Senator Chuck Schumer is one of the smartest politicians in the world with a reported score of 1600 on the older, much harder version of the SAT (equivalent to an IQ of about 170). And while this score might have been exaggerated, he shows several statistical signs of extremely high IQ (large head, large height, extremely powerful job, Ashkenazi ancestry, Ivy League law degree etc).
Intelligence evolved because genes for intelligence were favored by natural selection, either because smart people had more kids, or because smart people helped the genetic populations they belong to increase in size.
Late this week, in a move that has stunned many Democrats, loyal Democrat Schumer has decided to side against the leader of his own political party (Obama) and join the the Republicans in opposing the Iran nuclear deal.
Many predict Schumer’s decision will profoundly hurt his political ambitions. The New York Times reports:
Within hours of his announcement, Mr. Schumer came under sharp criticism from liberal groups like MoveOn.org, which threatened a campaign donation boycott. The liberal organization Credo Action said the senator had gone “from Wall Street Chuck to War Monger Chuck.”
The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, on Friday did not rule out the possibility that Mr. Schumer’s stance could cost him some support when he pursues his party’s top Senate post.
So if intelligence is arguably the mental ability to adapt; to take whatever situation your in and turn it around to your advantage, why would someone as smart as Schumer make such a seemingly dumb decision?
Because while the decision might hurt Schumer from the perspective of his career goals, humans have ultimately evolved to serve our genetic goals, and from a genetic perspective, the decision might be smart. If Schumer believes the misreported claim that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, then they’re an existential threat to 2.8 million Ashkenazi Jews, each of whom might share an average of 0.2% of Schumer’s identical genes by descent, thus saving Israel might be the genetic equivalent of Schumer fathering 11,200 children.
Even if he sees Iran as only an economic or geopolitical threat to Israel, the larger point is still the same. Schumer’s genetic fitness is linked to the future of Israel, and all humans have evolved to advance their genetic fitness, but because those with high IQs acquire more wealth and power, they are able to do so with great efficiency. Thus high IQ groups are selected at the expense of low IQ groups, partly because they produce more brilliant individuals like Schumer, who can advance the group’s interest on an epic evolutionary scale.
When genes for kin recognition misfire
One might wonder why president Obama, unlike other U.S. politicians, is so uniquely willing to give Iran a chance. My guess is that because Obama and his sidekick Valerie Jarrett grew up around a lot of Muslims in places like Indonesia and Iran, their genes have essentially been tricked into thinking they are Middle eastern, even though both individuals have no known middle eastern ancestry.
As commenter Cale noted, humans have no genetic extra sensory perception, but we likely evolved to favour those who look and act like the people we grew up around because statistically these are likely to be genetic relatives.
In the case of Obama and Jarrett, they grew up around Muslim culture, so their natural impulse might be to treat Muslims like distant kin, especially since as hybridized blacks, the intermediate phenotype of Obama and Jarrett resembles that of the non-white caucasoids of the Middle East who as the first caucasoids to evolve when humans left Africa, are also genetically intermediate between Africa and Europe..this is just my theory and could be 100% wrong. It could be that Obama has highly sophisticated reasons for making this deal, and similarly, Schumer might have sophisticated reasons for opposing it, independent of tribal impulses.
Pumpkin Person 
this is bullshit…at least for american whites./
rich white people hate no group of people more than they hate poor white people.
or rather privileged white people hate stereotypical white trash more than any one else.
why?
because such white people remind them that they might’ve been just as despicable.
i’m sure the typical upper east side secular jew doesn’t hate the hasidim, at least not as much.
In general whites love whites. As you’ve pointed out, in monoracial white countries, whites give extremely generous government benefits to the poor.
But in multiracial America, the attitude is pull yourself up by your bootstraps because whites don’t want poor minorities leaching off their tax dollars
The term Middle Eastern ancestry sounds like a low point for Pumpkin.
Arabs vs Persians, has been a heated rivalry ever since the dawn of Islam.
Also, one of the main founders of moveon.org is Jewish, the organization that is now trying to sever ties with Schumer, because of his opposition of the deal.
The Saudis are also against the Iran deal. You need to think harder, brah, which includes this post of yours!
Jews tend be liberal, educated, and high IQ, all of which correlates with being pro-Obama and anti-war. However if you controlled for all these confounds, I think you’d find Jews are MORE likely to oppose the Iran nuclear deal than other Americans.
There are more Jewish Americans, who are for the deal than against it.
The more successful and the very educated Jews are pro-deal, while the less successful, and more religious are against it. Basically, the more “Jewish” types, Jews are against it. More “Jewish” meaning prole, which means more religious, less educated, which also means, ultimately, they have an interest in Israel as a result. Usually very successful and educated Jews don’t care about Israel deeply.
And sidetracking, how blacks fall into this category. Successful and educated blacks are Republican, but their ideology is reflected as being “liberal” of non-blacks. Where as the less successful and less educated blacks, which are the majority, act like White proles, but they vote Democrat.
Basically, the real conservatives of the black community, who are the majority, are the welfare loserish blacks. I interpret conservative people with less curiosity, and having a less open mind. blacks liberals are closed minded like white conservatives.
Whites tend to be noisy about black underachievement, and circle jerk about how to fix their problems. However, they are silently resentful of Asian overachievers, who over study and overtake all, but their very elite positions.
Also rich whites have less sympathy for poor whites because no matter how poor they are, they are considered priveliged just for being white
In addition the U.S. media is tougher on poor whites & that influences opinions
That does explain why they love blacks so much.
Whites love blacks precisely BECAUSE it’s not in their ethnic genetic interests to do so. It’s a way of saying, “I’m such a good person, I’m going to help the less fortunate race, even though it’s not in my interests.”
Just as celebrities get credit for being saints when they adopt poor kids (because they are doing something selfless; not advancing their family genetic interests), they get bonus points for adopting a child of a different race (even more self-less, not even in their ethnic genetic interests, let alone family genetic interests)
Also, whites are influenced by the media and the media is arguably pro-black.
Lastly, blacks probably just evolved to be more charismatic than other races:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/07/17/the-25-most-worshiped-americans-of-all-time/
You’re correct and hence the dislike of East Asians at the other end of the spectrum, as an inverse function of the media and the mainstream America with their pandering of blacks. This however, is a symptom of America’s low intellect culture.
An explanation I have come across about the Iran deal is that America’s Geopolitical power has been surpassed economically by the non western world. The ability for the intelligence agencies to cope with all the data makes it hard to control aspects of threat analysis. Specifically social networking. So Obama and others think it is best to control Iran economically by working with the factions inside Iran. This way they can utilize resources to control other threats because economical control is better than military control.
For Pumpkin and anyone else who believes in EGI (ethnic genetic interests),
No one who is intelligent believes in EGI, but assume if EGI was true. Then that would mean that everyone looks out for their own race over other races. It would mean whites favor whites and blacks favor blacks and Mexicans favor Mexicans.
It would mean that racism exists not for socio-political reasons, but for genetic reasons. It would mean that people are racist not because it benefits themselves directly but because it benefits someone with a couple genes in common.
It would mean that racism is everywhere, or according to Avenue Q, everybody is a little bit racist, because it’s hardwired into our genetic code. It would the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and the Barack Obamas (undercover) of the world are correct that white racism is a real force, because whites will hire another white just because it benefits their genes, even if it’s not an economically rational position. This would justify affirmative action because it would overturn much of what we know about rational decision making in economics [note: I personally don’t believe humans always act like Homo Economicus. note 2: I know you’ll probably argue most whites don’t have EGI but other races do).
It would mean that the most patriotic developed nations are the ones that are most genetically unified, not places like America, where a third of the population is non-European in ancestry. It would mean whites in America wouldn’t fight for a country (Israel) that is very different from itself, genetically or culturally. It would mean that in a modern transportation-intensive, globalized society, people like Muslims wouldn’t spend time killing people closely related to themselves over religious differences, but get on an airplane and go to a population most distantly related to themselves, like Mexicans or maybe Eskimos, and kill them.
It would mean blacks didn’t spend most of their time killing other blacks, and Mexicans most of their time killing other Mexicans, and for most of history, whites killing other whites and yellows killing other yellows even though they were aware of other races.
It would mean that whites nerds didn’t crave yellow Asian pussy. It would that interracial marriage was never beneficial, that’s all a result of a conspiracy by modern media to push interracial relationships, which manages to overcome genetic interests in one’s own race.
It would mean Brazil is impossible and Santoculto doesn’t exist. Oh shit…is he just figment of my imagination?
No one who is intelligent believes in EGI,
Actually some of the greatest minds have endorsed EGI: Henry Harpending, J.P. Rushton, E.O. Wilson, and none other than W.D. Hamilton himself.
but assume if EGI was true. Then that would mean that everyone looks out for their own race over other races. It would mean whites favor whites and blacks favor blacks and Mexicans favor Mexicans.
Yes.
It would mean that racism exists not for socio-political reasons, but for genetic reasons. It would mean that people are racist not because it benefits themselves directly but because it benefits someone with a couple genes in common.
I don’t necessarily think racism evolved specifically because of the genetic benefits of favoring co-ethnics (which are real but hard to select for), I think it’s just an evolutionary byproduct of hierarchical kin preferences, or what Mugabe would refer to as a spandrel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
.
It would mean that racism is everywhere, or according to Avenue Q, everybody is a little bit racist, because it’s hardwired into our genetic code. It would the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and the Barack Obamas (undercover) of the world are correct that white racism is a real force, because whites will hire another white just because it benefits their genes, even if it’s not an economically rational position. This would justify affirmative action because it would overturn much of what we know about rational decision making in economics [note: I personally don’t believe humans always act like Homo Economicus. note 2: I know you’ll probably argue most whites don’t have EGI but other races do).
Well hiring someone of your own race is rational from the perspective of your genes, though perhaps not from the perspective of your business.
There’s no question that if affirmative action never existed, the number of blacks with good jobs would plummet dramatically, perhaps even after controlling for IQ. For example, in the book The Bell Curve, they found evidence that when you control for IQ, blacks and whites make equal wages. If affirmative action were entirely unjustified, then blacks and whites of equivalent IQ would see large wage gaps favoring blacks. The fact that that doesn’t happen (even in an age of unprecedented political correctness) suggests there is still subtle anti-black discrimination in the labor market that is being negated by affirmative action.
Of course conservatives can argue that business owners have the right to hire less qualified members of their own race, just as they have the right to hire less qualified members of their own family.
.
It would mean that the most patriotic developed nations are the ones that are most genetically unified, not places like America, where a third of the population is non-European in ancestry.
Not necessarily. Multiracial countries can be very patriotic because they have a lot of immigrants and immigrants often love the countries they moved to because that’s the reason they migrated. Immigration selects for patriotism.
But what we do find is that as Scandanavian countries become less white, there is more and more resistance to income distributions (welfare benefits) according to the research of Matz Dahlberg, of Uppsala University.
It would mean whites in America wouldn’t fight for a country (Israel) that is very different from itself, genetically or culturally.
Wars in the middle east are always sold to the public as being in America’s interests primarily.
It would mean that in a modern transportation-intensive, globalized society, people like Muslims wouldn’t spend time killing people closely related to themselves over religious differences, but get on an airplane and go to a population most distantly related to themselves, like Mexicans or maybe Eskimos, and kill them.
That’s like saying that if family genetic interests exist, people wouldn’t fight with their siblings but go over to a stranger’s house and fight with them.
It would mean blacks didn’t spend most of their time killing other blacks, and Mexicans most of their time killing other Mexicans, and for most of history, whites killing other whites and yellows killing other yellows even though they were aware of other races.
Again, through most of history siblings were more likely to fight with their own siblings than someone else’s siblings, parents were more likely to abuse their own kids than some stranger’s kids etc. Does this prove family genetic interests don’t exist?
Life is not so simple that a single variable (genetic interests) explains all conflict; proximity is as important, if not more so, and it correlates negatively with genetic distance, and thus often negates it.
It would mean that whites nerds didn’t crave yellow Asian pussy. It would that interracial marriage was never beneficial, that’s all a result of a conspiracy by modern media to push interracial relationships, which manages to overcome genetic interests in one’s own race.
No it wouldn’t mean that at all because having even mixed race kids is still far more genetically adaptive than have no kids at all. You’re being way too black and white in your thinking (no pun intended).
You have an IQ of 120 Judah, it didnt cross your mind that you may havent enough g to understand EGI ?
I have enough. If someone asked for my opinion on many-worlds theory of quantum physics, I’d be hesitant to give it. But behavioral genetics is child’s-play in comparison.
Besides, the peanut gallery on this blog doesn’t seem all that brilliant. And a lot you are too emotional and too attached to the idea of EGI to be objective.
”Did Chuck Schumer advance his ethnic genetic interests?”
Yes.
next question.
Lol.
JayMan is now a blogger on unz.com Unz Review
Just saw that. Brilliant!
Someone is masturbating himself with immeasurable joy here.
Way to go, JayMan!
I think only Hamilton would be considered among the “greatest minds”. He’s also the only serious evolutionary theorist among them. Harpending is an anthropologist, Rushton was in evo-psych, and Wilson is a myrmecologist.
I believe Harpending subscribes to EGI, and I imagine Rushton did or would, but I don’t think Wilson is aware of the concept, and Hamilton passed before the concept was developed by Frank Salter.
Wilson supports group selection and believes humans are a eusocial species, like bees and ants. His explication of group selection is a bit confusing and contradictory though, as he claims that what he describes as “group” selection is really just individual selection between queens, for example. At any rate, he doesn’t seem to promote EGI but rather promotes a universalistic eusociality.
Hamilton suggested odd things like marrying HIV negative African prostitutes so that one’s children would be protected from an AIDs epidemic, which doesn’t really fit with the EGI concept.
Good points. I’m familiar with Wilson’s writings on group selection in ants and (supposedly) humans, but he’s never come out explicitly for EGI or even discussed it.
Wilson endorsed Salter’s book on EGI. He’s quoted on the book jacket. And as the father of sociobiology, his endorsement carries great weight.
Here are some relevant quotes from Hamilton:
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2015/03/hamilton-on-inclusive-fitness-and.html
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2015/03/more-from-hamilton-on-kin-recognition.html
“Wilson endorsed Salter’s book on EGI. He’s quoted on the book jacket. And as the father of sociobiology, his endorsement carries great weight.”
“Here are some relevant quotes from Hamilton:”
Those quotes from Hamilton are about possible group selection in primates and humans, not about EGI.
Wilson is an even more staunch advocate of group selection in humans than Hamilton ever was. In his recent book, Wilson doesn’t seem to promote EGI type ideas, however:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-the-meaning-of-human-existence-by-edward-o-wilson/2014/11/14/deffe5bc-548f-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html
“Tribalism is only one consequence of what Wilson calls the “Paleolithic Curse: genetic adaptations that worked very well for millions of years of hunter-gatherer existence but are increasingly a hindrance in a globally urban and technoscientific society.” Among other ways in which our genetic adaptations ill suit us for contemporary conditions, he notes our penchant for racism, our refusal to curb population growth, our failure to cooperate with one another on a scale commensurate with the challenges we face and our devastation of the natural environment.”
“We can choose, for example, to bring fewer children into the world, stop burning coal, plant trees faster than we cut them down, judge people by their character rather than by the color of their skin.”
Those quotes from Hamilton are about possible group selection in primates and humans, not about EGI.
They’re not mutually exclusive. Hamilton clearly believed in EGI as evidenced by this quote:
At the boundary of the local group, however, there is usually a sharp drop in relatedness. If migrants (or whole groups) are very mobile, leading to an ‘island’ rather than a ‘stepping-stone’ situation, this drop may be such as to promote active hostility between neighbouring groups.(Note 3) Even though these groups have some relatedness, as practical limitations to distant migration naturally ensure, the contrast is still such that a minor benefit from taking the life of an outsider would make the act adaptive.
“Tribalism is only one consequence of what Wilson calls the “Paleolithic Curse: genetic adaptations that worked very well for millions of years of hunter-gatherer existence but are increasingly a hindrance in a globally urban and technoscientific society.” Among other ways in which our genetic adaptations ill suit us for contemporary conditions, he notes our penchant for racism,
So Wilson admits that racism is a genetic adaptation or at least a byproduct there of. How is that a rejection of EGI?
EGI is a concept that was developed by Frank Salter after Hamilton died. It’s not the same thing as group selection. Wilson’s universalism is not consistent with the EGI concept. You should read Salter’s book on EGI.
Ethnic Genetic Interests are just what the name implies: the idea that that it’s in your genetic interests (fitness enhancing, adaptive) to favor your ethnicity & oppose other ethnicities.
Now that idea was formally developed by Salter, but Hamilton clearly understood the same concept, as evidenced by his claim that killing a member of another group is adaptive.
“Hamilton clearly believed in EGI”
If by EGI you mean the quantities that Salter wrote about in his book, then no. Salter’s book is one big misapplication of Hamilton’s rule and inclusive fitness. Salter seems not to understand that Hamilton’s rule refers to similarity at the selected locus, not genome-wide F_ST. The latter is a *particularly* poor estimate of the former for large groups separated by many generations of natural selection.
RCB, not everyone has a science background, so let’s simplify.
A random co-ethnic has more genes in common with me than a random human.
True or false?
If true, then helping a coethnic helps my genes survive more than helping a non-coethnic.
To me that just seems common sense. What am I missing?
“A random co-ethnic has more genes in common with me than a random human?”
Yes.
“then helping a coethnic helps my genes survive more than helping a non-coethnic.”
Yes.
But that’s not what Hamilton’s rule is about. Hamilton’s rule does not prove that individuals should behave altruistically toward individuals who are genetically more similar in general (who carry “my genes”). It only concerns the loci (i.e. genes) that affect the altruistic behavior. An allele that sacrifices itself to save others will spread if others disproportionately carry *that particular allele*. The extent of similarity at other loci is irrelevant.
Now, we generally don’t know the loci that are affecting a particular behavior. So what can we do? Well, Hamilton realized (in his first 1964 paper) that, for close relatives under weak selection, r is a good approximation of similarity at every locus, including these selected loci. But clearly it’s a *bad* approximation for strongly selected loci and distant relatives, because selection in intervening generations causes transmission to be non-neutral, so r no longer predicts similarity.
Salter doesn’t know any of this. He thinks you can use genome-wide F_ST (basically, a measure of the extent to which groups are genetically distinct from one another) to calculate selection for ethnocentric behaviors. But given that the F_ST is calculated on long-removed populations, providing hundreds to thousands of generations for within-group selection to knock out group-altruistic alleles, it’s actually a very bad approximation for selected loci. Hamilton would have realized this immediately, I think.
None of this disproves the existence of ethnic altruism, which appears to be very common. It’s only to say that Salter’s claim that it is adaptive in the modern world is wrong.
But that’s not what Hamilton’s rule is about. Hamilton’s rule does not prove that individuals should behave altruistically toward individuals who are genetically more similar in general (who carry “my genes”). It only concerns the loci (i.e. genes) that affect the altruistic behavior. An allele that sacrifices itself to save others will spread if others disproportionately carry *that particular allele*. The extent of similarity at other loci is irrelevant.
I understand, but the same kin favoritism genes that allow you to favor your brother over your cousin, might also cause you to favor your co-ethnic over a random human, and the fact that it didn’t specifically evolve for the latter purpose, does not make it maladaptive, because evolutionary adaptiveness is whatever enhances your total genetic fitness, not whatever was explicitly selected for (though the two are highly correlated)
“the fact that it didn’t specifically evolve for the latter purpose”
My argument is that ethnic altruism is currently under negative selection. That assertion doesn’t depend on how ethnic altruism arose.
“does not make it maladaptive, because evolutionary adaptiveness is whatever enhances your total genetic fitness”
This seems to be a matter of semantics. I would say that if the genes that cause a behavior are currently experiencing negative selection (as is almost surely the case for ethnic altruism – unless it is correlated with other positive benefits), then the behavior is maladaptive. Whereas you seem to be saying that ethnic altruism is adaptive despite the fact that it is currently experiencing negative selection. But we don’t have to agree on definitions.
It’s certainly true that ethnic altruism could be a maladaptive by-product of selection for something else.
This seems to be a matter of semantics. I would say that if the genes that cause a behavior are currently experiencing negative selection (as is almost surely the case for ethnic altruism – unless it is correlated with other positive benefits), then the behavior is maladaptive.
I think it depends on whether you are measuring genetic fitness at the level of a particular gene, or at the level of the entire organism, or at the level of the entire ethnicity. Something can be adaptive at one level of analysis while maladaptive at another.
It also depends on how narrowly you are defining ethnic altruism. Sacrificing your life to save your ethnicity might be selected against, but there’s no reason why less extreme forms of ethnic loyalty aren’t being favored by natural selection on multiple levels..
“I think it depends on whether you are measuring genetic fitness at the level of a particular gene, or at the level of the entire organism, or at the level of the entire ethnicity. Something can be adaptive at one level of analysis while maladaptive at another.”
Yes, selection acts on multiple levels. But ethnic altruism alleles (and therefore the behavior) are either increasing in frequency or not – that’s not a matter of semantics. My point is that, under current conditions, they are headed for extinction (again, unless they are associated with other benefits, in which case ethnic altruism is a maladaptive byproduct).
Yes, selection acts on multiple levels. But ethnic altruism alleles (and therefore the behavior) are either increasing in frequency or not – that’s not a matter of semantics. My point is that, under current conditions, they are headed for extinction (again, unless they are associated with other benefits, in which case ethnic altruism is a maladaptive byproduct).
They’re likely decreasing within ethnic groups, but could be increasing within the species as a whole if they cause the groups in which they’re most prevalent to increase in size at the expensive of less ethnically loyal groups.
But even if they are decreasing, that doesn’t mean the individual who has helped his ethnic group is maladaptive, because he could be advancing his total genome at the expense of a few genes. Just as genes exploit organisms for their “interests”, organisms can exploit genes..
“increasing within the species as a whole if they cause the groups in which they’re most prevalent to increase in size at the expensive of less ethnically loyal groups.”
Yes, I understand this. This is what Salter thinks he’s demonstrating by noting that groups show reasonably high between-group variation across the genome (F_ST). But he fails. Within-group selection will be knocking ethnic-altruism to frequency 0 in every group, which means that F_ST -> 0 at these particular loci. Then expansion of one group will not cause the altruistic allele frequency to increase globally. Again, demonstration of high F_ST at neutral loci is a very bad estimate of F_ST at selected loci for large, distantly-separated groups.
“But even if they are decreasing, that doesn’t mean the individual who has helped his ethnic group is maladaptive”
Again, this requires you to adopt a definition of “adaptive” by which a behavior can be adaptive despite the fact that it is everywhere being selected against (“advancing one’s total genome” is irrelevant). This is not how evolutionary biologists use the term, but you’re free to do so if you want to.
Yes, I understand this. This is what Salter thinks he’s demonstrating by noting that groups show reasonably high between-group variation across the genome (F_ST). But he fails. Within-group selection will be knocking ethnic-altruism to frequency 0 in every group, which means that F_ST -> 0 at these particular loci. Then expansion of one group will not cause the altruistic allele frequency to increase globally. Again, demonstration of high F_ST at neutral loci is a very bad estimate of F_ST at selected loci for large, distantly-separated groups.
I’ll have to take your word for it, but all this seems to assume ethnic altruism is caused by a few alleles. It could be a complex polygenetic trait like height and IQ, where each ethnic group has their own bell curve with ethnic traitors at the far left of the bell curve and ethnic martyrs on the right. A group with a higher mean score on this bell curve would have a much higher frequency of martyrs, and all it would take would be a few of them sacrificing their lives for the group to expand in size without noticeably diminishing its mean.
Again, this requires you to adopt a definition of “adaptive” by which a behavior can be adaptive despite the fact that it is everywhere being selected against (“advancing one’s total genome” is irrelevant). This is not how evolutionary biologists use the term, but you’re free to do so if you want to.
Total genome is irrelevant? Isn’t the very definition of genetic fitness the number of genes you can replicate?
In any event, equating adaptive with selected seems to imply that evolution is perfectly efficient, analogous to how equating value with price implies markets are perfectly efficient. My view is that it’s better to define adaptive as that which enhances genetic fitness than to define it as that which is currently being selected, because evolution is about trial and error, and so if it continues long enough, selection will eventually maximize all forms of gene replication.
“I’ll have to take your word for it, but all this seems to assume ethnic altruism is caused by a few alleles.”
I don’t necessarily want you to take my word for it, but perhaps keep the idea in mind. I’ll probably chime in in the future… 🙂
The problem is not solved, by the way, by assuming polygenic variation in the trait. Every allele across the genome that increases group altruism is experiencing the same negative selection pressure. At equilibrium, you’ll have some non-zero prevalence of group altruism, but that will be due to mutation and drift, not positive selection.
“Total genome is irrelevant? Isn’t the very definition of genetic fitness the number of genes you can replicate?”
If we’re interested in the spread of a behavior, what matters is the spread of the alleles that cause it. If those alleles “want” to spread, then they’ll want to help the spread of those alleles in other individuals. What happens at the rest of the genome is irrelevant with respect to the behavior in question. Point being, the fact that you are similar to co-ethnics at a lot of neutral loci ultimately means nothing in terms of behavioral evolution.
The problem is not solved, by the way, by assuming polygenic variation in the trait. Every allele across the genome that increases group altruism is experiencing the same negative selection pressure. At equilibrium, you’ll have some non-zero prevalence of group altruism, but that will be due to mutation and drift, not positive selection.
But you seem to be assuming that the negative selection of the alleles occurs faster than the group can expand. To make an analogy, if every generation, only people over 8 feet tall sacrificed their life to expand their country’s population by 10%,, and only those under four feet tall killed 10% of their country’s population to make more room for their family, everyone in Europe would be Dutch before the average height of the Dutch decreased a single inch
If we’re interested in the spread of a behavior, what matters is the spread of the alleles that cause it.
I agree, but I’m also interested in which individuals are genetic winners and losers, not just which alleles are, though I think as evolutionary time tends towards infinity, the correlation between the two approaches unity.
“But you seem to be assuming that the negative selection of the alleles occurs faster than the group can expand.”
Yes, it’s possible for between-group selection to be strong enough to overcome within-group selection (if you have enough between-group variation, despite the fact that selection is pushing it to 0 everywhere). We’ve established that. But the problem is that, if you want ethnic altruism to be evolutionarily stable, you have a problem: it’s going extinct in every population it exists in. The only way to keep it around long-term is to make sure that between-group variation is constantly reintroduced. The classic way to do this is to have small groups with lots of reshuffling; the shuffling continually reintroduces substantial group variation, so between-group selection can act. But in very large, stable ethnic groups, separated by 1000s of years of natural selection? That aint happening.
Yes, it’s possible for between-group selection to be strong enough to overcome within-group selection (if you have enough between-group variation, despite the fact that selection is pushing it to 0 everywhere). We’ve established that.
Good!
But the problem is that, if you want ethnic altruism to be evolutionarily stable, you have a problem: it’s going extinct in every population it exists in. The only way to keep it around long-term is to make sure that between-group variation is constantly reintroduced. The classic way to do this is to have small groups with lots of reshuffling; the shuffling continually reintroduces substantial group variation, so between-group selection can act. But in very large, stable ethnic groups, separated by 1000s of years of natural selection? That aint happening.
I’m inclined to agree which is why I don’t think group selection is the major cause of ethnic nepotism around the World. As I’ve argued, I think it’s mostly just a byproduct of kin selection as I explained in detail in this post:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/04/ethnic-genetic-interests-a-simplified-version/
Now that ethnic loyalty has evolved as a byproduct of kin selection, is it currently being directly selected for? Probably extreme forms of ethnic altruism (suicide bombers) are being selected against. But there are many different ethnic groups in the United States and those who are most effective at lobbying U.S. foreign policy to their ethnic advantage are likely to expand their groups, globally, more rapidly than less ethically loyal Americans, and with very little sacrifice.
Now being effective at lobbying U.S. foreign policy is a function of both IQ and ethnic loyalty. If there are genetic group differences in these traits, natural selection is likely currently favoring both via “group selection”.
LOL
Both arguments first stated by me and now adopted by pumpkin.
1) The majority (if not virtually all) of one’s competitors in evolutionary time were “co-ethnics.”
2) Me: A gene for in-group bias — or a misfiring kin altruism gene — makes more sense, can account for something like racism or ethnocentrism, and has nothing to do with EGI.
Pumpkin in response: your argument is nonsense
Pumpkin now: “I think it’s mostly just a byproduct of kin selection as I explained in detail in this post.”
The power of swank.
Actually Swank, I think you probably did influence my thinking on the topic, at least subconsciously (sorry I didn’t credit you because in retrospect you sound kind of brilliant), but the key difference is you seem to think ethnic nepotism is genetically maladaptive while I don’t.
Schumer was a leader of the “gang of 8” in the Senate that tried to pass amnesty legislation a couple years ago.
Was Schumer trying to advance his ethnic genetic interests when he tried to pass amnesty?
I think that would be a very cynical interpretation of Schumer’s motives.
So Pumpkin, are you asserting that only high IQ individuals look out for their own, and you use Chuck Schumer, as a prime example?
Most of the Jewish senators are for the deal, with Mr. Schumer, being the only one against it.
White Republicans, who generally have lower IQs than White Democrats, support Mr. Schumer.
He’s nowhere near the only Jewish senator to oppose it…but I agree with your larger point that low IQ prole Jews are more pro-Israel than high IQ jews, just as low IQ people in every race are less liberal, however when high IQ people of any race are ethnically loyal, they are much more competent at advancing their ethnic interests just as high IQ people are more competent at advancing their economic interests and every other interest, because intelligence is the mental ability to adapt; to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage.
Now that I think about it, you’re right.
Pumpkin, There are about ~ 7 or 8 Jewish senators, who favor the deal, vs ~ 1 or 2 against it. You specifically focused on Chuck Schumer, because he is the most powerful among them. You also have to understand, at first, he was indecisive, and he was repeatedly pestered by his Republican Cohorts, to go against it. It’s not like he was against it, initially!
I say the Republicans are clearly the winners on this issue. Republicans, who are prolier and less intelligent, was able to convince a high IQ democrat to support them. You clearly missed out, in pointing this key point.
Pumpkin, There are about ~ 7 or 8 Jewish senators, who favor the deal, vs ~ 1 or 2 against it.
I think it’s five who support it. Most are undecided.
You specifically focused on Chuck Schumer, because he is the most powerful among them. You also have to understand, at first, he was indecisive, and he was repeatedly pestered by his Republican Cohorts, to go against it. It’s not like he was against it, initially!
He’s conflicted because he’s a Democrat and this deal is the most important thing the leader of his party has ever done, and he doesn’t want to be blamed for derailing it, but at the same time he loves Israel and Israel is very worried about Iran being economically, politically and technologically empowered.
I say the Republicans are clearly the winners on this issue. Republicans, who are prolier and less intelligent, was able to convince a high IQ democrat to support them. You clearly missed out, in pointing this key point.
The Republicans are largely genuflecting to Sheldon Adelson who is one of their biggest financial supporters. If the deal gets derailed, I would say Adelson is the clear winner because he got enormous bang for his buck..
Here are the Jewish Senators backing the Iran deal:
1) Diane Not So Feinstein of California
2) Barbara Boxsa of California
3) Bernie Sanders of Vermont
4) Brian Schatz of Hawaii
5) Al Franken of Minnesota
6) Carl Levin, former Senator from Michigan
7) Sander Levin, brother of Carl, and now the Senator of Michigan
That makes 7. How many Jews in Congress, can you come up with, who are saying no to the deal, besides Chuckie?