Genetic culture (collectivism, individualism) paper

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/5/2-3/203/1664339

Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?

Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.

The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.

No.

People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.

I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.

Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.

They’ll catch up.

https://ambadylab.stanford.edu/pubs/2007Chiao.pdf

Cultural Neuroscience chapter

see page 3 or 239

“The neuroscience of culture versus race”

e.g.

Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)

Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.

Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).

Even the Creationists don’t question that.

So again, for the cheap seats:

no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.

And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.

Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.

Never gonna happen.

They’re not like a petri blank.

Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.

Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?

[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]

What women want

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6427708_The_Preferred_Traits_of_Mates_in_a_Cross-National_Study_of_Heterosexual_and_Homosexual_Men_and_Women_An_Examination_of_Biological_and_Cultural_Influences

BBC Internet survey participants (119,733 men and 98,462 women) chose from a list of 23 traits those they considered first, second, and third most important in a relationship partner. Across all participants, the traits ranked most important were: intelligence, humor, honesty, kindness, overall good looks, face attractiveness, values, communication skills, and dependability.

On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). Sexual orientation differences were smaller than sex differences in trait rankings, but some were meaningful; for example, heterosexual more than homosexual participants assigned importance to religion, fondness for children, and parenting abilities. Multidimensional scaling analyses showed that trait preference profiles clustered by participant sex, not by sexual orientation, and by sex more than by nationality. Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness. United Nations indices of gender equality correlated, across nations, with men’s and women’s rankings of character traits but not with their rankings of physical attractiveness. These results suggest that cultural factors had a relatively greater impact on men’s and women’s rankings of character traits, whereas biological factors had a relatively greater impact on men’s and women’s rankings of physical attractiveness.

Nah, those women must be lying, they want stupid angry bad boys. All 53 nations, liars.

Self-reliant people more satisfied in life

Shocker.

https://www.livescience.com/63094-conservative-meaning-of-life.html

Meaning is personal to each of us. However, a new study published June 15 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that some people might be better at finding that meaning than others — and the difference may come down to politics.

According to the study, which compiled survey results from more than 50,000 participants in 16 countries, people who identified as political conservatives were more likely to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives than liberals were.

Political conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, a finding that has been labeled the ‘happiness gap’ in media reporting,” a team of psychologists from the University of Southern California (USC) wrote in the new paper. “One conservative commentator even described it as ‘niftily self-reinforcing; it depresses liberals.'”

 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Historical r/K-like waves in the economy

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/approaching-winter-super-cycle-has-turned

Just don’t chart the migration habits of a certain group.

Reminds me of biohistory.

The do-gooders, by “feeding the world”, have killed everyone else.

The world cannot slave to feed Asia and Africa. It is impossible.

Atheist divorce risk discussion

Not a study, discusses a study of scientism.

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheists_divorce.htm

They stated in the press 21% risk, it was actually 37%.

Let’s start with the actual statistics. Was George Barna quoted correctly? We have tried to locate the original stats from the Barna site, and this is what we found:

Achtually. ~lisping~

You can understand why atheists and agnostics might have a high rate of divorce, since they are less likely to believe in concepts such as sin, absolute moral truth and judgment. Yet the survey found that the percentage of atheists and agnostics who have been married and divorced is 37% – (Emphasis mine) very similar to the numbers for the born again population.[3]

You go by if they’ve EVER been divorced, that’s how divorce risk works.

There isn’t a freebie.

“the percentage of atheists and agnostics

who have been married and divorced is 37% -“

I’d also like to see cause, including accusations of infidelity.

Are atheist spouses (no such thing logically) more likely to break their vows to a God they think is a joke?

A survey isn’t really a study, like poll data isn’t a vote, and as we can see, the number crunching sucks.

I’d also need to see the pair combinations and specific divorce risks:

atheist/Jew, atheist/Muslim, atheist/Christian, atheist/atheist.

If they’re a risk to themselves, that would be really damning, they can’t blame religion.

Marriage is religious so the fact they haven’t really studied this topic is indicative.

Barna did not include this enlightening fact in his research. Thus, if 21% of atheists divorce after marriage, and 45 % break up once or more before marriage, what we have is the astounding rate of about 66% of atheist couples experiencing “at least” one break up. If, however, the number is 37%, then we have a shocking figure of 82%. How is that for success in relationships?

82%

dissolving “committed unions”

What needs mentioning is the fact that many atheists do not cohabit as a prelude to marriage. They in fact see cohabitation as “equivalent” to any marriage relationship. Therefore, their cohabitation break ups are to be seen as the end of what was to be a committed relationship. These break ups were not included in the Barna research, thus giving an incomplete picture of the true state of relationships among atheist couples.

yep, should count

especially in America with the idiocy of “common law marriage”

so it legally counts

It should also be stressed that, unlike what atheist propagandists preach on the Internet, it is a well established fact that people who live common law before marriage have a greater, not lesser chance of divorce than couples who don’t live common law. Thus, given the fact that atheists’ cohabitations rates are 51%, it is quite possible that their divorce rates are actually higher than the 37% mentioned by Barna.

Maybe they’re into polygamy (cucking) because they’re physically incapable of monogamy?

We’d also need a follow-up study after a marriage/divorce risk one, on MRI neurological proof of pair bonding structures and ability in religions + atheists.

It would be the KO.

This study could be done.

Breakthroughs in the burgeoning field of neuroscience explain the impact of sex on the developing brains of adolescents and young adults. Through scientific data put in layman’s terms, this book demonstrates that:

  • Sexual activity releases chemicals in the brain, creating emotional bonds between partners.
  • Breaking these bonds can cause depression and make it harder to bond with someone else in the future.
  • Chemicals released in the brain during sex can become addictive.
  • The human brain is not fully developed until a person reaches their mid-20s. Until then, it is harder to make wise relationship decisions.

Historically, people waited until their 20s to marry. Men and women, it also avoided production of too many children from teen marriage and maternal death from biological prematurity.

Source on that:

Laslett: The World we have Lost

Parents and others who care about young people now have the facts to steer them away from making life-changing mistakes, and lead them toward reaching their full potential.

This book will help parents and singles understand that “safe sex” isn’t safe at all; that even if they are protected against STDs and pregnancy, they are still hurting themselves and their partner.

Connect neurological pair bonding impairment to sexual partner total (oral counts) and it’s over for SJWs. That would logically correlate to psychiatric complaints and other poor life outcomes.

https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_marriage

“According to a Washington Post article, “According to calculations based on the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, people who had been in mixed-religion marriages were three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages.” [17] Therefore, it would not be surprising if atheist/theist marriages also have increased marital friction and higher rates of divorce since these two worldviews are so different.”