In honor of St. Patrick’s week, I must say a bit more about Irish American comic Rosie O’Donnell. When Rosie was ten-years-old, her mother died of breast cancer. Several minutes into the video below, she explains how a school teacher (a 27-year-old woman) befriended her, and became like a mother to Rosie. The sad thing is, this mother figure, like Rosie’s real mother, also died of breast cancer:
Because Rosie, despite her high intelligence, is not a science person, she probably thinks of this as some creepy supernatural phenomenon, but scholar J.P. Rushton would probably argue this is a classic example of his genetic similarity theory. In other words, the teacher’s genes somehow subconsciously predisposed her to be motherly to Rosie because Rosie shared copies of those same genes, and that explains why the teacher died of the same disease Rosie’s mother did.
But because the school teacher mothered Rosie, Rosie became rich and famous, and has probably given millions to breast cancer research, potentially saving the lives of millions of people who share copies of the breast cancer genes.
Rushton would have probably argued that this is how altruism between unrelated people gets selected for, and he unearthed volumes of evidence showing spouses and even best friends are most similar on the most heritable traits.
Rushton argued that if someone went around killing everyone who shared genes similar to themselves, then that person’s genes would vanish. Thus, if someone went around being nice to people who shared copies of one’s genes, then those genes would thrive.
Of course I should make clear this was simply Rushton’s theory, it is not a widely accepted model, and even within the HBD-o-sphere it’s controversial.
But it seems to make sense on my blog. I’ve argued that I have certain autistic like obsessions, and a poll of my readers found a shocking number of you folks are autistic. So it’s almost as if your genes are subconsciously causing you to support the blog of someone who shares copies of your genes, and I in turn provide some of you with friendly guidance in life (although I’m not a professional).
Indeed there is so much mental illness on my blog, that I remind myself of the Don Cheadle character in Manic, who was a thirty-something counselor, working with a group of mentally ill people.
peepee is so UN-Cynical.
give it a rest peepee.
be content with your lot as a dyke.
you have hardly any perch to find let alone purchase.
why be content?
because winning a stupid and evil game is NOT winning…
or as carlos estevez would say…

everybody wants to be a somebody, but…
somebodies are…nobodies.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
Your slender attitude
Trembles not exquisite like limbs knife-skewed,
Rolling and rolling there
Where God seems not to care:
Till the fierce love they bear
Cramps them in death’s extreme decrepitude.
as one scientist profiled in the same esquire as langan, iirc, said…
someday plato will be forgotten…
we ARE all made of stars.
Good post. I just wrote a GST post this other night.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/17/genetic-similarity-theory-as-a-cause-for-ethnocentrism/
I’m becoming fascinated with GST. It really does prove a lot when you really think about it. Especially it’s complications for geopolitics, which shows how isolationist we all should be, in my opinion.
GST, ethnic genetic interests and group selection all exist. I’m gearing up for a full refutation of JayMan’s post on that matter for my 50th post. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that genetic similarity theory exists and that shared genes are the causes for altruism towards your own co-ethnics.
Other people have commented on GST, I’m going to get around to reading those papers next week.
JayMan does not necessarily dispute that helping co-ethnics enhances your genetic fitness (that’s tautological) nor does he necessarily dispute that we evolved to behave ethnocentrically, what I think he primarily disputes is that ethnocentric behavior was directly selected for, and the reason he disputes that is because he feels anyone who sacrificed their individual genetic interests for the genetic interests of their group, would be selected against by intra-group competition. That’s a perfectly rational argument he’s making, though I think he takes it a bit too far.
There are indeed ways it could be directly selected for:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/02/w-d-hamilton-believed-in-ethnic-genetic-interests/
Now you could argue those mechanisms are unlikely, however I don’t think JayMan would dispute that there could have been INDIRECT selection for ethnocentricism:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/04/ethnic-genetic-interests-a-simplified-version/
I figured out quite awhile go that these realms of the blogosphere attract certain types of mentalities.
Never diagnosed with anything, but I definitely have aspie tendencies. I’ve come to recognize that my detached analytical thought processes are totally alien to most people I meet and that I can’t really think of them as the same species for practical purposes.
Blogosphere has been instrumental in teaching me to decipher normal social behavior so I can navigate mainstream society successfully.
Normal people explanations never worked for me. But blogs that explained human behavior in terms of animal instinct, coded social understandings, and group dynamics are what clicked. Ironically, as time goes on I find myself more able to predict what people will do next or where my own interests will align better than many normal people around me can.
Experience has taught me that people sense that I’m different and they instinctively hate and distrust me if I don’t play my cards right. I’ve also figured out that having a lot of blood from clannish peoples of NW Europe makes me incompatible with collectivist outbred Europeans.
The Hajnal line theory finally offered an explanation why I could get along better with Russians than with American WASPS.
I’ve learned to discriminate between “white” phenotypes and be cautious around northern German types or anglo-saxon-looking British.
I’ve come to realize the Scotch Irish and Irish Catholics I descend from have a different look and manner about them and are instinctively more receptive towards me.
Where does Nazi Germany fit into HBD Chick’s whole clannish not clannish classification system?
Trump unites black and white americans. Persuit of self interest on so grand a scale is not clannishness, it’s something else.
Most of the head Nazi Party people came from Bavaria and Austria, both of which are well to the east of the Hajnal line.
Persuit of self interest on so grand a scale is not clannishness, it’s something else.
But I thought the clannish theory was supposed to help explain why certain Europeans were so anti-racist. Nazi Germany was nothing if not racist against Jews.
Most of the head Nazi Party people came from Bavaria and Austria, both of which are well to the east of the Hajnal line.
Okay, that might fit with her theory.
Whoops, I rechecked the Hajnal line again today, and all of Germany is west of the Hajnal line. Although areas bordering the Hajnal may be in-betweeners in terms of clannishness.
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder whatever happened to HBD Chick’s huge planned reply to Kevin MacDonald.
from professor mongoloid shoe (the sheeple have taken over the lea):
Everything at this meeting is off the record, so I can’t say much about it.
wtf kind of retard is he?
“off the record”?
as if there were any legal consequences.
shoe shows again that:
1. he is mentally ratarded.
2. america selects for such people.
his “off the record” circle jerk is sponsored by a jew and a faggot, hoffman and thiel.
as far as i can tell shoe is not only mentally retarded, he’s:
1. manic
2. on a plane or a hotel 90% of the time.
2 suggests his wife is a lesbian and his “beard”.
You’re the retard who can’t grasp reality. For example, everyday at least one academic paper or article comes up which proves your entire anti-HBD worldview to be mere fantasy. This is the latest one I’ve seen, about non-shared environment: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/
It has a better grasp of these complex topics than you do, but then again, all you do is pretend to understand.
Hsu, on the other hand, his position gets stronger and stronger with the behavior genetic evidence piling up in his favour.
I also remember you touting intrauterine diffs as important, but they aren’t:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-015-9745-3
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5873
More topics on which Hsu has been right and you have been wrong are adoption and SES effects.
Read these comments by Emil:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/#comment-337073
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/#comment-337105
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5852
Hsu is also right about human height being a good proxy for IQ as both being polygenic with mostly common variants with additive effects. Indeed, most of the missing heritability for height has been discovered:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n10/full/ng.3390.html
Wow, you seem to be proud of all the mentally ill people who comment here.
That’s funny! Admittedly, it does make for an interesting crowd 🙂
I’m a bit proud. More amused.
Nice post, PP. You surprised me (in a good way) with this one. I am delighted.
Thank you very much!
out of curiosity did a google image search of rosie odonnell. just as bad as I expected
>> I also seem to recall her saying she got a combined score (verbal + math) in the 700s on the old SAT (way below average for a college bound teen), but she also said it was because she was trying to cheat off a friend, but it didn’t work because the friend had a different copy of the SAT
The old 70s SAT test were the same for everyone, at least everyone at the same test center. Rosie failed to notice that different sections of the test were not given to everyone at the test center simultaneously. While one student was taking a reading comprehension section, another was taking an analogy section and another taking a math section. Almost all the sections had the same time limit. Since there was only one fill in the oval answer sheet for the entire test, and the easier questions came first in the the test section, in order to cheat successfully one had to simply determine where on your test-mate’s answer sheet the initial pattern for your section at hand began. So, if I were taking the analogies section, and my answer sheet started at 100 for the analogy section, and the first 5 easy answers were, say, CDADC, a quick glance at my test-mate’s answer sheet may reveal that starting at answer 40 on his answer sheet the pattern CDADC was evident. Bingo. He has already done his analogies and they start at answer 40. Now, if he is the smart dude/gal in the glass, you are in like Flynn. Sigh and breath easily. If there were no smarties sitting near you, you were out of luck. For the rest of the sections just look around where your initial easy pattern started on his/her sheet. Trust me on this matter.