The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Consanguinity and Corruption
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the wake of MG’s essay on the nature and nurture of corruption, I wondered if a hard correlation between consanguinity rates and graft at the national level had been discovered. Searching for as much, the top returns I received were from MG and HBD Chick. Apparently, it hasn’t been an area of academic interest, though HBD Chick is deserving of an academic spot for her intellectual curiosity about and indefatigable efforts researching and relaying consanguinity through history and up to the present to any who happen to be interested in as much.

Why should academics and policy makers take note, though, when they’ve already identified the culprits? They are, of course, bad laws, bad leaders, and bad institutions! Fix these things and any country is capable of resembling Norway. Any day now we’ll get the right laws and enforcement mechanisms in place and use them to throw out the crooks and set things straight in Zimbabwe, Zaire, Syria, Sudan, the Congo, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea…

As is often the impetus here, not finding what I was looking for meant needing to figure it out. The data aren’t perfect by any stretch, but something is better than nothing. Computing simple, unweighted averages for each country for which studies and surveys have been conducted and subsequently recorded on and then comparing them to Transparency International’s 2011 Corruptions Perception Index yields a correlation of .44 (p = 0). In places where extended families are important and family members are more closely related to one another than they are in the West, outsiders are treated with much less even handedness than kin are and nepotism is, if not the rule, at least perfectly acceptable. In these places, if you’re not blood, you’re going to have to pay to play.

A correlation of .44 is considered fairly strong in the infinitely varied world of the social sciences, but the true relationship between corruption and consanguinity is almost certainly even more vigorous than that. I’m using imperfect and sporadic data. There is nothing available on inbreeding for about half the countries in the world while for India there are 45 studies for which I must, by necessity, compute a simple average from, because even if I wanted to try and weight the sources for geographic and demographic representativeness within India, I’d be utterly unable to do so competently since I know so little about that extremely complicated country of over 1 billion people.

Further, even to the extent that the data are representative, they leave something to be desired, as the chickadee explains:

what we are talking about here when we discuss inbreeding vs. outbreeding and nepotism and/or corruption are types of altruistic behaviors — and these behaviors/attitudes have evolved differently in different populations, of course, over time. so you can’t just take a population that has been inbreeding for scores of generations, and likely evolved certain altruistic behaviors, and change their behavior patterns via just one or two generations of outbreeding. there is going to be some lag-time.

why do i say this? because the problem with using the numbers for the kind of analysis you describe is that there is no time depth to them. if you look at the data, it appears as though the chinese have similar inbreeding/outbreeding rates to western europe or canada, but that’s only in the last generation or so (and even that is debatable). as i’ve blogged about, the chinese have been inbreeding for literally millennia. any effects that’s had on altruistic behaviors are NOT going to be overturned in one or two generations.

what needs to be done is that the histories of inbreeding/outbreeding in different populations need to be quantified (part of my ongoing, neverending project @hbd chick (~_^) ), and then those numbers need to be compared to transparency international’s and/or other figures.

Yet despite this, we still see a rigorous, statistically significant correlation between corruption and consanguinity. Randomly generated numbers don’t correlate with one another. If (when?) much of the remaining randomness in the consanguinity numbers is removed and the appropriate adjustments for time depth are made, the observed correlation will prove to be stronger still.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. "Fix these things and any country is capable of resembling Norway."

    Well, that plus 10k years of selection.

  2. I'm not sure nepotism is corruption, especially as applied to an extended family. Favoring one's family is different than stealing for one's self.

    There is also the issue of long-standing social norms. A society in which winner-takes-all (the norm throughout history everywhere) has a different standard of corruption than Norway. They might regard Norway as corrupt for not caring about their families.

    Anyway, the ruling class in Norway is virulently anti-semitic, and they teach their children to hate Jews in organized camps. So why is Karzai corrupt and not Jens Stoltenberg? Norway is plainly a corrupt society.

  3. 1. Correlation isn't causation
    2. Show your work

  4. Anon,

    1. Right. I'm not claiming causation here, just speculations on what the data show, per usual.

    2. I provided the data sources. You want a graph? I didn't make one because I don't have a program labels individual points. There's a tedious way of doing it using Excel and Paint if necessary.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    "Well, that plus 10k years of selection."

    If you know what the biological mechanism is then you might not need 10K years of accidental selection.

    "I'm not sure nepotism is corruption, especially as applied to an extended family."

    It's a question of scale. You can see the effect of large-scale nepotism and corruption throughout the poorest countries of the world.

    If it's true that the more inbred a group is the more corrupt and nepotistic they'll be then you have a practical answer to a practical problem.

    As mentioned, a lot of countries e.g. Japan, Korea, have seen a dramatic drop in consanquinity since WWII. If the effect of consanqunity is cumulative over generations then this drop would have a distorting effect.

    for example

    Country A has default human consanquinity of 100 and a corruption index of 100

    Country B has a low level of consanquinity, 50, and a corruption index of 50

    Country C is transitioning from A to B but has a corruption index higher than would be expected for its *current* level of consanquinity when plotted on the same graph as A and B if the effect was linear. This is because the influence of that country's *past* levels of consanquinity are still part of the equation.

    This is because measurements of consanquinity generally measure *current marriages* between close relatives as a proxy for consanquinity itself.

    So if for example it was possible to get the data for current marriages *and* the rate for the previous few generations and make an average the correlation would be stronger imo.

    e.g. the data for the last four generations of country A might be100, 100, 100, 100, averaging 100

    for country B 50, 50, 50, 50 averaging 50

    but for country C 100, 90, 80, 70 averaging 85

    so if it worked in a direct and linear way (unlikely to be as simple as that obviously) you'd expect country C to have a corruption index of 85 despite having a *current* consanquinity index of 70.

  6. M.G. says: • Website

    Thank you Audacious Epigone for running these numbers. I've added a link to this in my original post, so people can see that some quantitative work's been done on the subject.

    So if for example it was possible to get the data for current marriages *and* the rate for the previous few generations and make an average the correlation would be stronger imo.

    Definitely. It's a pity the data's so spotty. HBD Chick's out there like a lone adventurer trying to put the pieces together without (I presume) funding or any university backing. This is a question that IMO has clear and immediate interest for international policy-makers.

  7. MG,

    Congrats on the mention by Steve Sailer. He's doing us a service by pointing out the service you're doing.

  8. "This is a question that IMO has clear and immediate interest for international policy-makers."

    Absolutely. The potential is mind-blowing.

  9. @anonymous – "Well, that plus 10k years of selection."

    i don't think 10,000+ years is required here. i think we're more in 10,000 Year Explosion territory, iow less then 10,000 years — possibly way less.

    if these guys are right, just 50 generations of inbreeding plus some strong selection can result in some pretty high frequencies of "genes for altruism" (and, i'm guessing, by extension similar amounts of outbreeding result in the opposite). fifty generations is just something like 1000 years….

  10. @the awesome epigone – "…a correlation of .44 (p = 0)."

    wow. higher than i would've guessed! thanks for running the numbers. (^_^)

  11. I doubt 50 generations are required to significantly alter heritable behaviors–or physical characteristics–depending on the degree of randomness invovlved. A geneticist specializing in canines claimed that any breed of dog could be selected within that breed to produce any other breed in a relatively short time.
    And bad behaviors cannot be bred out of humans, because they are as likely to cling to them as they are to good ones. Since bad behaviors are no longer rewarded with starvation, incurable disease, or annhilation (they may be rewarded for it), it's a moot point anyway.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS