Human populations living during the Holocene underwent considerable microevolutionary change. It has been theorized that the transition of Holocene populations into agrarianism and urbanization brought about culture-gene co-evolution that favored via directional selection genetic variants associated with higher general cognitive ability (GCA).
aka the people who didn’t eat their seed crop lived to tell about it
To examine whether GCA might have risen during the Holocene, we compare a sample of 99 ancient Eurasian
genomes (ranging from 4.56 to 1.21 kyr BP) with a sample of 503 modern European genomes
told ya so
You wouldn’t need to keep distinguishing it if they were synonymous.
(Fst = 0.013), using three different cognitive polygenic scores (130 SNP, 9 SNP and 11 SNP). Significant differences favoring the modern genomes were found for all three polygenic scores (odds ratios = 0.92, p = 001; .81, p = 037; and .81, p = .02 respectively). These polygenic scores also outperformed the majority of scores assembled from random
evolution is directed to fitness, quelle surprise
SNPs generated via a Monte Carlo model (between 76.4% and 84.6%). Furthermore, an indication of increasing positive allele count over 3.25 kyr was found using a subsample of 66 ancient genomes (r = 0.22, pone-tailed = .04). These observations are consistent with the expectation that GCA rose during the Holocene.
“And a new study has begun the task of identifying which genes are most likely involved in ASPD, with significant success.”
Please start on borderlines and histrionics and narcissists. We can clear Parliament. We can do it.
Suck on your socialization hypothesis.
“This seems to be the first time researchers have made this leap with a personality disorder.
But just as interesting are the concerns the researchers express about how their research might be misused. “
Here we go. The guilt-trip.
The findings stand by themselves, it is a choice how we use them.
…In the past, claims about specific genes and violence have been — in the researchers’ words — “misused” by prosecutors as evidence that defendants are violent. And as more studies like this one link specific genes to the potential for violence, that danger only grows.
It revokes neither legal agency (you chose to act on it) nor commits crime (the act) on its own grounds (that would be like arresting redheads). Being born isn’t a crime, they’re being misleading.
This is about racial profiling, among others. Prediction is the trigger word. They can’t say it shouldn’t be studied but they want to.
Some people have the brain structure of psychopaths – they are not psychopaths.
Some people have a blue-eye allele – they do not have blue eyes.
This is simply a filter for early on in the process that might save lives, like estimating their height from a footprint.
Also, the amused expression on this woman typifies the K-type reaction to violence.
Instead, genetics. This jives with other findings.
Political Party Identification? Genetic.
I sense a pattern here.
You know what is real?
Propaganda and peer influence. This includes teachers. Let that sink in.
Learning cultural lessons is important (how to speak, hold cutlery), but it won’t change who you are. You can undo false beliefs but not false behaviours, and the high criminal recidivism proves this. Rehab proves this. Our soft treatment of bad behaviour has produced – more bad behaviour. The brain is a learning machine but there is only one way it can unlearn a bad lesson – pain.
As we say, dating back centuries, BadBlood Will Out.
Want quantifiables? Your family affluence stabilizes over the generations.
White Governments want to parent new arrivals into acting like First World citizens. Magic Dirt is the 21st century Appeal to Magic Beans.
Avoid the Sociologist’s Fallacy, folks. You can’t replicate it because bullshit is unique.
Within a ‘narrow’ normal band of keeping the child physically/mentally healthy, and relatively happy, parenting doesn’t matter. He dirt child, you dirt parent. He Evil Jr., You Evil Sr.
The academic focus on parenting style was intended to damage the nuclear family via the Patriarch. It lectured like a Sunday Pastor about the evils of being authoritarian, and called it the Authoritarian Personality. You know, like not wanting your child to spend time around thugs or stay out late vulnerable to rape, which counts under the peer influence proven to be a decisive factor in their life. That was called terrible parenting because r-types don’t want the Ks to compete against their own rugrats by investing in their own future K-spawn? The sole response is to shame them for it.
Once a cheat, always a cheat = If someone makes that choice once, they’ll make it again.
Behavioural genetics is confirming what the traditionalists already knew.
As for the neurochemistry of vasopressin, low levels of any count as pathological (see depression, OCD etc).
If the K-types wanted a surer mating game in future, a simple genetics test to distinguish the short allele (K-selected, monogamous) types from the deceptive hedons with a long-form allele (r-selected, high infidelity risk) would cut the latter off at the heels. It isn’t an excuse, but again, if they make that choice once, they’re tainted and should be divorced.
Imagine short-listing the prospects for your daughter’s hand, and your grandchildren’s genetics, based on this, oh the wonders of technology! Simply cutting them out from social circles would be a genetic death. Why do you think slutty people congregate in urban areas, where nobody knows them and they’d have to be dismal to build a reputation among their own? Why do you think we collect alcoholism, drug and sexual information as a bundle?
This isn’t just a marital issue, it covers social deception, this is just one sexual application of it i.e. K-selected males would be unwise to accept an r-male into their group, because he’ll screw you over metaphorically. And you shouldn’t leave him with a free house (some stay-at-home fathers) because he’ll invite over your wife too.
Most sperm are destroyed by white blood cells. However, here’s a horrifying fact about where it can escape;
“Once sperm cells reach the end of the oviducts they are free to swim out of the end of the tube and into the body cavity, where they are eventually destroyed. So many women walking around today will have sperm cells swimming around the interstitial fluid that surrounds their body organs. The female reproductive tract does not finish in a dead end.”
…These 136 genes weren’t specific to any single network, Greicius noted. Rather, ‘any one of these genes that was being expressed at a high, intermediate or low level in one region of any network, regardless of which network you’d picked, was also being expressed at corresponding levels in the other regions of that network,’ he said.
Importantly, a number of these genes encode proteins that aid in nerve cells’ signature activity: propagating electrical impulses. Some are ion channels, which maintain and modulate voltage differences across nerve cells’ outer membranes. Others are found at the junctions where one nerve cell in a circuit contacts another….
The identification of functional-connectivity-associated genes sets the stage for targeted clinical applications, such as finding out how neurodegeneration propagates within a network.
‘Our work holds potential implications for a number of neuropsychiatric disorders,’ said Richiardi….
Oh look, the Victorians were right again.
You can’t socialise it away.
Maybe you might consider bringing back the death penalty for violent offenders instead of giving them counselling.
This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.
Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.
He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.
Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..
Another point I need to make;
Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.
Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that. When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’. When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?
Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.
Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind ofenvironment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.
Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.
European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group
The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.
When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.
The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)
If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.
Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).
There is no veneer specifically made for humans.
Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.
The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.
The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.
Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.
They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.
Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret