In your best estimation, what percentage of social science professors at elite American universities hold the view that the very concept of evolutionary behavioral biology is invalid?
Many human interventions done with positive intent have had unforeseen/unfortunate consequences i.e the pill leading to an expectation that women will behave sexually like men due to the reduced risks associated with this (pregnancy), while also fundamentally increasing the burden on women as they are now expected to go to work and raise children, in turn leading to paying for others to raise their children etc etc.
What societal interventions are you seeing play out currently that could lead to similar 2nd or 3rd order consequences? I suspect net zero is starting to prove to be an example of this.
The process of animal domestication involves selection based on a range of criteria but in almost all cases one of those characteristics is selection for diminished aggression.
When selecting for diminished aggression the evidence seems to indicate the offspring tend towards more gracile and neotonous facial features and greater variability of hair coloring.
In comparing the level of aggression between typical human and chimp behavior, humans are clearly much less aggressive. This raises a question as to the extent human evolution has selected for characteristics resulting from the what might be described as self domestication.
Is it possible that different ecological environments may have encouraged or alternatively discouraged the self domestication of humans?
Could this shed some light on observed agregate differences between the races in characteristics such as facial gracility, hair color variation, IQ, academic achievement, criminality and levels of violence?
Hoping that's not enough to guarantee cancellation for life.
You should ask an AI about digit ratios. It's a predictor of athletic ability and natural biological aggressions, so it will increase the base rate per capita of at risk males. But any effect is dwarfed by the effects of fathers at a community and social level, who seem to have the ability to moderate young male peer groups. We have distinct African British populations in the UK who have high rates of fathers in the community 60-70%. Their rates of exclusion from school are no higher than for White British kids (versus a higher rate of up to x5 for other Black British groups with lower rates of fatherhood).
So there are genetic differences, but the main causative differences are Lamarckian- things we inherent from our parents other than our genes.
In the movie Gattaca, it suggests that environment and willpower can override genetic limits, as the main character proves through sheer determination. From a geneticist's perspective, how accurate is this "no gene for the human spirit" idea, and what role do polygenic traits play in outcomes like career success or resilience?
Drawing from the historical eugenics movement you reference in your writings, what safeguards—scientific, legal, or ethical—should we implement today to avoid "liberal eugenics" becoming normalized?
As humans we are fundamentally slaves to our genes and have in the past built societies and practices around preserving and passing on our genes. This explains religious texts and cultural myths having a function as literally false but metaphorically true to guide societal behaviour.
What do you make of the potentially self destructive modern cultural/religious practices I.e transgenderism or the Omnicause that disrupt or actively fight against our genes being passed forwards? What is this telling us about society or the people that engage in this?
What's your stance on Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve'? I read it, and I did not get the impression it was as racially motivated as pointed out by social science professors. At the same time, I read David Duke's autobiography, and he argues that because there are biological differences in IQ amongst subspecies of humans, this likely extrapolates to other areas, and therefore, separating races is the best thing to do. Naturally, this is an uncomfortable argument, but drawing the line between the reasonable and unreasonable aspects of race-IQ is hard. What's your take?
Also, given that IQ correlates with health, wealth, mental health, longevity, SES, and a wide variety of other factors, what's your stance on genetically engineering IQ?
Have you thought about how human evolutionary psychology and our current world wide social environment could be influencing human fertility. Just to inform the answer, I have seen data that indicates that women that have children are having an average of 2.5, but that the percentage of women going childless has been rising everywhere. Example Italy: from 3% to nearly 40% at age 45
Is there any evidence that our ways of thinking about politics and other social issues is linked to how much genetically we have of other homonid species - such as neanderthals - within us?
I've looked at the criticisms levelled at your work and believe they are unfair. GWAS have shown large differences between groups, even if the critics do have a fair point that continental grouping like Africa have huge variation, with some highly interesting Ancestor groups.
However, I have an alternative criticism of your work. I've been looking at racial epigenetics and diet. It's my contention that as populations spread out from Africa they experienced specific environmental and dietary adaptions which allowed them to optimise specific food sources that led to a benign side effect in terms of metabolic/nutrition which supports better cognitive development. These environmental factors were so profound they even altered skin and hair pigmentation.- another factor which has a bearing on childhood cognitive development through vitamin D. Other than immunological adaption there has been no stronger genetic selection factor in the past 100-150,000 years.
So here's my question: Between racial nutritional epigenetics, Lamarckian food culture and other Lamarckian elements like father absence, I've been able to eliminate all racial difference between Black and White IQs, other than 5 IQ points- what's your response to this claim?
My point would be that most of the differences between groups can be solved by prenatal childhood nutritional advice, supplementation and social changes.
I agree Mr Wade, that ideologies exploit in-group favouritism and out-group exclusion to foster national unity. Nations with ideologies that reinforce these traits often achieve greater internal stability, resilience to ext. threats and longer-term stability. However, there are challenges to such a position... can you please respond to the following?
(1) Reductivist: aren't national fates often shaped by geography, technology, resources, accidents, luck rather than ideologies or innate behaviours?
(2) Underestimates cultural plasticity: don't ideologies evolve independent of biology by override (eg. norms, educ., institutions) of evolved instincts, suggesting national fates are more malleable by cultural transfer mechanisms than psych traits?
(3) Deterministic: national fates framed through evolutionary psych can justify harmful ideologies as destiny discouraging agency for reform or overlooking moral/ethical dimensions as unnecessary?
Do you have any explanation for why the management of and the continued misinformation around COVID persisted for years. Across the global thousands of dollars were spent in building special areas that were never ever used (Harrogate in UK as one example) so what was the point? Why do you think scientists & governments colluded in trying to shield the real reasons for the outbreak and the management
How has the cultural norm of treating individuals as financial dependents of their parents until they are 26 impacted the relationships between the sexes?
What makes so many people today, seemingly, care more about strangers than of "their own"?
The grooming scandals in Britain being a good example of society looking the other way when young girls from ones own group are victims of predators from another group. Why aren't more people outraged?
Some people refer to themselves as "empaths", claiming they feel other peoples pain as their own. And quite often their empathy lie with groups quite far from their own lives. For instance people watching countless clips of Palestinian children having been blown up, and then calling others supporters of genocide and nazis if one dares to suggest Hamas is more responsible than the IDF. What makes people like this "tick"?
In your best estimation, what percentage of social science professors at elite American universities hold the view that the very concept of evolutionary behavioral biology is invalid?
Many human interventions done with positive intent have had unforeseen/unfortunate consequences i.e the pill leading to an expectation that women will behave sexually like men due to the reduced risks associated with this (pregnancy), while also fundamentally increasing the burden on women as they are now expected to go to work and raise children, in turn leading to paying for others to raise their children etc etc.
What societal interventions are you seeing play out currently that could lead to similar 2nd or 3rd order consequences? I suspect net zero is starting to prove to be an example of this.
The process of animal domestication involves selection based on a range of criteria but in almost all cases one of those characteristics is selection for diminished aggression.
When selecting for diminished aggression the evidence seems to indicate the offspring tend towards more gracile and neotonous facial features and greater variability of hair coloring.
In comparing the level of aggression between typical human and chimp behavior, humans are clearly much less aggressive. This raises a question as to the extent human evolution has selected for characteristics resulting from the what might be described as self domestication.
Is it possible that different ecological environments may have encouraged or alternatively discouraged the self domestication of humans?
Could this shed some light on observed agregate differences between the races in characteristics such as facial gracility, hair color variation, IQ, academic achievement, criminality and levels of violence?
Hoping that's not enough to guarantee cancellation for life.
You should ask an AI about digit ratios. It's a predictor of athletic ability and natural biological aggressions, so it will increase the base rate per capita of at risk males. But any effect is dwarfed by the effects of fathers at a community and social level, who seem to have the ability to moderate young male peer groups. We have distinct African British populations in the UK who have high rates of fathers in the community 60-70%. Their rates of exclusion from school are no higher than for White British kids (versus a higher rate of up to x5 for other Black British groups with lower rates of fatherhood).
So there are genetic differences, but the main causative differences are Lamarckian- things we inherent from our parents other than our genes.
In the movie Gattaca, it suggests that environment and willpower can override genetic limits, as the main character proves through sheer determination. From a geneticist's perspective, how accurate is this "no gene for the human spirit" idea, and what role do polygenic traits play in outcomes like career success or resilience?
Drawing from the historical eugenics movement you reference in your writings, what safeguards—scientific, legal, or ethical—should we implement today to avoid "liberal eugenics" becoming normalized?
As humans we are fundamentally slaves to our genes and have in the past built societies and practices around preserving and passing on our genes. This explains religious texts and cultural myths having a function as literally false but metaphorically true to guide societal behaviour.
What do you make of the potentially self destructive modern cultural/religious practices I.e transgenderism or the Omnicause that disrupt or actively fight against our genes being passed forwards? What is this telling us about society or the people that engage in this?
What's your stance on Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve'? I read it, and I did not get the impression it was as racially motivated as pointed out by social science professors. At the same time, I read David Duke's autobiography, and he argues that because there are biological differences in IQ amongst subspecies of humans, this likely extrapolates to other areas, and therefore, separating races is the best thing to do. Naturally, this is an uncomfortable argument, but drawing the line between the reasonable and unreasonable aspects of race-IQ is hard. What's your take?
Also, given that IQ correlates with health, wealth, mental health, longevity, SES, and a wide variety of other factors, what's your stance on genetically engineering IQ?
Have you thought about how human evolutionary psychology and our current world wide social environment could be influencing human fertility. Just to inform the answer, I have seen data that indicates that women that have children are having an average of 2.5, but that the percentage of women going childless has been rising everywhere. Example Italy: from 3% to nearly 40% at age 45
Is there any evidence that our ways of thinking about politics and other social issues is linked to how much genetically we have of other homonid species - such as neanderthals - within us?
I've looked at the criticisms levelled at your work and believe they are unfair. GWAS have shown large differences between groups, even if the critics do have a fair point that continental grouping like Africa have huge variation, with some highly interesting Ancestor groups.
However, I have an alternative criticism of your work. I've been looking at racial epigenetics and diet. It's my contention that as populations spread out from Africa they experienced specific environmental and dietary adaptions which allowed them to optimise specific food sources that led to a benign side effect in terms of metabolic/nutrition which supports better cognitive development. These environmental factors were so profound they even altered skin and hair pigmentation.- another factor which has a bearing on childhood cognitive development through vitamin D. Other than immunological adaption there has been no stronger genetic selection factor in the past 100-150,000 years.
So here's my question: Between racial nutritional epigenetics, Lamarckian food culture and other Lamarckian elements like father absence, I've been able to eliminate all racial difference between Black and White IQs, other than 5 IQ points- what's your response to this claim?
My point would be that most of the differences between groups can be solved by prenatal childhood nutritional advice, supplementation and social changes.
I grew up in multicultural Australia, when diversity actually meant unity.
Everyone had a different heritage to celebrate—and a shared commitment to common law democracy that bound us together.
We used to ask, “Where are you from?” because we were curious, not cruel.
Now we can’t.
Why not?
Celebrating our differences never divided us; pretending they don’t exist just might.
People sometimes say "we evolved from monkeys".
How do I explain the difference between monkeys and hominids to people?
I agree Mr Wade, that ideologies exploit in-group favouritism and out-group exclusion to foster national unity. Nations with ideologies that reinforce these traits often achieve greater internal stability, resilience to ext. threats and longer-term stability. However, there are challenges to such a position... can you please respond to the following?
(1) Reductivist: aren't national fates often shaped by geography, technology, resources, accidents, luck rather than ideologies or innate behaviours?
(2) Underestimates cultural plasticity: don't ideologies evolve independent of biology by override (eg. norms, educ., institutions) of evolved instincts, suggesting national fates are more malleable by cultural transfer mechanisms than psych traits?
(3) Deterministic: national fates framed through evolutionary psych can justify harmful ideologies as destiny discouraging agency for reform or overlooking moral/ethical dimensions as unnecessary?
Do you have any explanation for why the management of and the continued misinformation around COVID persisted for years. Across the global thousands of dollars were spent in building special areas that were never ever used (Harrogate in UK as one example) so what was the point? Why do you think scientists & governments colluded in trying to shield the real reasons for the outbreak and the management
How has the cultural norm of treating individuals as financial dependents of their parents until they are 26 impacted the relationships between the sexes?
What makes so many people today, seemingly, care more about strangers than of "their own"?
The grooming scandals in Britain being a good example of society looking the other way when young girls from ones own group are victims of predators from another group. Why aren't more people outraged?
Some people refer to themselves as "empaths", claiming they feel other peoples pain as their own. And quite often their empathy lie with groups quite far from their own lives. For instance people watching countless clips of Palestinian children having been blown up, and then calling others supporters of genocide and nazis if one dares to suggest Hamas is more responsible than the IDF. What makes people like this "tick"?
Are humans intrinsically greedy (I will take what you have) or is it just that today's society rewards greed too much?