Commenter Another William Playfair Web wrote, in response to my post about Donald Trump understanding ethnic genetic interests:

How is this spun into praise of Trump?
Doesn’t it mean he is evolutionarily primitive?

One of the ironies of intelligence is that even though I feel intelligence evolved so that life forms can adapt situations to their genetic advantage, some of the most intelligent people are the least genetically fit, often having no children at all and speaking out against their ethnic group.

How do I explain this paradox if I define intelligence as the ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage?  I explain it by making a distinction between one’s personal advantage and one’s genetic advantage.

Ultimately passing on your genes does not benefit anyone per se; what benefits people is the feeling they get when they engage in behaviors that increase the odds of passing on genes.  So evolution has predisposed humans to feel good when they make money, care for cute babies,  gain power, fall in love, have sex, or help their tribe, and to feel pain when thy fail at these tasks.

Pain, by definition, is a problem, and intelligence is just the part of the brain that problem solves.  So evolution has predisposed us to feel pain when we’re not enhancing our genetic odds. That way our intelligence would be constantly used to solve that problem.

The trouble is, in order for the brain to be a very good problem solver, it needs a large amount of abstract reasoning and critical thinking, so I suspect intelligent folks are more likely to become self aware and question the very impulses that drive their behavior.  This creates new pain in non-psychopaths, such as guilt over favouring their tribe over a less fortunate tribe, guilt over spending too much money on themselves; even guilt over having children when the World is already overpopulated and they could just adopt a needy orphan.  They’re still adapting the situation to their advantage, but to their advantage, not to their genes’ advantage, because they are still getting what they want, but what they want is no longer what their genes need.

This is the fundamental “design”-flaw when intelligence was evolving.  In order to have the awareness to solve problems that enhance our genes, we evolved the awareness to question why we should be using our intelligence for that purpose in the first place.  In a sense humans have outsmarted our own evolution, much like a robot that becomes so smart, it kills the computer programmer who invented it.

This does not mean that everyone who uses their intelligence to enhance their genetic interests is a psychopath or lacking in higher awareness.  Indeed if you come from a disadvantaged group like blacks, then you can serve your genetic interests while also being morally correct, because you are helping them not only because they’re your group, but because they need the most help.

Indeed if you’re black and you don’t serve your genetic interests, liberal whites and liberal Jews will lecture you for serving white interests when you should be serving your own.  Here you are trying to help whites and they mock you for being an Uncle Tom.  This is why it makes sense that black conservatives have low IQs.  Because they have turned the situation to their disadvantage not only genetically and morally, but they even get ridiculed by the very groups they are trying to serve.