW1. Unfortunately Germany had a divided system for WW1 the Weimar constitution after 1919 made Germany far more able to exert its strength. See here

    Hitler’s action against Jews did not create the German strategic dilemma or the strength that enabled them to almost break out of it. Germany’s strength stems from the fact that Germany is a country of superior organisation because it is more empathetic. In the dictator game Japanese and US children proposed a split with 80% for themselves . German children gave away half. See here

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I made simple factual points, and for some reason you responded in an emotionally charged tone and with insults.

    I've noticed that you're a prolific commenter who feels comfortable making all sorts of claims and comments about every other racial or ethnic group in the world and tolerates them when made by other commenters. But when someone makes basic factual observations and comments about one particular ethnicity, you seem to get worked up and respond with emotional invectives.

    I was responding to your comment that "Germany turned on the Jews", which happened in the interwar period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    nutzi, you are a bit like Mike "the Situation" yourself

    Sorrentino was offered a "substantial" sum of money by fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch not to wear the company's clothes. A spokesman for the company explained that "Mr Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.
     
    You are a liability to your people's brand image.

    'Other countries stopped Germany' Er, why WW1 (heard of it) then ? Jewish influence in Germany before WW1 was great. Ballin the shipping tycoon who was a close friend of the Kaiser and some say responsible the Dreadnaught building competition that Germany got into with Britain was Jewish. So was Walter Rathenau, Germany's industry maestro in WW1. Unfortunately Germany had a divided system for WW1 the Weimar constitution after 1919 made Germany far more able to exert its strength. See here

    Hitler's action against Jews did not create the German strategic dilemma or the strength that enabled them to almost break out of it. Germany's strength stems from the fact that Germany is a country of superior organisation because it is more empathetic. In the dictator game Japanese and US children proposed a split with 80% for themselves . German children gave away half. See here

    I made simple factual points, and for some reason you responded in an emotionally charged tone and with insults.

    I’ve noticed that you’re a prolific commenter who feels comfortable making all sorts of claims and comments about every other racial or ethnic group in the world and tolerates them when made by other commenters. But when someone makes basic factual observations and comments about one particular ethnicity, you seem to get worked up and respond with emotional invectives.

    I was responding to your comment that “Germany turned on the Jews”, which happened in the interwar period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    And that would be you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Dangerous? That’s hilarious.

    Altruism needs to be more and more extreme….

    What? Why? What are you talking about?

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.

    They did not live in the 19th century and could not have engaged in “the empire building of the 19th century”, so they are irrelevant.

    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