Blogger JayMan (a member of the HBD 23) has an interesting post up about the rise of universalism (i.e. tolerance, social liberalism) over the last century or so. There have been several theories proposed to explain this:
1) Pumpkin Person’s Theory: The Flynn effect. I’m probably not the first person to think of this, but it seems to me that as 20th century nutrition increased brain size, neurological development, and thus IQ over the last several generations, people became more moral, open minded, and inclusive, because social liberalism is positively correlated with IQ for reasons I’ve explained here. Add to that the rise of education and people would have become especially enlitended.
2) HBD Chick’s theory: Outbreeding in Northwestern Europe caused a rise in universalism and related values. HBD Chick (a member of the HBD 23) writes:
the individualistic guilt-culture of northwest (“core”) europeans today came into existence thanks to their extensive outbreeding during the medieval period (…and the manorialism). the outbreeding started in earnest in the 800s (at least in northern france) and, as we saw above, by 1050-1100 thoughts on individualis began to stir. around the same time, communes appeared in northern italy and parts of france — civic societies. violence rates begin to fall in the 1200s, especially in more outbred populations, i would argue (guess!) because the impulsive violence related to clan feuding was no longer being selected for.
by the 1300-1400s, after an additional couple hundred years of outbreeding, the renaissance was in full swing due to the “wikification” of northern european society — i.e. that nw europeans now possessed a set of behavioral traits that drove them to work cooperatively with non-relatives — to share openly knowledge and ideas and labor in reciprocally altruistic ways. the enlightenment? well, that was just the full flowering of The Outbreeding Project — an explosion of these not-so-nepotistic behavioral traits that had been selected for over the preceding 800 to 900 years. individualism? universalism? liberal democracy? tolerance? reason? skepticism? coffeehouses? the age of enlightenment IS what core europeans are all about! hurray! (^_^) the Project and its effects are ongoing today.
3) Bruce Charlton’s theory: Dysgenics. Professor Charlton argues that an accumulation of recent mutations over the 20th century has caused genetic fitness reducing social attitudes. He writes:
It is possible, perhaps even plausible, that the usual type of explanation for the self-hating, self-destructive insanities of New Left Political Correctness may be insufficient – and that in reality the core, permissive, necessary factor has not been socio-political but instead biological.
4) Joshua Gamson’s theory: According to Yale sociologist Joshua Gamson (author of the book Freaks Talk Back), the prevocative 20th century daytime talk shows, pioneered by Phil Donahue, but popularized and reinvented by big brained Oprah in 1986, and taken to extremes by Ricki Lake and Jerry Springer, created a kind of confession culture that gave gays and other marginalized groups a valued cultural space. Although this genre was often dismissed as freak shows and trash TV, they would eventually be recognized as a major counter culture movement, causing Time magazine to rank Oprah as the most influential woman on the planet.
Several hosts from the glory days of day time talk shows source: http://www.people.com
5) J.P. Rushton’s theory: Professor Rushton mentioned that following World War II, there was such a strong backlash against Nazi Germany that the pendelum has swung to the opposite extreme: Political correctness and hostile opposition to anything even resembling racism.
6) Kevin MacDonald’s theories: Professor MacDonald ( a member of the HBD 23) argues that Northwest Europeans evolved a kind of pathological altruism because as hunter/gatherers during the ice age, they didn’t have the luxury of nepotism or ethnocentricism. The ice age was so tough to survive that tribes had to embrace the smartest, most moral people, whatever their genetic background. MacDonald argues that this natural uinversalism of Northwest Europeans has been amplified by Ashkenazi Jews who promote liberalism as part of a group evolutionary strategy to thrive in Western Cultures.
However in his post this weekend, blogger JayMan seems to reject such ideas, writing:
Many commenters on this matter like to blame Jewish influence for these shifts in social attitudes, and it is true that Ashkenazi Jews commonly hold and have promoted progressive agendas. But what these commenters ignore is this: why do people listen? Or more the point, why have some people (and peoples) embraced these views and not others? A promoted agenda is only as good as the traction it gains. Clearly, the trend towards universalism has been the purview of Northwestern European societies almost exclusively. If Jewish influence has had any role, it is only in the form of a rush in a much larger prevailing current.
Indeed, Jews are a vanishingly small portion of the population in many of the most progressive countries, such as the Scandinavian ones. Sweden for example is known for being a foremost champion of progressive causes.
Pumpkin Person 
WowOWow, Jayman has two posts in one week! He’s on a roll! I wonder if he’ll keep posting at this rate.
Reminds me of that old song:
Don’t call it a comeback.
I’ve been here for years.
I’m rocking my peers.
Puttin’ suckers in fear.
Anyhow, HBD Chick’s theory is the most interesting and has the most explanatory power. However, a true student of human nature not only needs to explain the increase in universalism but also the decline in violence. I believe HBD Chick explains Europe’s decline in violence in terms of outbreeding, and also in terms of state intervention in the form of executions, but I think the latter factor must have been even more important for the decline, because the decline in violence was much greater in East Asia, where there is still more inbreeding. The decline in violence seems somewhat, but not entirely, correlated with the increase in liberalism.
I’ve always been fascinated by the weirdness (or WEIRDness?) of life in the late 20th/early 21st century in developed countries. We accept it as a given that we all cultures and all lifestyles should be accepted. And outside of people living in the worst ghettos, very few of us will see ever see extreme violence. I recently read the book Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. One of the things that’s so impressive about the book is its reminder of how brutally violent life was as recently as 150 years ago, even within the United States.
Here’s the thing about the rise in universalism that I don’t think Jayman or HBD Chick really touch on: everyone is way more universalistic than people were even 100 years ago. Like everyone. Whites, browns, reds, yellows, blacks. Even people that have no history of outbreeding are way more accepting of people of different cultures than their ancestors were 100 years ago. My Muslim colleagues in grad school, as inbred as they are, are almost just liberal as my white colleagues. They’re also just as amiable on a personal level. I think 100 years ago there would have been much more tension between people of different races and cultural backgrounds. I think this is due to gross environmental changes like advances in communication technology, that gives more exposure to different cultures.
James Flynn argues that part of the reason that we are so accepting and empathizing is because of higher IQ scores and cognitive ability, particularly the type of skills tested on the Wechsler Similarities test, that allows for more hypothetical thinking and placing ourselves in the other man’s shoes. I think this goes along with your theory, Pumpkin.
Here’s the thing about the rise in universalism that I don’t think Jayman or HBD Chick really touch on: everyone is way more universalistic than people were even 100 years ago. Like everyone. Whites, browns, reds, yellows, blacks. Even people that have no history of outbreeding are way more accepting of people of different cultures than their ancestors were 100 years ago.
But other races aren’t importing millions of immigrants & obsessing over political correctness like whites are, so i think a theory unique to Western society is required, though as you imply, a more global theory is needed too
Or the best would be one theory to explain both the general rise in universalism & why the rise the rise has been most pronounced in Western culture
James Flynn argues that part of the reason that we are so accepting and empathizing is because of higher IQ scores and cognitive ability, particularly the type of skills tested on the Wechsler Similarities test, that allows for more hypothetical thinking and placing ourselves in the other man’s shoes. I think this goes along with your theory, Pumpkin.
Damn! Every time i think i have an original theory, someone else has already published on it!
Or the best would be one theory to explain both the general rise in universalism & why the rise the rise has been most pronounced in Western cultures
True.
”Or the best would be one theory to explain both the general rise in universalism”. I am assuming you mean rise of universalism in the last century.
Take the year 1914. The world was more or less the same with the exception of the invention of planes and modern weapons. All countries were still empires or monarchies except western europe to some extent and the US.
Then the first world war broke…………
Millions bombed and killed each other over a span of five years.
And at the end of the war…… kingdoms, monarchies and empires that existed for hundreds of years suddenly collapsed.
The ideas of nationalism from france, US spread to germany, eastern europe, russia and met with ideas like comunism to form the soviet union. In countries like india, millions of indians fought for the british. And after the war they too began developing ideas of indian independance.
Then the second world war happened……
This times even more millions died, and bigger empires like britain collapsed after the war. Chinese nationalists won in china against japanese rule. indians won against british rule and against the rule of many princely kingdoms in india. After winning, China turned away from its emperors rule and turned communist due to soviet influence, while india turned democratic due to british influence. And just like that….. in one stroke!! (two strokes?) two of the worlds biggest countries came out of monarchies and stepped into the modern era at once!!
And concepts of universalism took hold in these countries. As for theories related to western societies….i have and others here have answered about that too, hope that helps.
If you want to see why violence declined, read Better Angels of Our Nature.
The one downside to the increase universalism is an accompanying political correctness that pervades not only political and academic discourse, but also everyday interaction and conversations. People are way more afraid of offending each other! And its not just regarding race, but with everything, creating a every-one-gets-a-trophy culture.
Panda@War’s theory:
The current rise of universalism is not an exception, but a natural step throughout human history whenever a leading civilisation has successfully dominated over its immediate region.
It happened with Rome, with Han China, Tang China, Song China, Ming China… it even happened to the Arabs around 10th century.
The major reason for that is both genetic and social.
Genetics-wise, the enlargement of territories controlled followed by successful military conflicts with others has made some degrees of outbreeding possbile (part of HBD Chick’s theory) with original clanning behaviour becoming less important. This has contributed to universalism. Possiblely there’re also some accumulation of mutations at play (Bruce Charlton’s theory) – Panda is not so sure as I am unfamiliar with the field.
From social side, successful establishment of a dominant culture has always been following by
a) a boost of Victors’ Self-confidence, Panda prefers calling it “Civilisational Confidence”, of the social/intelllectual elites of the said civilisation, who would treat universalism more as an intellectual curiosity, almost like a “pet”, rather than an existential threat as it usually would have been from Darwinaian POV, and
(historical examples here are allover the places: Rome, Arabians’ rule in Andaluzia around 9-10th century), Victorian Britain, Post WW2 Britain & America, Post WW2 Japan, Han China, Tang China, Ming China, Song China…)
b) a boost of civilised behaviours and sharply reduced civil violences of the social/intelllectual elites and the masses of the said civilisation ( or can be said as kind of “Pussification”of the society, which in Panda’s view, has actually been a hallmark of advancement of a society). This has made endorsing varies degrees of universalism theoritically possible and socially acceptable or even popular.
——————————————-
Rise of Universalism has always been led by the elite class historically, not much to do with the attitudes of the masses who have always been on the passive receivers side much more rather than being on the proactive maker side.
BTW, liberalism from some part of the elite is not some “new phenominon” exclusively possessed by the West – go check the liberalism of Han Chinese elites in Tang China!
The recent rise of universalism therefore, is, in essence, no much different from any historical period throughout the world, being Rome, Han China or Tang China. The degree of recent rise universalism is just much stronger though that has been made possible by mainly following 3 economical and cultural factors:
1. Industrialisation from the 19th century on has made mass transport of people and goods throughout the world not only possbile, but with efficiency (e.g. speed, cost) unmatched in history.
2. (mainly due to 1) for the first time in human history, the leading civilisation at a time has been actively promoting universal capitalism, which has increasingly made the entire world a closely-linked sinlge production line for the first time.
3. it has been amplified by Ashkenazi Jews, being the core of current Western social elites, who has been promoting liberalism as part of a group evolutionary strategy to thrive in Western Cultures (part of Kevin MacDonald’s theory).
That’s about it. No too many secrets after all!
————————————————-
————————————————-
Panda disgress with
1. somes parts of theories of HBD Chick, Kevin MacDonald and peter Fros, who argue that there’s a “pathological altruism” which involves only from the NorthWestern Europeans, since A) parts of thieir altruism terminologies are potentially ambiguously troublesome IMO. Arguablely this kind of “pathological altruism” also appearaed strongly with Han Chinese elites in Tang and Song dynasties. Therefore, Panda thinks this “pathological altruism” is more about “civilisation Confidence” as explained in Panda@War’s theory a) above.
2. Pumpkinperson’s theory – the Flynn Effect. yes, Arguablely there’s some such a effect. But the increase of the nutritionl level , brain size etc from it is hardly amongst the key specific reasons of rise of universalism. It’s because A) human brain sizes have enlarged all the time in history as the society has progressed, so why the developement of universalism in the same course hasn’t been parallel? B) even from nutrition angle, the traditional Han Chinese (both the elites and the masses) balanced diet of less red meat, more fish and abundant greens & fruits was arguablely no that much different from the heathiest menu today. hence the Flynn there is limited.
3. likewise as 2., Joshua Gamson and JP Rushton’s theories have also weaker explaination power, as they are focusing more on a single segment or element, rather than the fuller picture.
Very thoughtful post Panda, even though I don’t agree with all of it!
Expected by Jay”man” about jews.
I have two theories
First,
Lower fertility AND increase of pregnancy age, specially of ”wesshtern” elites which cause higher mutational load to the offspring, look for autism rates today. I don’t think it is completely bad because evolution specially mental evolution, seems to be a very complicated and completely unprecedent process. Or as i read in a text, human intelligence can’t increase more, in a natural way, because more, more complex the brain, more probabilities to happen excess ‘or’ defect, like autism or schizophrenia. Still, evolution can made us naturally smart, but with higher costs for most. Elites are responsible for countries. Rich and or educated people have few kids and in older age. Many liberals are homossexuals or many homossexuals are liberals. Liberals have some psychological traits of the youngest son, narcisistic, infantile, naive, intolerant, histerical.
This heirs can’t maintain the legacy of their parents, regression to the mean (income), also for civilization.
Second, a environmental circunstancial theory as addendum to the first biological theory,
”Degenerated” elite, those who decide what will be the dominant narrative, create a selfish strategy to take and stay in the power forever by mixing race + mass immigration + dysgenics= create a perfect slaves and with technology, introduce ships into the sheep.
…. most people are followers and unable to react, to create a organized resistence or even a new state to fight against or at least conservate their principles (race** culture** way of life**).
Degenerated elites look for whites like the most dangerous enemies because they are the only ones which can finish with their maccacchiavelik plans.
It explain why they were chosen to be slowly eliminated. The next stage is to do the same with east asians.
Charlton, seems, have little evidence to prove their point. He think dysgenic effect, that was introduced in wesshtern nations just during 60’s, begining with diferential fertility, but i think middle class do not had the same fertility reduction than elites and elites are very few people to have any substantial demographic impact in ”technical intelligence” scores. And Charlton, seems, to think that ”victorian people” are smarter because they are conservative while liberals are stupid because they are socially liberals but, in the surface, liberals are more right than conservatives in most things.
Also have the pollution theory.
Back to my first theory…
Have a only one kid with 35 years is like to have a psychological youngest boy. It is complex because the same way the contextually degenerated born with higher proportion in a older pregnancy, also some one the best people….
Lombroso said many geniuses were son of older fathers.
Philosophical and cognitive theory,
”whites”’ invade countries, kill many people, pollute the air atmosphere… the smartest one are also more empathetic and they reached the reasonable conclusion, but that is evolutionarily harmful for themselves.
Dualistic mind, 8 or 80**
I hate groupies…
Judah sphere ?
Yup.
I search santoculto on google and your blog is the first result,
YOU ARE A CELEBRITY
I’m no groupie, I’m just a scholar who appreciates good scholarship, that’s all.
”I search santoculto on google and your blog is the first result,
YOU ARE A CELEBRITY”
Nope, because there are two only ”things” with this name, i’m not a celebrity like Pump, i’m just rare. Is easy to find. =)
You appreciate in excess and because Jayman is black like you.
No, Jayman’s just awesome, that’s all. I’m not a groupie. That’s kinda gay, don’t you think? I guess you would know, though.
Humans are trainable. If a norm comes from those you consider high status, you will try to adhere to the norm. The last 600 years have made it much easier to spread messages and norms. The enlightenment allowed a certain approach to problem solving to spread, along with many of the norms we associate with capitalism, which trend universal by valuing “work” or “merit” above all else.
I agree. Even though I suspect humans have certain tribal instincts, I do think that these can be overcome through education from the mass media.
”Even though I suspect humans have certain tribal instincts”
Like it
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/03/psycho-israel/
Ethnic germans tend to born with light eyes, a fixed trace…
Bushmen tend to born with epicantic folds as well east asians (mongoloids in general),
Lower stature for pigmeus,
But, fixation also happens with cognitive traits,
Jews tend to born with hard ethnic interests or intrinsical motivations… because this traits are fixed among them.
Good night!
Great post. I agree with Rushton and Macdonald.
I think all of these theories contributed to the rise of universalism. I always believed (and today i saw you PP also saying something similar in one of your older articles) that there is never just one reason behind anything. Absolutely….never!
And in addition to the above factors i have my own theory (which just now occurred to me after reading this article).
Let me call it the height of power theory.
Western europeans gained a lot of power by the end of the 19 th century. They finally took over the world and its wealth. History has been nothing but a struggle for power by various ethnic groups,countries and people to take over their known world. And in this struggle all other concerns took a back seat except for a brief period (like say democracy in ancient greece). And you could NW europeans finally won this struggle by the end of the 19 th century/early 20th century beating everybody. Their reached the height of power. So the bloodlust finally cooled down. Overtime this lead to them giving increasing importance to other concerns required to manage society concerns other than funding their armies and economies with war spoils……concerns like peace, human rights, democracy, universalism etc etc.
And of course how could i forget ‘education’. Wasnt it the last century or so that the ”masses” were beginning to get educated for the first time in human history. Sure ancient universities existed but i doubt the masses of those kingdoms attended those universities.
Oops, looks like you have already mentioned education PP (i didnt notice it), so ignore my post about that.