On the Origin of White Power

[Jokodo]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology.<snip>

I guess that's the reason that, for >11,000 of the 12,000 years since the adaptation of agriculture, the most technologically advanced regions of the planet were situated in the subtropical and the warmer parts of the temperate regions of Eurasia...

The reason such pronouncement are met with disdain is first and foremost that they clash with reality, more than any real or alleged "politicization of atheism/skepticism".

We are not talking about power 5000 years ago, we are talking about power now.

We're not talking about power as such at all. We are talking about whether a genetic/evolutionary explanation for the fact that Western countries have more power than others today is plausible. You seem to be claiming that it is, and that the mechanism is adaptation to harsher living conditions necessitating technological advancements. This is a hypothesis which makes predictions which we can check against reality: It predicts that harsher environments would lead to more technologically developed civilisations throughout history. This prediction fails. Therefore, the hypothesis fails.

Really, is it asking to much to look at more than than the last 500 before heralding a hypothesis that makes predictions about history?

Guns, Germs and Steel covers much of these ideas.

The fact that Mesopotamia, the Indus valley valley, or the Nile delta were prosperous is because they had rivers and didn't need to work as hard for their living. They developed the technologies and political systems that best fit their circumstances. However, circumstances have changed greatly and they were left behind.

The "golden road" of culture exists in the western world now and with it, all the benefits of power and prestige.

That may be so, but that's not what this thread is about, nor what you have been trying to defend by attributing all criticism thereof to the "politicization of atheism".

 

[repoman]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

What a completely moronic statement! What else can one say to the above....you happen to know only one Indian who to you is erudite and quick witted so your conclusion is they are mentally or psychologically slow in general! Could it be your insufficient sample size? It is more likely your compulsion to measure head size and believe white folks an have edge here!

What would the purpose of Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals having the same population distributions of temperament as Chinese people for example? There would be no benefit to it. Work yourself to death for no gain? Sure, some of them have have a keyed up personality, but it was not selected for as in the Chinese. The pace of life was slower for the natives, so no point expending the energy.

Imagine releasing a border collie into the wild and comparing it to a husky, it would be so uselessly OCD it would burn itself out.

 

[Jokodo]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

What a completely moronic statement! What else can one say to the above....you happen to know only one Indian who to you is erudite and quick witted so your conclusion is they are mentally or psychologically slow in general! Could it be your insufficient sample size? It is more likely your compulsion to measure head size and believe white folks an have edge here!

What would the purpose of Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals having the same population distributions of temperament as Chinese people for example? There would be no benefit to it. Work yourself to death for no gain? Sure, some of them have have a keyed up personality, but it was not selected for as in the Chinese. The pace of life was slower for the natives, so no point expending the energy.
<snip>

Anyone still wondering why these just-so-stories are called ... just-so-stories?

All I'm seeing is statements about what looks plausible to you. Any data on the "pace of life" in different continents over millenia, based on historical or archeaological records? Even a simulation of how different temperaments would actually affect reproductive outcomes under different cultural conditions? No, nothing of the kind.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

This must be a very modern phenomena. The Europeans who first came to North America lived in sheer terror of the Native Americans who lived just beyond the last fence which marked the edge of settlement. Just a rumor of Indians(as they were called in those days) would put a colonial militia into a panicked retreat.

Maybe east coast Native Americans are genetically advantaged.

 

[Iggy]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

What a completely moronic statement! What else can one say to the above....you happen to know only one Indian who to you is erudite and quick witted so your conclusion is they are mentally or psychologically slow in general! Could it be your insufficient sample size? It is more likely your compulsion to measure head size and believe white folks an have edge here!

What would the purpose of Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals having the same population distributions of temperament as Chinese people for example? There would be no benefit to it. Work yourself to death for no gain? Sure, some of them have have a keyed up personality, but it was not selected for as in the Chinese. The pace of life was slower for the natives, so no point expending the energy.

Imagine releasing a border collie into the wild and comparing it to a husky, it would be so uselessly OCD it would burn itself out.

I do not know where you are going with the statement I highlighted above. That is a minefield of your own creation. I was speaking to the casual lumping of hundreds of distinct cultural peoples into a convenient umbrella label, "Native Americans" for example, to forge generalized conclusions that are profoundly stupid. Chinese, Native Americans or any of a number of "white, brown or black" people partake in meticulous rituals to maintain the pride in their cultural identity.

These very people with an affinity for general labels will not mistake the froufrou French for the Gruff German or the loquacious Italian for the standoffish Brits, Neither will they think any of them at a disadvantage one from the other on account of their mannerism. When the term "white" is applied to an of them it is not to make negative conclusions but to assume they have particularistic alleles that makes them special! But the the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Sioux etc are lumped into one pool of dimwitted slow speaking subaltern category of backward others.


I also think your analogy of dogs is off base. It is a false equivalency. Dogs are not environmentally shaped. They were shaped by human hands and terribly so. If the poor coolie is ADD or the bulldog cannot breed or t he German shepherd is plagued by back problems it is a consequence of backward assumptions by idiots as those in the American Kennel Club.

 

[Trausti]

Having actually reviewed Wade's book, I think in the end he'll be shown correct; that is, behavior - just like everything else in biology - is subject to natural selection. Otherwise, all life on this planet would share the same behavior. His speculation that this is the reason for western dominance in the last 500 years suffers, I think, from a lack of appreciation for other disciplines, namely history. Essentially, globalization was the consequence of Europeans trying to avoid the Arab middleman for Indian spices. There's more to it than that, of course, but a genetic behavioral difference would seem to play an almost indiscernible role.

 

[Jokodo]

Having actually reviewed Wade's book, I think in the end he'll be shown correct; that is, behavior - just like everything else in biology - is subject to natural selection.

I don't think anyone disputes in principle that behaviour is subject to natural selection. What people dispute is the specific claims in that regard that are being made without regard to available evidence that contradicts the predictions such claims would make.

Otherwise, all life on this planet would share the same behavior. His speculation that this is the reason for western dominance in the last 500 years suffers, I think, from a lack of appreciation for other disciplines, namely history.

In other words, he's wrong.

Essentially, globalization was the consequence of Europeans trying to avoid the Arab middleman for Indian spices. There's more to it than that, of course, but a genetic behavioral difference would seem to play an almost indiscernible role.

Exactly. So he's wrong. The only bit in which he's right is the bit no-one actively disputes.

 

[doubtingt]

Exactly. So he's wrong. The only bit in which he's right is the bit no-one actively disputes.

I think he is also right in a way that many (mostly in the humanities and soft sciences but not in biology) would dispute. Namely, that human subpopulation largely aligned with what are referred to as "races" are biologically different in many ways that matter for human psychology, cognition, emotion, and behavioral temperament. This is almost a given based upon two simple facts: 1) That human psychology is the product of selection by the particular environments early humans lived in. 2) That sub-populations that split since the African exodus 60,000 to 100,000 years ago experienced not only drastically different environments but drastically different degrees of variation and change within their respective environments (such as those migrating over generations through vastly different climates and those who lived in regions that impacted the most by the coming and going of the last glacial period versus those who remained in more temperate climates that were less drastically impacted by the last glacial period).
Given that outward bodily features are also a product of variation is environmental selection pressures, that makes it extremely probable that differences in outward appearances covary with differences in psychology and behavior. So the, the open question is not "if" subgroups of humans differ in the biological contributors to many psychological dimensions but rather which particular dimensions and how do they differ. I would argue that many many people (both laypersons and academics in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences) deny any meaningful differences in biological contributors to psychology and behavior, and instead take the position that all variation is cultural.

 

[Trausti]

Exactly. So he's wrong. The only bit in which he's right is the bit no-one actively disputes.

I think he is also right in a way that many (mostly in the humanities and soft sciences but not in biology) would dispute. Namely, that human subpopulation largely aligned with what are referred to as "races" are biologically different in many ways that matter for human psychology, cognition, emotion, and behavioral temperament. This is almost a given based upon two simple facts: 1) That human psychology is the product of selection by the particular environments early humans lived in. 2) That sub-populations that split since the African exodus 60,000 to 100,000 years ago experienced not only drastically different environments but drastically different degrees of variation and change within their respective environments (such as those migrating over generations through vastly different climates and those who lived in regions that impacted the most by the coming and going of the last glacial period versus those who remained in more temperate climates that were less drastically impacted by the last glacial period).
Given that outward bodily features are also a product of variation is environmental selection pressures, that makes it extremely probable that differences in outward appearances covary with differences in psychology and behavior. So the, the open question is not "if" subgroups of humans differ in the biological contributors to many psychological dimensions but rather which particular dimensions and how do they differ. I would argue that many many people (both laypersons and academics in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences) deny any meaningful differences in biological contributors to psychology and behavior, and instead take the position that all variation is cultural.

I think Wade is right in all of that, too. My nitpick is the extent to which behavioral differences that may have arisen since the African / Non-African split account for a half-millennium of Western/European dominance. Though it certainly is plausible that behavior was subjected to selective pressures as the new human races emerged in different environments.

 

[doubtingt]

duplicate

 

[dystopian]

I would argue that many many people (both laypersons and academics in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences) deny any meaningful differences in biological contributors to psychology and behavior, and instead take the position that all variation is cultural.

The only problem with this is that there actually aren't any biological differences that are are both significant and specific enough to lead to different behavior and psychology. There is no difference between the brain of an African man and a European male; and the genetics aren't really all that different either. With the brain's identical, you're left with the faint hope that somewhere in the genes is something we've thus far overlooked which has an actual effect on instincts and behavior; which while not completely out of the question is something we have no reason to believe is actually the case until someone establishes such a link and difference.

Simply saying that you think it's 'extremely probable' that differences in outward appearance coincidence with differences in psychology and behavior (hint; it's not just *not* extremely probable, it isn't even 'just' probable); doesn't mean that's actually so. You might have a point if the differences were more pronounced; like say some of us evolved six arms while others evolved gills; but in reality they're not pronounced at all. The only real differences are variations in skin tone, eye color, and slight variation in hair growth; there is no reason to think that whatever factors caused those traits to evolve also caused our innate psychology to differentiate. They're minor cosmetic traits, we didn't evolve them in response to environmental pressures that could also possibly change our psychology.

Until someone shows some fundamental biological difference between different ethnicities *and* demonstrates that this difference is linked to behavior/psychology (not holding my breath); there's no reason to take this idea seriously.

 

[doubtingt]

I think Wade is right in all of that, too.

Right, but many many people do dispute even this much, especially people in the humanities and softer sciences that want to ascribe all psycho-social differences to the conveniently fuzzy and ill-defined concept of "culture". So, it is worthwhile to argue this thesis, even if it is harmed when one tacks on the kind of wild speculations about specifics that Wade does.

My nitpick is the extent to which behavioral differences that may have arisen since the African / Non-African split account for a half-millennium of Western/European dominance. Though it certainly is plausible that behavior was subjected to selective pressures as the new human races emerged in different environments.

Agreed and I think his speculations about European dominance are unlikely to be valid. However, it is not valid to claim that the lack of dominance by Europeans prior to the last century entirely falsifies the idea that the current dominance was aided by evolved differences. That would only falsify the idea that those differences are the sole necessary and sufficient determinant of all dominance. It is not unlike the fact that your uncle you smokes more than most lived longer than most does not falsify that smoking is a casual factor in cancer and tends to increase mortality, only that smoking is the sole determinant of death. Obviously, many other factors would need to be in place before a population was in a position to dominated most other populations. If something related to intellect was at all a factor, it would only be a tipping point factor that with other things in place allowed such dominance. Technology development requires reasoning skills but also requires many other things such as natural resources, large social groups to support some of its members spending time to develop them, and a degree of wealth concentration so that some individuals are afforded the luxury of spending their time on such long term intellectual pursuits. Intergroup dominance can vary across centuries for many many reasons, yet it can still be the case that intellectual factors play a role in technological development which when combined with other factors allows for high levels of dominance that otherwise would not occur. Wade needs and lacks evidence for this kind of theory, but it is not at all implausible and pointing to the fact that Europeans haven't always under all circumstances dominated others is not nearly the damning evidence against the theory that some here are claiming it to be.

 

[doubtingt]

The only problem with this is that there actually aren't any biological differences that are are both significant and specific enough to lead to different behavior and psychology. There is no difference between the brain of an African man and a European male;

Sorry, but there is no scientific basis for this assertion. Our understanding of the brain and the ways two brains can differ from each other is in its infancy and we have no evidential basis to assert there is "no difference between" any two specific brains, let alone no differences between the distributions of millions of brains in two populations. Brains can differ in literally millions upon millions of ways. Your assertion might apply to a small handful of the less interesting ways like avg . BTW, male and female brains have already been shown to differ in many ways that are significant enough to likely produce psychological differences.
Oh, and then there is the fact that every single psychological and behavioral difference has to be a product of brain differences, because all psychology and behavior is a product of the brain. Every cultural or experiential impact on human psychology and behavior has it impact only via the physiological differences they cause in the brain itself, which is always the proximal cause. So, we know for certain that there are brain difference significant enough to produce psychological differences (btw, the tiniest brain difference you can image could have major psychological impact). The only thing we don't know but is perfectly plausible is whether those differences in the brains are 100% due to differences in experiences since birth (the position of "its all culture") or whether some % of those differences are in any way impacted by biological differences at the time of birth (note brain differences that develop over early life can still be impacted by biological differences at birth).

 

[Bronzeage]

If anyone can show me evidence that the differences between the brain of a person of any particular racial heritage are more significant than whether one Dalmatian has more spots than another, I would be very interested to see it.

 

[Trausti]

If anyone can show me evidence that the differences between the brain of a person of any particular racial heritage are more significant than whether one Dalmatian has more spots than another, I would be very interested to see it.

Microcephalin?

 

[dystopian]

Sorry, but there is no scientific basis for this assertion. Our understanding of the brain and the ways two brains can differ from each other is in its infancy and we have no evidential basis to assert there is "no difference between" any two specific brains, let alone no differences between the distributions of millions of brains in two populations. Brains can differ in literally millions upon millions of ways. Your assertion might apply to a small handful of the less interesting ways like avg . BTW, male and female brains have already been shown to differ in many ways that are significant enough to likely produce psychological differences.

Yes, male brains and female brains are different. You're very clever. Of course, I said there's no difference between the brains of an African *man* and a European *man*.

Yes, of course the neural connections are not atomically identical from one person's brain to the next; if they were we'd all have identical personalities and thoughts. This is completely besides the point, however, since I was clearly *not* talking about those kind of minute differences and was in fact talking about the kind of difference that transcend individuality and are representative of one population versus the other. The claim that there are no such fundamental differences between the brains of Africans and Europeans is a matter of *scientific fact*.

Furthermore, the claim that "our understanding of the way two brains can differ from each other is in its infancy"; is either ignorant, or dishonest. You're trying to imply that we haven't the foggiest about it, when in fact we know a great deal about these subjects, certainly more than enough to dismiss as *pseudoscience* the idea that there is some sort of substantitive difference between the brains of different groups which is based entirely on biological factors.

Oh, and then there is the fact that every single psychological and behavioral difference has to be a product of brain differences, because all psychology and behavior is a product of the brain.

If that were true; your entire argument would fall apart since indeed, despite your claims, we know there are no such differences. Again, we're talking about substantitive differences; not minute differences that have no fundamental effect on the brain as a whole. You're trying to argue that there is some sort of difference that separates a white person's brain from a black person's brain; when in matter of fact the differences between the average black and average white brain are exactly the same sort of differences we see between two different and random white brains.

Every cultural or experiential impact on human psychology and behavior has it impact only via the physiological differences they cause in the brain itself, which is always the proximal cause.

And that is why this argument fails. Again; there are no such fundamental differences between the brains of different ethnic groups. We may see differences in populations based on things like diet, but those are not *fundamental* differences that linger once diet changes. The only way we could even remotely take serious the possibility that these sort of fundamental biological differences exist between ethnic groups, is if indeed there were some genetic differences which directly affect the brain or our tendencies. For instance a genetic change that causes a population to become entirely colorblind might cause significant cultural changes in that population. (incidentally, it would be those genes that are the proximal cause and not the brain, since the brain would be influenced by them and not the other way around)

So, we know for certain that there are brain difference significant enough to produce psychological differences (btw, the tiniest brain difference you can image could have major psychological impact).

No, we do not know this. Yes, we know this for individuals, and things like brain damage. Again, however, we are talking about fundamental biological differences that would apply to entire ethnic groups. What you're describing are minute differences across individuals, differences that are the result of initial starting conditions of neural structures, followed by randomized factors in neural growth and decay, along with our own behaviors affecting those structures. To come up with an analogy you might be able to understand more clearly; what you're trying to argue in saying that there are fundamental brain difference between different ethnic groups is that a black person's brain is operating on MacOS, while a white person's brain is operating on Windows. However, the only argument you're bringing forth to support this is the fact that your windows computer has different files and directories on its hard drive compared to mine. Which may be true, but that doesn't change the basic point that they're still running on the same basic hard and software.

 

[dystopian]

If anyone can show me evidence that the differences between the brain of a person of any particular racial heritage are more significant than whether one Dalmatian has more spots than another, I would be very interested to see it.

Microcephalin?

Fail. While it is true that a mutation of the Microcephalin gene can result in brain damage, no effect on mental ability or behavior has been demonstrated in normal individuals for this gene.

 

[Bronzeage]

If anyone can show me evidence that the differences between the brain of a person of any particular racial heritage are more significant than whether one Dalmatian has more spots than another, I would be very interested to see it.

Microcephalin?

If there is any validity to this idea, then as a white male of European descent, I should have the superior brain of this forum, as I am undoubtedly very very white.

It would be nice if brain size was a good indicator of intelligence. I know some people, white people to be specific, who have large heads and are also incredibly stupid.

A whale has a brain which outweighs mine by ten of more pounds, but I think I am smarter than a whale. This can be demonstrated by a simple examination. If I were to suddenly discover my brain had been implanted in the body of a whale, complete with all my human faculties, the first thing I would do is make a plan to escape whaling ships. Since I now can hold my breath for nine hours and the ocean is quite large, my plan is simple. I'll go under water and come up somewhere far away. For all their seventeen pound brains and three hundred years to think about it, whales have yet to figure this one out.

 

[Jokodo]

Exactly. So he's wrong. The only bit in which he's right is the bit no-one actively disputes.

I think he is also right in a way that many (mostly in the humanities and soft sciences but not in biology) would dispute. Namely, that human subpopulation largely aligned with what are referred to as "races" are biologically different in many ways that matter for human psychology, cognition, emotion, and behavioral temperament. This is almost a given based upon two simple facts: 1) That human psychology is the product of selection by the particular environments early humans lived in. 2) That sub-populations that split since the African exodus 60,000 to 100,000 years ago experienced not only drastically different environments but drastically different degrees of variation and change within their respective environments (such as those migrating over generations through vastly different climates and those who lived in regions that impacted the most by the coming and going of the last glacial period versus those who remained in more temperate climates that were less drastically impacted by the last glacial period).

This is patently false. Subpopulation did experience different environments, but on a much more fine-grained scale than traditional "races". When we look at known cases of adaptation to different environmental conditions, they invariably cut right across "races": Lactase persistence is widespread among "Caucasian" Northern Europeans, "Mongoloid" Central Asians, and "Negrid" East Africans, but almost entirely absent among West Africans, Meditteraneans, and Chinese. The gene responsible for sickle cell anemia that confers some degree of immunity against Malaria in heterozygots is widespread in parts of West Africa, parts of Italy, Mesopotamia, and the Indus and Ganges valleys, but absent in Eastern and Southern Africa, the rest of Europe, and Central India. The genes that help Tibetans cope with the diluted atmosphere at their high altitude are absent among neighbouring groups with almost identical appearances who are speakers of closely related languages - and the same is true for Andean natives, who have independently evolved mechanisms of coping with similar altitudes.

Given that outward bodily features are also a product of variation is environmental selection pressures, that makes it extremely probable that differences in outward appearances covary with differences in psychology and behavior.

That's not a given. In fact the standard assumption is that most differences in outward appearances are the product primarily of sexual selection.

So the, the open question is not "if" subgroups of humans differ in the biological contributors to many psychological dimensions but rather which particular dimensions and how do they differ.

Even if all of what you said above were true, this still wouldn't follow: If behaviour is the partly the product of natural selection (which it is), and if past selective regimes roughly align with current "races" (an unsubtantiated claim), it would still be an empirical question whether different behaviours have been selected for in different human subpopulations.

I would argue that many many people (both laypersons and academics in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences) deny any meaningful differences in biological contributors to psychology and behavior, and instead take the position that all variation is cultural.

I think the position people take is mostly that for every individual case of variation, the default assumption is always that it's cultural unless good evidence can be provided that it's biological. That's not denying that "meaningful differences in biological contributors" can exist. It's just being cautious about prematurely postulating such - of which there's a long history.

 

[Jokodo]

tl;dr: Give me one reason that evolved differences in behaviour which you expect as the product of natural selection should, if they exist, align more with outward features, most of which are the result of sexual selection, than with the known products of natural selection such as lactase persistence. You can't.