I'd contest that, to an extent

Ok say you have a population A whose gene pool favors personality A that favors principles A, and population B geen pool does not favor peronality A, but they follow prinicples A. Would population B then independly developed gene pool that favors personality A. Therefore you don't need to be conserned of the gene's of the population and only the principles.

Personality can aid or hamper your attempts to gain status

status may be retained by some other means, but that must be attained at some point

Of course it fucking can @Smak64

Okay, so maybe I just misunderstood what you meant then

I'm just trying to understand why this matters?

What would you be aiming to accomplish?

A completely descriptive morality based on evolution

bypassing the is/ought problem

probably well out of my ballpark then, I'm gonna fuck off

and also reframing our idea of "individualism"

So you are trying to create a morality based on the evolutionary preferences of humans?

yeah basically

I wouldn't say "create" but yeah

Discover perhaps then

derive from evolutionary principles

theory, rather

@Apotheosis so what do you think would happen in the hypothetical I propose?

Well I would ask you two things:
1. Is it practicable? would this morality actually be able to hold sway against those created by society rather than theory?
2. Is it intended to be so? because its always interesting to muse on things but replacing the individual morality of all the people in society is nigh impossible. You can at best manipulate it.

I think it is "practicable" in the sense that it can provide a better perspective on moral issues especially to handle moral "relativism" between groups, to justify and work with our tribalistic tendencies

as for replacing people's morality... I think it may instead reframe and complete the moral conceptions of others

to understand our moral instincts and intuitions

Okay, I think I understand it a bit better now. Well I hope you're writing your thoughts down somewhere other than here, it might be something worth posting somewhere.

yeah I'm just bouncing ideas of off people

seeing what holds water

but a lot of this system is based on what Jordan Peterson says

I'm just not sure if he's truly followed through with the implications of what he says

he?

Jordan Peterson. I'd expect Sargon fans to be aware of him

Jordan Peterson uses our natural biological urges as a lense through which to see why people don't mesh with acting in the PC way.

I'm not sure he advocates biologicalism just points out that trying to socially engineer people to act a different way than is natural is a bad idea.

Well, I believe he does hold that IQ is partially heritable

and that social hierarchies are based on principles, that those who embody those ideals reach the top, and those near the top are more likely to reproduce and survive

I'm connecting some of the dots though

surely some cultures cannot be developed or adopted by a group of people of just any IQ

and that personality surely affects ones values

openness, conscientiousness, extravertedness, agreeableness, neuroticism

You're interpretting IQ very interestingly here

IQ hasn't really changed for humans for the entirety of history

IQ is a proxy for G, general intelligence