The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending

Is this the next book?

Or are you guys already on it?

https://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf

This paper is David Sloan Wilson and EO Wilson’s 30 page paper on the return of group selection. It is interesting to note people like (((Steven Pinker)))have opposed group selection pretty adamantly from what I know. It is a slippery slope from Group selection to Kevin Macdonald. Honestly, it’s only like 1 thought process away after that. Group selection is being accepted because of people like David Wilson and we shall see if people start eyeing Kevin Macdonald’s work even more warily

Applying group selection to human communities isn’t that crazy after group selection is mainstream in evolutionary biology

“According to Turchin (2003, 2005) virtually all empires arose in geographical areas where major ethnic groups came into contact with each other. Intense between-group conflict acted as a crucible for the cultural evolution of extremely cooperative societies, which then expanded at the expense of less cooperative societies...”

This is significant in relation to the JQ. We haven’t gone through that crucible yet, we are now at least, so we just aren’t genetically equipped unless we can culturally program ourselves to compensate. Is that possible? Idk, but it seems the Middle East was just such a crucible to create some empires and create group that were refined by group selection.

That’s almost counter intuitive given what we know about homogenous societies being more successful. It’s like successful, homogenous societies arise because of struggle with a lesser, heterogenous society

Ya maybe it was homogenous societies warring against each other. They are a very ethnically minded people. I’m sure having a homogenous society helps breed success, but then put them against another ethnicity and that competition maybe fuels empires

I refer to the Middle East when I say “they are a very ethnically minded people.”

It sort of makes sense to me - wouldn't it be rather difficult to expand without an empire to rule over all these different people? Wouldn't an empire give them something to unite under?

Also, we can't forget one of the major reasons the great Roman Empire fell was due to these very reasons. They simply grew too large and no longer had money or war to unite them under a single banner.

inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism evolution are a lot more plausible than group selection

for Turchin, he is talking about state evolution, not genetic selection for traits

From what I’ve been reading it’s not either or

his argument is that states on "metaethnic frontiers" are able to reduce rights and privileges of groups in their state and mobilize more resources, enabling them to dominate less efficient states

It’s group selection should be considered as to contributing to some of the mutation in some groups

Like Macdonald’s proposal of how Jews erect genetic barriers and differential reproduction within groups has decreased because of monogamy, probably a significant event in to contributing to more cooperation and adding more differential reproduction between groups instead of within

So the instituting of monogamy seems like evidence of group selection. Also Jewish behavior’s seems like very good evidence of “group evolutionary strategies” being enacted

I’d like to hear your take on it though, that is why I posted that paper at the top by David Wilson and EO Wilson cause I’m still trying to figure what is the most accurate view of reality

I just don't get how there is selection at the group level genetically. Sure socially, culturally, and politically, but not genetically

creatures where group selection occurs are usually eusocial, like ants or bees

hamilton's rule comes into play here

I think it can happen at the group level for humans cause most of the propositions by David Sloan Wilson is that the compositions of groups matter. For example, the simple saying of selfish individuals best altruists but a group of altruists in theory would beat a group of selfish individuals. So at least group selection could have a say in the composition or the frequency of strategies in groups. coordinating mechanisms which would happen at a genetic level such as ethnocentrism would matter also

What’s Hamilton’s rule?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness#Hamilton's_rule

Oh ok inclusive fitness

I agree that inclusive fitness is real but it can be unified with ethnocentric or genetic similarity theory; you interact with those that look like you

Whites are more comfortable and trustworthy among whites, not just their immediate and extended family

So I guess they are proposing an even longer chain of inclusive fitness with some hard demarcation points; racism. Some people really won’t trade or economically interact or reproduce with another race

Such as how Ashkenazim Jews have to a large extent kept themselves genetically excluded from other populations for quite a long time, the genetic cluster is moving together in a way, in a “groupish” way

Like just to add another point look at how Identity Europa makes European descent a membership requirement

I think we are slowly erecting barriers, as we should, reproductively, economically etc and only interacting with ourselves to a large degree and I think strategies like this are the beginning to a “group evolutionary strategy” or an experiment in living

not sure if everyone views their own race as most trustworthy - a lot of whites here in CA greatly prefer our mestizo, asian and subcon neighbors to conservative whites

in group racial preference is socially and culturally conditioned to a large extent

in past, religion was the largest divide, and in many parts of the world it still is

as for the ashkenazim - they are hardly unique. karelians are still clearly distinct from other finns today, but they little conception of nationhood and are being absorbed into russian and finnish populations rapidly

just doesn't seem likely that racial in group preference is a genetic trait - although in group preference in general might be

Whites are different than most groups and that is why we are in trouble, and a poor example of ethnocentrism or group selection since we probably were not under as much group selection while up in the north according to Kevin Macdonald. We act more on an individualist style. And I don’t disagree that some Religions can operate across ethnic boundaries but that doesn’t mean it is a better strategy compared to religion that is highly homogenous. The more homogenous a religion/group/society the more trust and cooperation because you can bet those that look like you have more of your genes and that is probably how xenophobia, Ethnocentrism racism etc arose. and so I would argue that racial ingroup preference is TOTALLY a genetic trait and would probably arise cause the more accurately you can determine who has your similar genes the better it would be to know who to mate and with for genetic similarity.

So Altruism can increase if you keep yours genetically closed off for quite a time because everyone will become more similar to each other. Nothing close to inbreeding of course, but I would emphasize Ashkenazim Jews ARE unique because they are the only people to be a dispersed or diaspora people to erect genetic barriers. To do so without a physical nation is an impressive feat

neither whites nor azhkenazim are particularly unique. Chinese of the Tang dynasty invited in hordes of iranians and turks, and provided them with plenty of opportunities which they immediately abused. Same for the Hindus with the Moslems in the subcontinent, iranians with their turkic and arab minorities, congo with its tutsis, etc. not all that different from white foolishness.

as for the ashkenazim, check out the armenians of the various caliphates, the sogdians of the tang era, the greeks of the middle ottoman period, italians of the levant during crusader times, etc

gujarati merchants and tamil brahmins are other good examples

I wouldn’t know any of that and I’m missing the point really

very little outbreeding from those groups

Oh ok

Well then I would just say whether anybody is unique or not I would just like to make the point that very little outbreeding is far superior in competition to other mixing of races so I’m just trying to say the Ashkenazim are a good case study of group selection and whites are a poor example unless we are giving a lot of motive to do so. I’m just trying to affirm group selection

Have you checked out Kevin Macdonalds work on Judaism?

not yet - I've been meaning to

It is a good case for group selection

I’m currently reading his first book and a lot of people don’t address his and David Wilson’s claims directly. They usually strawman

Which is understandable cause if you accept group selection for humans people are going to start looking at Kevin Macdonalds work more

Does it have the math showing how genes promoting group selection spread through a population?

Been a while since I read a population genetics book, but have vague memory the numbers for group selection didn’t work out

That specific book doesn’t I don’t believe. I can look through David Sloan Wilson’s paper at the top and see what he has to say though. He makes a good case

I’ll type out a quote and tell me what you think. A lot of it still evades me

The
rejection of group selection was based largely on
theoretical plausibility arguments (5, 11), which made it
seem that between-group selection requires a delicate
balance of parameter values to prevail against within-group
selection. These early models were published at a time when
D. S. Wilson and E. O. Wilson 8
the desktop computing revolution, complexity theory, and
appreciation of such things as social control (12) and
cultural transmission (13, 14) were barely on the horizon.
It therefore means something when group selection has become
more plausible, according to more recent theoretical models.
All of the early models assumed that altruistic and
selfish behaviors are caused directly by corresponding
genes, which means that the only way for groups to vary
behaviorally is for them to vary genetically. Hardly anyone
regards such strict genetic determinism as biologically
realistic today. And in fact it was assumed in the models
primarily to simplify the mathematics. Yet, when more
complex genotype-phenotype relationships are built into the
models, the balance between levels of selection can be
easily and dramatically altered (15).

Their models are getting more accurate and certain assumptions which are faulty are being overturned. I can give you another example from the paper of how if, within a population of bacteria, to many cheaters reproduce the population will fail. So once again composition of groups can determine a "shared fate" for groups

Although this isn't a human example, it is at least one example for bacteria.

Some of the best recent evidence for group selection comes from microbial organisms, in part because they are such efficient systems for ecological and evolutionary research spanning many generations.

The "wrinkly spreader" (WS) strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens evolves in response to anoxic conditions in unmixed liquid medium, by producing a cellulosic polymer that forms a mat on the surface. The polymer is expensive to produce, which means that nonproducing "cheaters" have the highest relative fitness within the group.

As the cheaters spread, the mat deteriorates and eventually sinks to the bottom. WS is maintained in the total population by between-group selection, despite its selective disadvantage within groups, exactly as envisioned by multilevel selection theory (Rainey and Rainey 2003)

he's saying that we weren't calculating for polygenetic traits back when their theory was first proposed, and that current computer models show that their theory is plausible

ya as their models get more accurate it'll be exciting to see what happens

that isn't true by the way - the infinitesimal model has been around for ages

as for bacteria, they are almost clones of each other

What do you mean?

What isnt true

he is saying that critics were criticizing their theory by saying 1 trait = 1 gene, and that we know now that many genes affect a trait

but in the infinitesimal model it is assumed that an infinite number of alleles affect a trait

The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

This is also a good read my friends. I think I’ve posted this elsewhere I forget. It is about ethnocentrism dominating all other strategies

In this simulation model

Ethnocentrism is a robust strategy and worked in other models also and under other initial variables so researchers determine this is not a “knife-edge effect” but, once again, a robust evolutionary stable strategy. Methinks if whites don’t adopt it soon we won’t be able to compete.

@Myndrian great article

Molyneux just tweeted about this topic, can't find it. anyone else see it?

Which topic? Ethnocentrism?

yes

i feel like i just saw him tweet about this

specifically wrt evolutionary success vs. "diversity"

isn't that what the article is about?

I think this one is “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentrism”

right

Errr ethnocentric cooperation. But he is right and is probably referring to the same thing

i think moly tweeted in direct and explicit reference to it

i'll try to find it

Ok sweet I’m to lazy sorry I’ll

Lol

"sorry I'll lol" lol wut

Also, can someone please meme this already. I don't have photoshop.

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1081460555917991936

I’ll was supposed to be lol

We need a meme force

An IE meme force

I guess we already got one eh?

Develop a humorous memetic culture

Meme soldiers

This should be our main objective right now 👆🏻

Look at this dude.
asian
chad jaw
weird head/hair
rapey

He was the rapist or the rapee?