Category Archives: Politics

Human migration and evolution

Posted on by

One point that Charles Murray makes effectively in Human Diversity is that human migration necessarily creates different genetic patterns.

If we start with a tribe of 200 people, and 100 of them break off and move to a new location, those 100 cannot possibly take with them a representative sample of the gene pool of the whole tribe. There are many possible genetic combinations, but by arithmetic the new tribe can only take 100 combinations with them.

Here are some thoughts I have about that;

1. An assumption that Murray makes, which I believe is accurate, is that there is not much re-mixing. The old tribe and the new tribe cross-breed very little, if at all. In prehistoric days, the physical separation made cross-breeding unlikely. Also mutual tribal suspicion.

2. My guess is that some human colonies survived, and some didn’t. The ones that survived preserved their genetic tendencies and cultural traits.

3. Surviving colonies tend to stay put. If the colony really thrives and its population increases, then it will send out more migrant colonies.

4. My guess is that when long-distance communication and transportation was primitive, failing colonies tended to just fail. As technology improved, failing colonies would be more inclined to migrate, because they have better knowledge of where life might be better.

5. Of all of the colonies that humans ever created, only a relatively few were successful. When your genome is used to speculate about your ancestry, it is linking you back to one or more of the successful colonies.

6. If only a small proportion of colonies were successful, then of all of the viable combinations of genes, only a few will be present. Evolution will not have selected with extreme rigor. Yes, some of the colonies failed because of weak genes. But others failed because of bad luck or bad culture. And not very many combinations of genes were tried.

7. I think that this picture reinforces my skepticism about polygenic scores ever being able to explain much of the observed variation in heritable traits. We will observe some combinations of genes with great frequency, making additional sampling from those populations redundant from a statistical perspective. My intuition continues to be that we are now or soon will be at the point of greatly diminishing returns to increased sample size.

8. It is not just prehistoric migration that follows the colony model. Consider David Hackett-Fisher’s Albion’s Seed. Consider the Bosnian community in St. Louis, the Hmong community in Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc.

9. The more that a migrating colony marries endogamously and brings strong cultural beliefs when it migrates to a larger society, the longer it can persist without without dissolving into that society. Consider Orthodox Jews.

10. What will emerge from the migration process is populations with differences in both genetic makeup and cultural practices. Most of these differences are random, as opposed to selective. This will make it difficult to pin down the extent to which differences in outcomes across populations have genetic causes.

Speculative thoughts on evolution

Posted on by

In a podcast, Eric Weinstein and Tom Bilyeu discuss a number of things, including evolution. I want to focus on that topic, which comes up sporadically, especially at minutes 11-15, 1:19, 1:24-1:31. A related issue is learning disability, which comes at minute 25, minute 57, minute 1:03, minute 1:17, and elsewhere.

My understanding of genetics and natural selection differs from Eric’s. Keep in mind that I never took a biology course, and most of any scientific discussion of alleles and so on goes right past me. So you should trust him more than you trust me.

I want to claim that evolution is like a statistician with insufficient data to determine whether a particular gene should be passed along or not. My slogan might be “Evolution selects for traits, and genes only code for proteins*” *or do other biochemical stuff.

Think of evolution as statistician. Call this EAS. EAS does not necessarily know which traits to keep. Take left-handedness, for example. Do we need to tell a just-so story in which left-handedness has survival value at a population level? Or can the genes for left-handedness have survived because they don’t have much impact on survival either way? Or is left-handedness an emergent property of gestation, not determined entirely by genetics? Maybe left-handedness is just a random variant that does not affect survival at either an individual or a group level.

EAS can figure out when single-gene mutations that are bad, and it can work on selecting those out. But a lot of traits are not single-gene based, and traits themselves are multidimensional. Suppose that we think in terms of an input-output matrix or a production function in which genes are inputs and traits are outputs. My sense is that the relationship between the inputs and the outputs is so complex that not only can we not figure out that relationship, but evolution cannot figure it out, either. So maybe there are some “bad” genetic combinations that get selected out, but there are plenty of genetic combinations that are far from optimal that do not get selected out.

Suppose that I have a combination of genes that is far from ideal for survival. But a lot of those genes overlap with genes that are ideal for survival, so evolution cannot be sure what to keep and what to discard. Furthermore, even though my combination of genes is “bad,” it is not so bad that I am unable to survive and reproduce. So “bad” combinations of genes can persist, and you cannot say that merely because a gene has persisted it must have some survival value. Same with traits.

So I am arguing against Eric’s inclination to see everyone as having good traits, and the rest of us should work to see the gifts that others have. I think instead that some people who just seem stupid or lazy are in fact stupid or lazy, due to a combination of the genes they inherited and the random adverse events that occurred during gestation. (One of my main takeaways from Kevin Mitchell’s Innate is that lots of bad things can happen during gestation.) EAS is not going to get rid of their traits or their genes. They are entitled to human dignity, but we should not set them up for failure by claiming that they really can perform great feats with the right encouragement.

Culture also affects selection. The person you want to mate with in an agricultural society may differ from the person you wanted to mate with in a hunter-gatherer tribe, so one can imagine culture changing the gene pool over time. In the last 20 minutes or so of the podcast, Eric argues that developments such as birth control and economic forces have affected sexual preferences. If so, then obviously this is a rapid cultural change, not a biological evolutionary one.

As an aside, I think that Eric and I share the trait of being disagreeable, and that it happened to work for us. He felt a strong need to prove himself to the educators who doubted him, and that was a powerful motivator for him. Similarly, when I was forty, I was tired of people saying that I was a visionary who could not implement anything, and that motivated me when I started my business. I decided that in order to succeed I needed to network, and I did more of that than I have ever done before or since. That helped make me lucky.

But being disagreeable and wanting to prove yourself to people who doubt you is hardly a guarantee of success. If it were, then the struggling students that Eric wants to champion might do better if their teachers are doubtful rather than supportive.

Eric’s view reminds me of that of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Law of Compensation.

Every excess causes a defect; every defect an excess. Every sweet hath its sour; every evil its good. Every faculty which is a receiver of pleasure has an equal penalty put on its abuse. It is to answer for its moderation with its life. For every grain of wit there is a grain of folly. For every thing you have missed, you have gained something else

I do not think that the genetic/gestation lottery is as fair as that. Some defects are just defects. And some excesses are just advantages.

A religion that persecutes non-believers

Posted on by

John Cochrane writes

I’m interested here in the politicization of our institutions. It is interesting that not everyone is on board this project, even in the UC system. There are still Jerry Coynes and Abigail Thompsons at major universities. Much of the project is to force political conformity and silence their dissent within the institution.

I recommend the whole post, which covers the controversy over the requirement of the UC system for faculty to submit “diversity statements.”

One more excerpt:

The game is no longer to advance candidates who are themselves “diverse.” The game is to stock the faculty with people of a certified ideological stripe, who are committed to advancing this cause. Tom Sowell need not apply. In case the litmus test is not perfectly clear:

Sowell, of course, is a distinguished economic conservative who happens to be black.

If you don’t say the right things in your diversity statement, you can be denied a promotion, a raise, or even a job. I think it is fair to say that this is a religion that persecutes non-believers.

How is this going to play out? For 250 years, Americans resisted religious persecution. It seems to me that either universities have to change, or America has to change. Which will it be?

Martin Gurri (and Garett Jones) watch

Posted on by

Theodore Dalrymple writes,

I do not, however, think that so large a proportion of the French public supports the strikers because it is unaware of the underlying realities of the situation. I think they support the strikers because of a general dissatisfaction with life, when anything that discomfits those in authority is welcomed, even if it is even more inconvenient for themselves.

The elite view, which Dalrymple shares, is that French pensions are filled with special-interest provisions that impose inordinate cost to the general public, and reform is clearly needed. But the general public is so anxious to express dissatisfaction with elites that it is supporting the status quo.

Garett Jones’ forthcoming book is 10% Less Democracy: Why You Should Trust Elites a Little More and the Masses a Little Less.

Class war theory

Posted on by

Michael Lind writes,

In the interest of inter-class peace and creedal coexistence, both labor markets and cultural institutions require a degree of regulation. Collective bargaining to set basic wages and workplace rights can take forms other than the failed American system of enterprise bargaining. There could be, for example, bargaining among representatives of all firms and employees in particular industries, occupation-specific wage boards or labor representation on corporate boards. As for the media and education, institutionalized consultation with religious institutions and other organizations represented on government oversight commissions could be part of a new Fairness Doctrine like the one that governed TV and radio in the 20th-century U.S.

It seemed to me that the essay could have been shorter, but it is an excerpt from a book. Hard to imagine.

I think that a more plausible path for social equilibrium is for the status of college education to fall sharply. We would be better off with a new set of prestige hierarchies.

The vice-presidential nomination

Posted on by

Looking back over the last 60 years or so I think that

1. It goes at least 90 percent of the time to a long-time Washington insider relatively acceptable to the opposing party.

2. About 75 percent of the time the nominee subsequently runs for President.

3. When he runs, about 80 percent of the time he gets knocked out in the primaries or the general, typically losing to a relative outsider.

Interesting to compare a process where the public is not involved with the Presidential nomination process, where the public is involved.

What is the future of journalism?

Posted on by

One element of Martin Gurri’s Revolt of the Public is the collapse of trust in journalism as practiced by newspapers and mass media. There are various diagnoses of this.

1. Gurri himself would say that the Internet has made the knowledge distribution more egalitarian. People are not as dependent on the media for knowledge, so that professional journalists cannot just stand on their authority.

2. Someone on the left would say that the problem is that bad actors have appeared on the scene: Fox News, the Internet’s right-wingers, etc. We could get back to the golden age if we could just get rid of censor these evil, “post-truth” outlets.

3. Eric Weinstein would say that we are living through a time in which our “sense-making apparatus” (one of his favorite terms) is up for grabs. He would say that he always was suspicious that the New York Times was feeding us a narrative and covering up stuff. Of course, since he is on the left, what he complains about mainstream media covering up is not what someone on the right would complain that mainstream media is covering up.

4. Yuval Levin (his book will finally be out shortly) would say that the institution of journalism no longer functions well. The institution of journalism ought to form journalists by giving them a sense of obligation to report truthfully and objectively. Instead, journalists see their organizations as platforms from which to pursue their individual careers, primarily by enhancing their personal “brands.” This leads them to take sides and play the outrage-stoking game.

5. Many of us point to the incentives of advertising-obsessed media to amplify those who stoke outrage and stifle those who are moderate and/or reasonable.

My thoughts are these:

I don’t think we are going back to the Age of the Single Narrative, when the left-wing media were more centrist and the right-wing media did not exist. Nor is that necessarily the age we would want to go back to if we could.

I think that mainstream media outlets like the Times are behaving in a manner that is nearly suicidal. On the one hand, they are taking up the silliest causes of the campus left. On the other hand, they are insisting that they should be taken seriously. They seem to think that any day now, the country will come to its senses and accept their narrative as definitive. I think that they will be lucky to retain as much of a following as they currently have.

It could be that a new sense-making apparatus will emerge. This will produce a new set of observers and analysts to replace traditional media. This will be highly decentralized.

Some people will specialize on gathering observations. Think of the people who have written books on the Opioid Crisis. Some have looked at the characteristics of users. Some have looked at the actions of pharmaceutical companies. Some have looked into the illegal Opioid production and distribution system.

Some people will specialize in analysis. Think of someone like Scott Alexander.

Some people will specialize in calling attention to good ideas and debunking bad ones. Think of someone like Tyler Cowen.

The question is whether this decentralized process will lead to consensus or fracturing. I am guessing a bit of both. That is, I think that weird opinion niches will thrive. But in a best-case scenario we will reach a point where some narratives are widely accepted. Even more ideally, where narratives are contested, most people will be familiar with the best arguments on each side, and not be rigidly committed to their preferred narrative.

Prestige hierarchy and dominance hierarchy

Posted on by

Humans have two types of hierarchies–prestige hierarchies and dominance hierarchies. I admit that there are some cases where a hierarchy is not clearly one or the other, but bear with me.

A prestige hierarchy is positive sum. Those at the bottom of, say, the chef hierarchy or the guitarist hierarchy, can learn from those higher up. We get better at doing things by copying what prestigious people do. When we need help, it is useful to have an idea who the real experts are.

A dominance hierarchy is negative sum. The more resources I obtain at gunpoint, the less for you. And the fight to get to the top wastes resources.

The business world has elements of both. Your boss may have prestige but also has the ability to threaten you.

Marxists see capitalism as a dominance hierarchy. Non-Marxists see capitalism differently. A mesh of prestige hierarchies? Or a competition that is not interpretable in terms of hierarchy?

In our Martin Gurri world, some important prestige hierarchies are under stress. Elites don’t enjoy the prestige they once had.

Elites who lose prestige tend to resort to dominance. China in Hong Kong. Journalists who want Internet censorship. But making dominance moves is no way to recover prestige. It does the opposite.

Cancel culture uses dominance moves. From a prestige perspective, it is a poor tactic. As Peggy Noonan wrote,

The past decade saw the rise of the woke progressives who dictate what words can be said and ideas held, thus poisoning and paralyzing American humor, drama, entertainment, culture and journalism. In the coming 10 years someone will effectively stand up to them. They are the most hated people in America

Assuming that our erstwhile elites are not going to recover their prestige, where are we headed? Will a new stable prestige hierarchy emerge? Or will we have to settle for either chaos or a dominance hierarchy?

The UK political extinction event

Posted on by

William Galston writes
(Link fixed),

Prime Minister Boris Johnson campaigned as the second coming not of Margaret Thatcher but of Benjamin Disraeli. His pledge of “one-nation Conservatism” means his government will lavish funds on long-neglected parts of central and northern England and on the National Health Service, which he terms a “beautiful idea that represents the best of our country.” In the short term, that means larger deficits; in the longer term, higher taxes. Proponents of limited government—a dwindling band—will be licking their wounds for years.

Note the last sentence in particular. Recently, when I have talked about The Three Languages of Politics, I have just talked about the Progressive oppressor-oppressed axis and the Conservative civilization-barbarism axis. I don’t mention libertarians.

I joke about 2016 being an “extinction event” that wiped out libertarians. Also fiscal conservatives and sane Democrats (like Galston). Libertarianism survives as a scapegoat–it turns out that we have been running the world all along, although we didn’t realize it. We caused the financial crisis, the opioid crisis, etc.