Is Disney the biggest, whinniest fake liberal company out there?

[Speaker to Animals]

There's a feedback loop between human evolution and culture.

For example, China organized into the first nation state sometime in the 200s BC. In order to do this, they abolished a lot of hereditary titles and created a bureaucracy in which people were selected for roles based on merit. Merit was determined by one's ability to pass tests that were highly correlated to rote memory. They were interested in your ability to repeat the official explanation for why or how some event occurred, etc., rather than your personal theory or some new creative perspective on it. The ability to conform to the official and popular outlook combined with the a strong rote memory gave an individual a much higher chance of advancement within the bureaucracy. That higher advancement meant more access to resources, which in turn meant that one could support more children than the man who possessed inferior traits in those two departments. Over many generations, this meant that the population of Han with the alleles that best conferred those traits became the predominant population compared to those who did not possess them. This translates to a population with a higher IQ and the genetic adaptations that predispose them towards conformity and submission to authority. The more of those people you get, the more entrenched that kind of government and civilization becomes. This could be why (is why in my opinion) Chinese civilization is based around conformity and authority as compared to our civilization which based around high-trust. It's also why they have the highest average IQ on the planet, but don't innovate like we do.

A similar event happened in northern Europe during the high middle ages. Europe kept hitting the Malthusian trap, which caused population crashes, internecine conflict amongst the elites, and lots of turmoil about every two to three centuries. Because of the nature of medieval aristocracy, society strongly favored genetics that predisposed one towards future-planning and placing a stronger emphasis on the advancement of your offspring than your own advancement. Families that concerned themselves with the overall prosperity of their family name prospered whereas families whose members only cared about themselves were eventually overthrown by the more prosperous families. But each time they hit that Malthusian trap, the conflict between the aristocracy heated up, and a lot of people fell out of the aristocracy and down into merchant classes in the cities. They would then marry women who were not nearly as high status and those alleles would spread down into the merchant classes and on, over time, into the other segments of medieval society. Eventually that predisposition for future-planning became dominant since families who did this were better able to plan for and survive the Malthusian trap and therefore have more children who were more likely to survive. This is what gave rise to what would eventually become what we today call the middle class. This middle class is not just some economic bracket. It's the engine that drives our civilization which emerged in the medieval period. The middle class values, like putting your children before yourself and planning for the distant future, are not shared by many other people in the world.

Subtle genetic differences between populations result in drastic differences in the character of civilizations, but it's also true that culture plays a huge role in which alleles more often get selected for reproduction and which do not.

[Hwen Hoshino]

I wasn't arguing their penchant for potions and witch-doctors. I was responding to the absurd idea that there's something 'genetic' about Asians that makes them less empathetic, and more prone to poison babies (among other traits).

I have to concede the possibility that a sort of 'genetic filtering' has occurred in the population, as a result of anyone that would resist The State being cleared out of the gene pool for 2,000 years.

My point is that the trauma visited on Chinese culture is pretty unimaginable from a western perspective. The 1-child policy resulted in millions of female babies tossed into dumpsters and waterways. Imagine the effect of seeing that on a daily basis, and nobody around you reacting to it.
The Great Leap Forward - millions of friends, family, strangers all starving around you. Killing for food, cannibalism, and the loving state always there to execute any resistance.
The dynasties themselves - absolute rulers over every aspect of life for millennia, interspersed with total civilizational chaos, when one of them was overthrown.
The West appearing off the coast, bombarding the cities, demanding trade of opium. Drug addicts everywhere, theft, more suffering.

These things have effects upon a society - which are greatly magnified by both the number of people there, the utter incompetence and corruption of The State combined with Absolute Power, and the isolation from the rest of the world. Even now, they can barely access the internet, western media, or anything like a balanced view of the outside world.

That's a very powerful combination of factors that contributes to a total lack of regard for human life. Anything to survive and thrive is permissible. That's how you get poisoned baby food.

Doesn't Hong Kong still have/had a very similar mindset? Korea also?

I honestly don't know. Asian countries in general seem to favor absolute rulers though, which I imagine is a defensive response to danger. And they've had plenty of that.

Japan did not have danger for a very long time and still was authoritarian.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Doesn't Hong Kong still have/had a very similar mindset? Korea also?

I honestly don't know. Asian countries in general seem to favor absolute rulers though, which I imagine is a defensive response to danger. And they've had plenty of that.

Japan did not have danger for a very long time and still was authoritarian.

Not true at all. From the warring daimyos to the Korean invasions, to battling the Chinese, they've had no shortage of chaos and violence.

Also, don't forget that they get fucked up by cyclones, earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanos on a regular basis. That requires a central authority to respond to.

[heydaralon]

And the Assault on Golgo 13. John Carpenter's movie Precinct 13 was based on that battle. The Shoguns fought over who had the right to drive 20 miles under the speed limit with their hazard lights on.

[Hwen Hoshino]

I honestly don't know. Asian countries in general seem to favor absolute rulers though, which I imagine is a defensive response to danger. And they've had plenty of that.

Japan did not have danger for a very long time and still was authoritarian.

Not true at all. From the warring daimyos to the Korean invasions, to battling the Chinese, they've had no shortage of chaos and violence.

Also, don't forget that they get fucked up by cyclones, earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanos on a regular basis. That requires a central authority to respond to.

There was a long ass peace shortly after the Korean invasions started by them ended. What the fuck are you talking about, between that and Perry arriving things were chill.

[Hwen Hoshino]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -hit-rocks

[Hwen Hoshino]

https://www.blubrry.com/the_federalist_ ... edia-mobs/

[Hwen Hoshino]

The battle of Jemele Hill. Trump vs Disney. It was inevitable.

[GloryofGreece]

There's a feedback loop between human evolution and culture.

For example, China organized into the first nation state sometime in the 200s BC. In order to do this, they abolished a lot of hereditary titles and created a bureaucracy in which people were selected for roles based on merit. Merit was determined by one's ability to pass tests that were highly correlated to rote memory. They were interested in your ability to repeat the official explanation for why or how some event occurred, etc., rather than your personal theory or some new creative perspective on it. The ability to conform to the official and popular outlook combined with the a strong rote memory gave an individual a much higher chance of advancement within the bureaucracy. That higher advancement meant more access to resources, which in turn meant that one could support more children than the man who possessed inferior traits in those two departments. Over many generations, this meant that the population of Han with the alleles that best conferred those traits became the predominant population compared to those who did not possess them. This translates to a population with a higher IQ and the genetic adaptations that predispose them towards conformity and submission to authority. The more of those people you get, the more entrenched that kind of government and civilization becomes. This could be why (is why in my opinion) Chinese civilization is based around conformity and authority as compared to our civilization which based around high-trust. It's also why they have the highest average IQ on the planet, but don't innovate like we do.

A similar event happened in northern Europe during the high middle ages. Europe kept hitting the Malthusian trap, which caused population crashes, internecine conflict amongst the elites, and lots of turmoil about every two to three centuries. Because of the nature of medieval aristocracy, society strongly favored genetics that predisposed one towards future-planning and placing a stronger emphasis on the advancement of your offspring than your own advancement. Families that concerned themselves with the overall prosperity of their family name prospered whereas families whose members only cared about themselves were eventually overthrown by the more prosperous families. But each time they hit that Malthusian trap, the conflict between the aristocracy heated up, and a lot of people fell out of the aristocracy and down into merchant classes in the cities. They would then marry women who were not nearly as high status and those alleles would spread down into the merchant classes and on, over time, into the other segments of medieval society. Eventually that predisposition for future-planning became dominant since families who did this were better able to plan for and survive the Malthusian trap and therefore have more children who were more likely to survive. This is what gave rise to what would eventually become what we today call the middle class. This middle class is not just some economic bracket. It's the engine that drives our civilization which emerged in the medieval period. The middle class values, like putting your children before yourself and planning for the distant future, are not shared by many other people in the world.

Subtle genetic differences between populations result in drastic differences in the character of civilizations, but it's also true that culture plays a huge role in which alleles more often get selected for reproduction and which do not.

(Don't chop my head off, just asking questions )

Why don't think planning for the distant future is something all humans have, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc. helps guarantee the continuation of your offspring if nothing else?

Since China has been unified culturally and politically longer than most any peoples wouldn't be likely from that alone you'd have a stronger sense of national identity and more conformity or collective will etc.? It seems like once you have surplus of food (i.e. grain stores) you get centralized more authoritarian governments.

Its my intuition that Eastern and aboriginal cultures seem to have a worldview that is more cooperative/communal and see things more holistically and not as linear minded as the West. Do you see that similarity or anything like it between Eastern and Native American cultures?

[Speaker to Animals]

There's a feedback loop between human evolution and culture.

For example, China organized into the first nation state sometime in the 200s BC. In order to do this, they abolished a lot of hereditary titles and created a bureaucracy in which people were selected for roles based on merit. Merit was determined by one's ability to pass tests that were highly correlated to rote memory. They were interested in your ability to repeat the official explanation for why or how some event occurred, etc., rather than your personal theory or some new creative perspective on it. The ability to conform to the official and popular outlook combined with the a strong rote memory gave an individual a much higher chance of advancement within the bureaucracy. That higher advancement meant more access to resources, which in turn meant that one could support more children than the man who possessed inferior traits in those two departments. Over many generations, this meant that the population of Han with the alleles that best conferred those traits became the predominant population compared to those who did not possess them. This translates to a population with a higher IQ and the genetic adaptations that predispose them towards conformity and submission to authority. The more of those people you get, the more entrenched that kind of government and civilization becomes. This could be why (is why in my opinion) Chinese civilization is based around conformity and authority as compared to our civilization which based around high-trust. It's also why they have the highest average IQ on the planet, but don't innovate like we do.

A similar event happened in northern Europe during the high middle ages. Europe kept hitting the Malthusian trap, which caused population crashes, internecine conflict amongst the elites, and lots of turmoil about every two to three centuries. Because of the nature of medieval aristocracy, society strongly favored genetics that predisposed one towards future-planning and placing a stronger emphasis on the advancement of your offspring than your own advancement. Families that concerned themselves with the overall prosperity of their family name prospered whereas families whose members only cared about themselves were eventually overthrown by the more prosperous families. But each time they hit that Malthusian trap, the conflict between the aristocracy heated up, and a lot of people fell out of the aristocracy and down into merchant classes in the cities. They would then marry women who were not nearly as high status and those alleles would spread down into the merchant classes and on, over time, into the other segments of medieval society. Eventually that predisposition for future-planning became dominant since families who did this were better able to plan for and survive the Malthusian trap and therefore have more children who were more likely to survive. This is what gave rise to what would eventually become what we today call the middle class. This middle class is not just some economic bracket. It's the engine that drives our civilization which emerged in the medieval period. The middle class values, like putting your children before yourself and planning for the distant future, are not shared by many other people in the world.

Subtle genetic differences between populations result in drastic differences in the character of civilizations, but it's also true that culture plays a huge role in which alleles more often get selected for reproduction and which do not.

(Don't chop my head off, just asking questions )

Why don't think planning for the distant future is something all humans have, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc. helps guarantee the continuation of your offspring if nothing else?

Since China has been unified culturally and politically longer than most any peoples wouldn't be likely from that alone you'd have a stronger sense of national identity and more conformity or collective will etc.? It seems like once you have surplus of food (i.e. grain stores) you get centralized more authoritarian governments.

Its my intuition that Eastern and aboriginal cultures seem to have a worldview that is more cooperative/communal and see things more holistically and not as linear minded as the West. Do you see that similarity or anything like it between Eastern and Native American cultures?

(1) Future planning to the degree that you develop a robust middle class seems quite unique to European peoples. It's probable that we will see those genetic adaptations occur in Asia (Japan seems to be selecting for it). Most humans do *some* future planning, but the degree to which they are prone to it does seem to have a genetic component. Even amongst European peoples, it's the Northern Europeans, the originators of this iteration of western civilization, that you see true future planning, whereas souther Europeans are still living in the now frame. It's obviously not emergent from IQ, since southern Europeans are not particularly less intelligent than northern Europeans (actually more so in the case of Italians).

Also, consider that none of the things that made our civilization wildly successful compared to all others remain a secret. Every culture on this Earth has access to the knowledge and values that make it possible. Further, I think the vast majority of cultures would choose to be as successful as us without hesitation if they could, and most are trying. But there's more to it than just ideas in one's head. It has to do with evolutionary behavior.

It's taken since the 1600s for China to slowly incorporate western values of scientific investigation into their society. If it were just a matter of changing people's minds and IQ, then they'd be masters of the world right now.

(2) My point about the long span of time in which China has existed as a nation state is that you cannot really separate culture from genetics. The two things play off one another in a feedback loop. Culture results in some kinds of genetic predispositions to be rewarded whereas others are penalized. People who evolved for tens of thousands of years as warlike tribes, as happened in sub-Saharan Africa tend to be tribal in nature. They are more likely to engage in physical violence, criminality, etc. This is why Scots were as rowdy as they were until very recently (and even then.. still kind of a problem). They were tribal peoples up until very recently. It takes time for the genetics to change as adaptations to new cultural forms.

This isn't controversial either. I assume you have a decent grasp of natural selection. A change in culture is in fact a change in the environment. Changes in the environment change the selection criteria for genes affected by those changes. When the culture was tribal, men who were more likely to fight and engage in brutal behavior prospered. But when the culture became more civilized, men like that not only didn't prosper, but were imprisoned or executed. Those who are favored by such selection criteria are able to have more children than those who are not, which alters the genetic destiny of the people over the course of many generations.

China has been a merit-based bureaucracy for a very, very long time. They have been selecting for conformity, IQ, and extreme rote learning ability for literally thousands of years. It shouldn't be a surprise that they have a higher average IQ and are ultra-conformists.