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