NOTE: It isn’t entirely clear that it’s fair to describe low internal consistency as being a problem of “measurement error” to be attributed exclusively to non-shared environment. It could just as easily be the result of non-error specificity, which is perfectly liable to have non-zero heritability. Thanks to @tailcalled on twitter pointing this out to me.
Eugenics is much, much more important than ethnocentrism. If a society has a mandatory eugenics policy in place (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#what-is-eugenics), then there's no reason to pursue ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism won't solve anything that can't be solved by eugenics.
You haven't realized it, but most people don't care whether their race disappears or not. Many people don't have children, and many people race-mix, including your ancestors: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#race-mixing. Would you say that WHG, EEF, and PIE people went "extinct" when they race-mixed with each other? Neither of us would be alive right now if that never happened btw.
In terms of biological value, what actually matters is reproduction. I will suggest that you read Section 8 of the Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#collectivism. People don't throw away their bloodlines when they race-mix. They only throw away their bloodlines when they choose to not reproduce at all.
If you'd like to talk about this in voice, just let me know. My Discord username is: zerocontradictions
>"Most people don't care whether their race disappears or not"
Who gives a fuck? Most people are slaves and are beneath contempt.
>"People don't throw away their bloodlines when they race-mix. They only throw away their bloodlines when they choose to not reproduce at all."
Your children share half your genes while you grandchildren share 25%, and so on until your furthest ancestors have an exceedingly-minimal contribution. By contrast, racial survival is precisely as permanent as you allow it to be.
It's not at all the norm for people to be indifferent to their collective survival btw. Things are only the way they are because the communists won WW2.
>"First off, you need to define what's "important". That implies a set of values"
I value the survival of my fucking continental ancestry group. There you go. That's what's "important" as defined by me, it's as simple as that. Demanding that I intellectualize it any further is like demanding I justify my desire to not personally be murdered: This is cardinal, fuck off. This topic has no business being up for debate in the first place.
>"Would you say that WHG, EEF, and PIE people went "extinct" when they race-mixed with each other?"
Absolutely, yes. Would YOU say that the differences between these groups approach anything close to the magnitude of the gap between whites and blacks/asians? Would you say the significance of their cultural heritage comes anywhere close to that of Europe's? I'm sure you're well aware of the archaeological evidence of how major cultural shifts tend to align with group replacements. The nouveau-riche future you envision for humanity has no business being realized. To the extent that it has any right to be born, it's a crime against humanity that out of all the peoples or the world that could have been murdered to create it, its crown should be the funeral wreath of Europe and of America's Anglo stock.
> Would YOU say that the differences between these groups approach anything close to the magnitude of the gap between whites and blacks/asians?
No, I wouldn't. But I also think it's irrelevant. Both of us also have neanderthal ancestors who breed with homo sapiens, and yet we still exist. The genetic distance between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens was probably quite large, compared to modern racial groups.
> Would you say the significance of their cultural heritage comes anywhere close to that of Europe's?
"Significance" implies value judgments. Every value judgment is made from a perspective. The cultural heritage of Industrial Europe may seem more significant to many people today, but I'd also say that that's because people don't know much about the WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples to begin with, and thus don't know much about their historical or cultural influence. In a sense, you could argue that the WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples had greater cultural significance, depending on your value judgments.
> I'm sure you're well aware of the archaeological evidence of how major cultural shifts tend to align with group replacements.
Yes.
> nouveau-riche future
Hmm? I support meritocracy though, if that's what you meant. But I don't think it would necessarily entail social mobility. For the most part, I dislike the bottom 20% of society more than I dislike the upper 20%.
> Who gives a fuck? Most people are slaves and are beneath contempt.
I agree with you that most people are idiots. Regardless, my point is that race-mixing is a natural phenomenon. Both of us and all of humanity had ancestors who race-mixed at some point in the past. If you positively value your existence, then you probably value the race-mixing that lead to you and your people's existence. So, it seems contradictory to unilaterally oppose all race-mixing.
> By contrast, racial survival is precisely as permanent as you allow it to be.
What is "racial survival" exactly? As we know, races don't have clear boundaries and gene flow can occur between races. So, who gets included in your preferred racial group? I'm white-passing, so most people would never realize that I'm half East Asian unless I told them. I'm also a white preservationist in the sense that I want to stop the Great Replacement and I'm okay with white ethnostates existing (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#great-replacement). Would you consider me part of your racial group?
And why should life aim to create "permanent" copies of itself? Life doesn't exist to do that. Life exists because life reproduces. That's the objective purpose of life. Regardless of whomever one procreates with, they are fulfilling their objective purpose if they raise successful offspring. To be clear, I support the phenocentric theory of evolution: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/11/debunking-selfish-gene.html.
My guess is that you support group selection theory, but it would help if you clarify this.
> Demanding that I intellectualize it any further is like demanding I justify my desire to not personally be murdered.
I'm not trying to agitate you, but I am sorry that you're getting a bit emotional about this. Nevertheless, I believe it's impractical to strictly value one's "continental ancestry group". Generally speaking, it's more rational and adaptive to just value whoever is useful to you. From personal experience, I've found that that doesn't always align with racial boundaries.
Speciation is completely possible in the presence of gene flow, all that's required is that two populations be different enough on average that the differences start to be taken into account when new alleles "decide" if they're deleterious or not. Incompatibilities which make hybridization biologically impossible are also able to collapse again after they've initially formed.
There kinda are actually, the barriers aren't perfectly continuous and they align nicely with geographic barriers. More-minor subgroups of subgroups will obviously have progressively-softer barriers, but when comparing africans to caucasians for example, instantaneously 'crossing' the sahara is worth roughly half the earth's circumference in terms of within-group geographic distance.
>"Life exists because life reproduces"
Species undergo things like suicidal runaway sexual selection all the time, that doesn't mean that we should want to surrender to it just because it's natural. The point of brains is to overpower your immediate instincts in order to further a more sophisticated concept of survival, is it not?
>group selection
Extinction from runaway sexual selection is sufficiently-infrequent that there's probably no group selection instinct to prevent it, but it still seems like a betrayal to take the brain you've been gifted and not use it to pursue a higher concept of survival.
>"Would you consider me part of your racial group?"
Not that I have anything against you personally or that we couldn't get along, but I do not.
Not a response to any specific point you brought up here, but if applied to any other species, environmental conservationists would try to prevent admixture from collapsing the boundaries on the basis of preserving diversity. Being a member of the species in question seems like it should give you a *greater* interest in preservation rather than a lesser one. If I could press a button that allows all of humanity's diversity to survive, I'd like to, but by a sort of prisoner's dilemma logic, the natural size of empire expands as humanity advances technologically, and so I'd call myself a "prescriptive" white supremacist as opposed to a "descriptive white supremacist" who actually believes whites are the most intelligent/valuable race or whatever
> There kinda are actually, the barriers aren't perfectly continuous and they align nicely with geographic barriers. More-minor subgroups of subgroups will obviously have progressively-softer barriers, but when comparing Africans to Caucasians for example, instantaneously 'crossing' the Sahara is worth roughly half the earth's circumference in terms of within-group geographic distance.
You're right. No one disputes that there are stark differences between the humans on the different sides of the Sahara Desert. On the other hand, the "boundary" between Europeans and West Asians is less clear.
> Species undergo things like suicidal runaway sexual selection all the time
> The point of brains is to overpower your immediate instincts in order to further a more sophisticated concept of survival,
What I was trying to get at is that life wouldn't exist if it doesn't reproduce. Reproduction is thus central to life. On the other hand, ethnocentrism isn't necessary to sustain existence. People who procreate with other races can still have successful offspring.
I agree that we should use our brains to enforce eugenics on humanity, but the eugenics that I proposed would be enforced via reproduction licenses. I don't think anything good will result from controlling who people can procreate with, if both persons meet the licensing requirements. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#why-laissez-faire-is-best
> Not that I have anything against you personally or that we couldn't get along, but I do not.
That's fair. There's no right answer to that question, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
>This doesn’t only imply extreme malleability, it also goes against the usual pattern for other traits where heritability increases as kids reach puberty (typically happening at 14-15 years of age for boys, and 13-14 years of age for girls).
The age and informedness correlations are both expected under a memetic acquisition model where people sample a finite but large meme pool through their lives at a rate that increases with their IQ. True memetic variance comes from sampling bias and standard error, bias comes from adoptive parents and fades out with age, standard error comes down with sample size.
But short of such a regime we will never shut up competing sources so such results and malleability cannot be expected.
And for intelligent adults (ruling class) the 60 % heritability figure should be roughly correct because of these two correlations with c^2 (IQ and age).
NOTE: It isn’t entirely clear that it’s fair to describe low internal consistency as being a problem of “measurement error” to be attributed exclusively to non-shared environment. It could just as easily be the result of non-error specificity, which is perfectly liable to have non-zero heritability. Thanks to @tailcalled on twitter pointing this out to me.
Crem is female btw https://youtu.be/pmlpggdmeE8?si=RU_-zmEmpffjbeZA
Eugenics is much, much more important than ethnocentrism. If a society has a mandatory eugenics policy in place (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#what-is-eugenics), then there's no reason to pursue ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism won't solve anything that can't be solved by eugenics.
There is an undo button for dysgenics. There is no undo button for extinction. Ethnocentrism is INFINITELY more important.
No, ethnocentrism is not "infinitely more important". First off, you need to define what's "important". That implies a set of values: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/05/what-is-value.html
You haven't realized it, but most people don't care whether their race disappears or not. Many people don't have children, and many people race-mix, including your ancestors: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#race-mixing. Would you say that WHG, EEF, and PIE people went "extinct" when they race-mixed with each other? Neither of us would be alive right now if that never happened btw.
In terms of biological value, what actually matters is reproduction. I will suggest that you read Section 8 of the Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#collectivism. People don't throw away their bloodlines when they race-mix. They only throw away their bloodlines when they choose to not reproduce at all.
If you'd like to talk about this in voice, just let me know. My Discord username is: zerocontradictions
>"Most people don't care whether their race disappears or not"
Who gives a fuck? Most people are slaves and are beneath contempt.
>"People don't throw away their bloodlines when they race-mix. They only throw away their bloodlines when they choose to not reproduce at all."
Your children share half your genes while you grandchildren share 25%, and so on until your furthest ancestors have an exceedingly-minimal contribution. By contrast, racial survival is precisely as permanent as you allow it to be.
It's not at all the norm for people to be indifferent to their collective survival btw. Things are only the way they are because the communists won WW2.
>"First off, you need to define what's "important". That implies a set of values"
I value the survival of my fucking continental ancestry group. There you go. That's what's "important" as defined by me, it's as simple as that. Demanding that I intellectualize it any further is like demanding I justify my desire to not personally be murdered: This is cardinal, fuck off. This topic has no business being up for debate in the first place.
>"You haven't realized it"
I am beyond aware of it.
>"Would you say that WHG, EEF, and PIE people went "extinct" when they race-mixed with each other?"
Absolutely, yes. Would YOU say that the differences between these groups approach anything close to the magnitude of the gap between whites and blacks/asians? Would you say the significance of their cultural heritage comes anywhere close to that of Europe's? I'm sure you're well aware of the archaeological evidence of how major cultural shifts tend to align with group replacements. The nouveau-riche future you envision for humanity has no business being realized. To the extent that it has any right to be born, it's a crime against humanity that out of all the peoples or the world that could have been murdered to create it, its crown should be the funeral wreath of Europe and of America's Anglo stock.
> I am beyond aware of it.
Okay, I take that back then.
> Would YOU say that the differences between these groups approach anything close to the magnitude of the gap between whites and blacks/asians?
No, I wouldn't. But I also think it's irrelevant. Both of us also have neanderthal ancestors who breed with homo sapiens, and yet we still exist. The genetic distance between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens was probably quite large, compared to modern racial groups.
> Would you say the significance of their cultural heritage comes anywhere close to that of Europe's?
"Significance" implies value judgments. Every value judgment is made from a perspective. The cultural heritage of Industrial Europe may seem more significant to many people today, but I'd also say that that's because people don't know much about the WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples to begin with, and thus don't know much about their historical or cultural influence. In a sense, you could argue that the WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples had greater cultural significance, depending on your value judgments.
> I'm sure you're well aware of the archaeological evidence of how major cultural shifts tend to align with group replacements.
Yes.
> nouveau-riche future
Hmm? I support meritocracy though, if that's what you meant. But I don't think it would necessarily entail social mobility. For the most part, I dislike the bottom 20% of society more than I dislike the upper 20%.
> crime against humanity
What are "crimes against humanity"?
The last sentence of you comment has a lot of rhetoric that's difficult to parse, but I will re-emphasize that I do not support the Great Replacement. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#great-replacement
> Who gives a fuck? Most people are slaves and are beneath contempt.
I agree with you that most people are idiots. Regardless, my point is that race-mixing is a natural phenomenon. Both of us and all of humanity had ancestors who race-mixed at some point in the past. If you positively value your existence, then you probably value the race-mixing that lead to you and your people's existence. So, it seems contradictory to unilaterally oppose all race-mixing.
> By contrast, racial survival is precisely as permanent as you allow it to be.
What is "racial survival" exactly? As we know, races don't have clear boundaries and gene flow can occur between races. So, who gets included in your preferred racial group? I'm white-passing, so most people would never realize that I'm half East Asian unless I told them. I'm also a white preservationist in the sense that I want to stop the Great Replacement and I'm okay with white ethnostates existing (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#great-replacement). Would you consider me part of your racial group?
And why should life aim to create "permanent" copies of itself? Life doesn't exist to do that. Life exists because life reproduces. That's the objective purpose of life. Regardless of whomever one procreates with, they are fulfilling their objective purpose if they raise successful offspring. To be clear, I support the phenocentric theory of evolution: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/11/debunking-selfish-gene.html.
My guess is that you support group selection theory, but it would help if you clarify this.
> Demanding that I intellectualize it any further is like demanding I justify my desire to not personally be murdered.
I'm not trying to agitate you, but I am sorry that you're getting a bit emotional about this. Nevertheless, I believe it's impractical to strictly value one's "continental ancestry group". Generally speaking, it's more rational and adaptive to just value whoever is useful to you. From personal experience, I've found that that doesn't always align with racial boundaries.
>gene flow
Speciation is completely possible in the presence of gene flow, all that's required is that two populations be different enough on average that the differences start to be taken into account when new alleles "decide" if they're deleterious or not. Incompatibilities which make hybridization biologically impossible are also able to collapse again after they've initially formed.
https://werkat.substack.com/p/miscegenation
>boundaries
There kinda are actually, the barriers aren't perfectly continuous and they align nicely with geographic barriers. More-minor subgroups of subgroups will obviously have progressively-softer barriers, but when comparing africans to caucasians for example, instantaneously 'crossing' the sahara is worth roughly half the earth's circumference in terms of within-group geographic distance.
>"Life exists because life reproduces"
Species undergo things like suicidal runaway sexual selection all the time, that doesn't mean that we should want to surrender to it just because it's natural. The point of brains is to overpower your immediate instincts in order to further a more sophisticated concept of survival, is it not?
>group selection
Extinction from runaway sexual selection is sufficiently-infrequent that there's probably no group selection instinct to prevent it, but it still seems like a betrayal to take the brain you've been gifted and not use it to pursue a higher concept of survival.
>"Would you consider me part of your racial group?"
Not that I have anything against you personally or that we couldn't get along, but I do not.
Not a response to any specific point you brought up here, but if applied to any other species, environmental conservationists would try to prevent admixture from collapsing the boundaries on the basis of preserving diversity. Being a member of the species in question seems like it should give you a *greater* interest in preservation rather than a lesser one. If I could press a button that allows all of humanity's diversity to survive, I'd like to, but by a sort of prisoner's dilemma logic, the natural size of empire expands as humanity advances technologically, and so I'd call myself a "prescriptive" white supremacist as opposed to a "descriptive white supremacist" who actually believes whites are the most intelligent/valuable race or whatever
> all that's required is that two populations be different enough
To say that two populations are "different enough" is often a value judgment, though it wouldn't be if you're speaking in terms of biological value. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/05/what-is-value.html
> when new alleles "decide" if they're deleterious or not.
You're right that race-mixing can lower fitness (and hence biological value), but it's also necessary to enable to introduce alleles that could potentially be adaptive. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#race-mixing-and-biology
> There kinda are actually, the barriers aren't perfectly continuous and they align nicely with geographic barriers. More-minor subgroups of subgroups will obviously have progressively-softer barriers, but when comparing Africans to Caucasians for example, instantaneously 'crossing' the Sahara is worth roughly half the earth's circumference in terms of within-group geographic distance.
You're right. No one disputes that there are stark differences between the humans on the different sides of the Sahara Desert. On the other hand, the "boundary" between Europeans and West Asians is less clear.
> Species undergo things like suicidal runaway sexual selection all the time
I actually don't believe that sexual selection is a valid concept. In the fourth comment down, Blithering Genius explains why sexual selection is based on fallacious reasoning. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2024/07/what-if-women-evolved-to-be-owned.html#comments
> The point of brains is to overpower your immediate instincts in order to further a more sophisticated concept of survival,
What I was trying to get at is that life wouldn't exist if it doesn't reproduce. Reproduction is thus central to life. On the other hand, ethnocentrism isn't necessary to sustain existence. People who procreate with other races can still have successful offspring.
I agree that we should use our brains to enforce eugenics on humanity, but the eugenics that I proposed would be enforced via reproduction licenses. I don't think anything good will result from controlling who people can procreate with, if both persons meet the licensing requirements. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#why-laissez-faire-is-best
> Not that I have anything against you personally or that we couldn't get along, but I do not.
That's fair. There's no right answer to that question, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
>This doesn’t only imply extreme malleability, it also goes against the usual pattern for other traits where heritability increases as kids reach puberty (typically happening at 14-15 years of age for boys, and 13-14 years of age for girls).
Interesting papers, another thing is that c^2 negatively correlates with your sample informedness (and thus IQ since informedness correlates with crystalized knowledge). https://www.josephbronski.com/p/why-biology-and-math-are-key-commenting
The age and informedness correlations are both expected under a memetic acquisition model where people sample a finite but large meme pool through their lives at a rate that increases with their IQ. True memetic variance comes from sampling bias and standard error, bias comes from adoptive parents and fades out with age, standard error comes down with sample size.
I have suggested true m^2 is 10-20% which suggests in a totalitarian regime, an imposed 3SD (wrt right now) information environment could shift the population mean by about 1 SD https://www.josephbronski.com/p/can-the-right-become-the-elite
But short of such a regime we will never shut up competing sources so such results and malleability cannot be expected.
And for intelligent adults (ruling class) the 60 % heritability figure should be roughly correct because of these two correlations with c^2 (IQ and age).
Atheism is heritable ?