Are individualistic societies less equal?

Are Individualistic Societies Less Equal? Evidence from the Parasite Stress Theory of Values

THE HORROR.

[This is how you don’t do a study on cultural differences.]

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/78557/1/gini_pathogens-1.pdf

It is widely believed that individualistic societies, which emphasize personal freedom, award social
status for accomplishment, and favor minimal government intervention, are more prone to higher
levels of income inequality compared to more collectivist societies, which value conformity, loyalty, and tradition and favor more interventionist policies.

widely believed?

And tradition doesn’t mean, what you think it means i.e. nepotism, grandpa never retires.

The results in this paper, however, challenge this conventional view.

Great, nurture people.

Drawing on a rich literature in biology and evolutionary psychology, we test the provocative Parasite Stress Theory of Values,

aka wrong

because low fitness =

which suggests a possible link between the historical prevalence of infectious diseases, the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism and differences in income inequality across countries.

Specifically, in a two-stage least squares analysis, we use the historical prevalence of infectious diseases as an instrument for individualistic values, which, in the next stage, predict the level of income inequality, measured by the net GINI coefficient from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). Our findings suggest that societies with more individualistic values have significantly lower net income inequality.

Make your mind up.

White man bad or good.

The results are robust even after controlling for a number of confounding factors such as economic development, legal origins, religion, human capital, other cultural values, economic institutions, and geographical controls.

Legal origins…..

Oh, I brought screencap.

Shit, a diagram of people who wash their hands after.

Could this have something to do with infection? or…. IQ?

The Parasite Stress Theory of Values, which was first introduced by Thornhill and Fincher
(2014), proposes that regions with high levels of parasitic stress were more likely to naturally
select personality traits such as xenophobia, neophobia, ethnocentrism, and, more generally,
values that disregard the well-being of out-group members, including those at the lower
end of the economic ladder. Traits like xenophobia and neophobia, for instance, not only
reduce economic transactions between groups and across-regions, but reward conformity
and obedience toward traditional order and discourage novelty

???

Explain Brexit.

As a result, societies with high degree of pathogenic stress were more likely to develop cultural traits associated with collectivist values (Fincher et al., 2008) that view negatively ideas that can potentially threaten the established social norms.

Societies too thick to believe germ theory contaminate their water supply and get infected?

To this day?

See they wanna admit the collectivism but spin it.

From an evolutionary standpoint, these behavioral strategies were mechanisms to stop the spread of
infectious diseases

The required amount of immigrants is zero and mercantile transportation didn’t exist for millennia.

The Chinese seemed happy to swarm America as soon as it was legal.

Where did black death come from? Which continent?

Theoretically, then, the effect of individualistic values on income inequality is ambiguous.

More lies.

Since the individualism-collectivism component loads positively on values such as individual freedom, opportunity, achievement, advancement, recognition, and loads negatively on values such as harmony, cooperation, and relations with supervisors, Gorodnichenko and Roland (2012) note that, broadly defined, individualism emphasizes the values of personal freedom, affective autonomy, and achievement. In that sense, individualistic cultures award social status to personal achievements such as innovation, discoveries, or artistic achievements with high social status (Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2012).

How terrible. /s

A stylized empirical fact that emerged from a series of follow-up studies is that developed and industrialized nations are more likely to be associated with greater prevalence of individualism whereas less developed, traditional and agricultural societies are more likely to preserve collectivistic values (Hofstede et al., 1991).

“less developed” = low IQ

maybe the culture led to the economic prosperity and industry? big if true?

What is this a map of, children?

a) places people want to live

b) places white people live

c) cultures that aren’t shit-holes

d) cultures where capitalism is technically allowed

e) countries that won’t suffer comparatively in the next collapse

f) all of the above.

It’s F, for Fuck China, rates should’ve gone up decades ago.

You read the rest.

Autonomous (individualistic) cultures are ones where people are seen as autonomous and independent entities. In such cultures, people are encouraged to cultivate and express their own preferences, feelings, ideas, and abilities, and derive meaning from their own uniqueness. Embedded (collectivist) cultures, on the other hand, are ones where people find meaning by identifying with the group, participating in a shared way of life, and striving towards shared goals.

Where do you want to live?

In short, do you want to suppress, oppress and smother the smart, gifted people?

Average IQ by Race, Ethnicity, and Career . . . And Why It Matters

You can say Japan and China are smarter until you look at their pension plans.

I’ve posted about them.

Israel’s IQ is 95 on a good day.

Southeast Asians (Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Borneo)

87

about right, almost a whole deviation down

YOU have to live with this.

South Asians (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf states, the Near East, and Turkey)

84

Yes, let us fear them.

Eastern and Southeastern Europe is 95

Hispanics in America 89

I’m scared, are you?

Welfare, the important metric.

Why count Asia as two? Why all the lies? Why?

You count all Europeans?

Rich v. Poor America

The inequality thing isn’t wrong.

The causes attributed are.

Class is a major HBD factor.

TALK ABOUT IT.

For example, show me a rich Silicon Valley douchebag who didn’t have a rich parent. Who didn’t go to a good school and various special camps. Is it really merit and American spirit if they moved up just one class from the middle? Based on investments and decisions their parents made?

Video: White Pride (and the coming White Minority)

We’re already a minority globally, whatever finer data suggests. We are a minority.

We used to constitute about a third of the planet at the Turn of the Century and now we’re what… 10%-15%? Depending who you count. Going purely by memory. I think that counts as minority, globally. Otherwise, black people certainly aren’t because there are more black than white (8 children per woman has that effect). They take about a billion in Africa alone: http://www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-WPDS-infographic_MED.pdf

White people are literally a minority, get over it SJWs: http://www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-WPDS-infographic_MED.pdf

White people are literally a minority, get over it SJWs: http://www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-WPDS-infographic_MED.pdf

1900: 1.6 billion people global. At least a quarter being European (and Europe being at least 99% white).
Certainly, nowadays Asians are the majority race, if you want to start on anyone (and they’re buying up Africans African resources). The thing about marching 2×2 and never running out of soldiers. Thankfully, they’re better imitators than innovators and lack the creative spirit to overcome us without sheer volume. Credit though, they can ace a test.

Suck it up.

Suck it up.

But hey, at least they'll be around to spit on our graves!

Note: we’re the only race to die off. But hey, at least they’ll be around to spit on our graves!

In 2013, Africans outnumbered Europeans 6:1, and we’re supposed to be paying them?
[4.3/.74]

If you want some Afrocentrism conspiracy theory to laugh at, this is why we needn’t fear their population boom, a levelling event is close at hand (Ebola was almost it): http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/what_white_people_are_hiding.htm

In conclusion, fuck foreign aid.

In conclusion, fuck foreign aid.

Redistributive socialism (rich progressive taxation) has failed

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/readers-comment-day-redistributive-socialism-proved-failure/

Wasn’t it Wilfred Pickles who described redistributive socialism in this way? – You collect in everyone’s money and divide it out equally. Then, when the reckless and the feckless have spent theirs, you collect it all in again and divide what’s left out equally. Then, when the reckless and feckless have again spent theirs, you do the same, over and over again.

Socialist ideology is based on the premise that everyone has equal talent and intelligence and that everyone is responsible and honest. As already said in the article, this has been proved to be unrealistic, time and time again. For a current day example, look at the present condition of Venezuela.

Idiocracy will make people uglier, too

Thought-provoking article. http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/08/22/beauty-bubble/

The result of this confluence of factors is simple:  The current amount of beauty is a bubble, it will pop, and the world will get uglier.  There are cynics who would say that with our government subsidized high carbohydrate diets and sluts with short hairdos and tattoos aplenty, the peak of our beauty bubble is already in our rearview mirror.  They may have a point.

Facts: beauty is rare (minority) and proportionately esteemed, beauty is based in fertility cues and lead to objectively better outcomes on all good measures, European fertility is infamously sub-replacement thanks to feminism. We acquired the term “good-looking” from the association between handsomeness and civilized behaviour.

As earlier;

But not so fast.  Blue-eyed blondes with heart shaped asses are not an infinite largesse bestowed upon us by a higher power.  We are all of woman borne, and if you understand heredity you understand that beautiful girls must, on average, have mothers that were also beautiful.  That is to say, to keep this current beauty spigot flowing the world needs beautiful women to have daughters.

Nature is self-correcting. The slappers, as we call them here, likely gained those looks by genetic randomness their improper behaviour doesn’t support, since the most beautiful women tend to be least promiscuous, as they can demand commitment from men and need not lure them in with sex as an easy bait. However, they are smart enough to use this value to lock down a good man while in low notch numbers. Sluts hate them for this, they get the big prize, so the sluts try to argue their experiences of being used up like a sex toy were positive.

I know it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen most sluts are 4-6, tops. I am being kind with that estimate.

The article is correct, there will be far fewer beautiful people in the future, male and female. Good-looking men are cautious with contraception and are putting off conceiving too, perhaps indefinitely. There are no rewards for the old family model. On an infinite timeline? A recursion.

Thousands of winters of scarce, sparse prey and harsh terrain culled a significant percentage of men.

This would probably be a few recessions without welfare keeping the r-type brats in iPhones. More and more people, competing against fewer and fewer beautiful people (and notice the right-wing tends to be hotter than the left? no coincidence). The effect is threefold: 1. ugly women try to promote ugliness as a new standard. 2. most men go without and stay at home with porn. 3. beautiful people interbreed, creating an aristocracy, as they make more money, keeping child N small because they’re usually k-types. Or as point three is known now “growing income inequality”.

The ugly women went barren and beauty flourished.

Notice these strong, independent women aren’t going to sperm banks en masse? Seems men aren’t so replaceable. They can’t chase the Government if their welfare check stops. Children are a burden to them.

By decoupling sex and reproduction, it is selecting for those who really want kids.  Will beauty survive?  We’ll have to wait and see.

I believe it will, but it will take a long time to recover and lessons will be learnt e.g. feminism is for ugly women to drag down pretty ones, while faking the signs of the pretty and denying the very existence of pretty.

And what of designer babies? No one, and I mean, NO ONE, will choose ugly ones. We’ll soon find there’s a beauty standard to white, blue-eyed and physically fit. The Viking marauders chose to rape the best and stab the rest, what we see in modernity is the fruit of their eugenic process, and extremes of cold in Northern Europe are a great survival test for good genes.