one could go even further and speculate about the physics of wokeness; i.e. softened selection pressure due to more usable energy per capita (invisivble "energy slaves" birthed by fossil fuels) leads to a proliferation of genes which would otherwise get selected out in an energy-scarce environment (early agriculture/hunter-gatherer). one dollar is roughly a lien on 5 megajoules of energy services, so the richer a society is (wealth=energy), the more dysgenic selection dominates
This reminds me of something I used to think about when I was more into small government during the Obama administration. Society should minimize energy expenditure as given a certain amount of overall welfare. So a more "natural" configuration is better than a less "natural" one, e.g. no racial discrimination at Harvard vs. wasting energy on replacing whites with blacks. Even if the blacks get just as much utility as the whites, the reallocation was wasted energy, and therefore energy expenditure is not minimized at that level of general welfare. This is similar to just being against deadweight costs.
Not surprising Hanania didn't embrace the concept of mutational load. He wanted to sell a populist book to advance his career and the populace is not ready to entertain the notion of mutational load.
Perhaps Bronski is correct to say that we should all avoid the term 'culture' and start using less abstract terms. Analyses based on behaviour, personality, perception, preference, activity, occupation, lifestyle etc might better encourage audiences towards understanding what a phenotype is.
How does one’s mutational load connect to particular woke ideas? My assumption is that the average person who is allegedly predisposed to wokeness because of his genes doesn’t originate woke ideas himself but is influenced by more prominent wokels.
There is not evidence for this, mutational load correlates with woke ideas at all levels. The ideas are not very complicated or even really ideas, they're mostly verbalized sentiments.
Thanks for your reply. As most people--even when they are predisposed to wokeness--are not activists, isn’t it mainly a critical mass of true believers driving wokeness?
That makes sense. Based on my limited “sample” from interacting with Lefties, they always struck me as being overly sentimental about the poor and/or minorities along the lines of “There but for the grace of God, go I”, and I attributed this to their underlying psychology, i.e., if you are emotionally unstable, it’s easier to imagine being homeless, etc. However, there seem to be many exceptions in the sense that many Lefties have moved to the right relatively speaking.
one could go even further and speculate about the physics of wokeness; i.e. softened selection pressure due to more usable energy per capita (invisivble "energy slaves" birthed by fossil fuels) leads to a proliferation of genes which would otherwise get selected out in an energy-scarce environment (early agriculture/hunter-gatherer). one dollar is roughly a lien on 5 megajoules of energy services, so the richer a society is (wealth=energy), the more dysgenic selection dominates
This reminds me of something I used to think about when I was more into small government during the Obama administration. Society should minimize energy expenditure as given a certain amount of overall welfare. So a more "natural" configuration is better than a less "natural" one, e.g. no racial discrimination at Harvard vs. wasting energy on replacing whites with blacks. Even if the blacks get just as much utility as the whites, the reallocation was wasted energy, and therefore energy expenditure is not minimized at that level of general welfare. This is similar to just being against deadweight costs.
Not surprising Hanania didn't embrace the concept of mutational load. He wanted to sell a populist book to advance his career and the populace is not ready to entertain the notion of mutational load.
Perhaps Bronski is correct to say that we should all avoid the term 'culture' and start using less abstract terms. Analyses based on behaviour, personality, perception, preference, activity, occupation, lifestyle etc might better encourage audiences towards understanding what a phenotype is.
How does one’s mutational load connect to particular woke ideas? My assumption is that the average person who is allegedly predisposed to wokeness because of his genes doesn’t originate woke ideas himself but is influenced by more prominent wokels.
There is not evidence for this, mutational load correlates with woke ideas at all levels. The ideas are not very complicated or even really ideas, they're mostly verbalized sentiments.
Thanks for your reply. As most people--even when they are predisposed to wokeness--are not activists, isn’t it mainly a critical mass of true believers driving wokeness?
The high agency segment of the population is simply a sample of the overall population on the rest of temperament.
That makes sense. Based on my limited “sample” from interacting with Lefties, they always struck me as being overly sentimental about the poor and/or minorities along the lines of “There but for the grace of God, go I”, and I attributed this to their underlying psychology, i.e., if you are emotionally unstable, it’s easier to imagine being homeless, etc. However, there seem to be many exceptions in the sense that many Lefties have moved to the right relatively speaking.
> it is the behavior of the population at large that is changing, the State changing with it
Mutational Load AND the empowerment of women through modern technology
Abolish Civil Right laws! Also high-IQ article
Did you get a review copy?