One difference between identity based on genetic distinctions and identity based on culture, is that people can adopt a better culture or change their own culture, while genetics is pretty fixed. If I argued that Europe and the US was successful because of the WEIRD cultural toolkit, other people can adopt that cultural toolkit, or aspects of it. While if I argue that Europe and the US succeeded because of White Genetics, they're pretty much screwed.
Most people think culture is easier to change than genetics. To be sure, culture can change faster than genes. But that malleability doesn’t necessarily imply that people can adopt a better culture (easily or with any agency at all). For one, culture involves getting many people on the same page. It’s a collective action problem. If one person tries to adopt a new culture, the rewards are small and the he’s the odd one out. Two, people find their way into their culture for a reason. If you conceive of culture as scripts, some people will enjoy or be better at some, relative to others and other people. With genes, we don’t change genes but we do change their effects, all the time. Nearsightedness is heritable, and probably has some genetic component, but we don’t say “oh no, genes.” We just get glasses.
Patrick I pretty much agree with that whole comment. Changing culture can be really hard, and it’s not something that can just be commanded. If you read our possible Vice President’s memoir, written when he was more interesting than he is now, you definitely saw aspects of an oppositional culture developing among working class whites. I don’t know how to fight that, and I sure don’t know how to get government to fight it.
You used the analogy of glasses for nearsightedness. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But glasses are a relatively cheap and well-understood technology. Not all interventions are so easy or cheap or certain or even comfortable. For example, suppose we find out that certain genes are linked to violent crime. Maybe flogging those individuals brutally would reduce crime by providing better incentives. Can we stomach that?
We already have the technology. We just have to take the right tail on crime that causes most of the harm and either lock them forever or execute them, whichever one we can stomach. If we can’t stomach either, then our culture is maladaptive and deserves what it gets.
Most Africans are less diverse than out of Africa implies because of the Bantu expansion. Yes, pygmies and Xhosa exist. But when the Bantu took over, they flattened the prior diversity in subsaharan Africa.
One difference between identity based on genetic distinctions and identity based on culture, is that people can adopt a better culture or change their own culture, while genetics is pretty fixed. If I argued that Europe and the US was successful because of the WEIRD cultural toolkit, other people can adopt that cultural toolkit, or aspects of it. While if I argue that Europe and the US succeeded because of White Genetics, they're pretty much screwed.
Most people think culture is easier to change than genetics. To be sure, culture can change faster than genes. But that malleability doesn’t necessarily imply that people can adopt a better culture (easily or with any agency at all). For one, culture involves getting many people on the same page. It’s a collective action problem. If one person tries to adopt a new culture, the rewards are small and the he’s the odd one out. Two, people find their way into their culture for a reason. If you conceive of culture as scripts, some people will enjoy or be better at some, relative to others and other people. With genes, we don’t change genes but we do change their effects, all the time. Nearsightedness is heritable, and probably has some genetic component, but we don’t say “oh no, genes.” We just get glasses.
This seems exactly right !
Patrick I pretty much agree with that whole comment. Changing culture can be really hard, and it’s not something that can just be commanded. If you read our possible Vice President’s memoir, written when he was more interesting than he is now, you definitely saw aspects of an oppositional culture developing among working class whites. I don’t know how to fight that, and I sure don’t know how to get government to fight it.
You used the analogy of glasses for nearsightedness. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But glasses are a relatively cheap and well-understood technology. Not all interventions are so easy or cheap or certain or even comfortable. For example, suppose we find out that certain genes are linked to violent crime. Maybe flogging those individuals brutally would reduce crime by providing better incentives. Can we stomach that?
We already have the technology. We just have to take the right tail on crime that causes most of the harm and either lock them forever or execute them, whichever one we can stomach. If we can’t stomach either, then our culture is maladaptive and deserves what it gets.
Most Africans are less diverse than out of Africa implies because of the Bantu expansion. Yes, pygmies and Xhosa exist. But when the Bantu took over, they flattened the prior diversity in subsaharan Africa.
Can you send me sources on this ? Interesting..