Heartiste (finally) discovers Weiss.

Of Heartiste’s six proposed policy responses, #2 (introduce counter-dysgenic incentives) is the only one this blog endorse without reservation. High-IQ immigration, assortative mating, and open markets all make a positive contribution to general social competitiveness, although due theoretical deference to IQ-Shredder problems is required. His point #6 is valuable if it is inverted, to make socio-political fragmentation a primary objective, rather than a consequence, or subordinate instrumental goal. Point #5 (“Eliminate all female-friendly public policies”) is unobjectionable because all ‘X-friendly’ public policies are objectionable, and its specific emphasis is material for consideration within a disintegrated oecumenon, where polities could experiment with all kinds of things. Talented people will tend to flee a heavy-handed authoritarian state, even if it’s social policies have impressive traditional validation. Consequently, as a response to local dysgenics, the outcome of any attempt to socially engineer a restored patriarchy from the top-down is likely to be counter-productive.

Social Darwinism, seriously understood, is the theoretical default that every attempt to neutralize spontaneous selection processes (entropy dissipation) will be subverted by predictable perverse effects. It’s no more possible to suppress Social Darwinism than it is to annul the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and social philosophies which teach that this can be achieved are the strict equivalent of plans for perpetual motion machines. That’s what Weiss is explaining, as Outside in understands it. Subsumption into an effective competitive environment is the only possible response that could work to reverse dysgenic trends, and this will eventually occur, whether human politics cooperates or not. Patchwork is the gentlest way this could be realized, since it enables a multitude of societies to decide on their own levels of entropy-accumulation tolerance. (That is not, of course, to suggest that a Patchworked-world is gentle in any sense we have grown accustomed to.)

August 2, 2014admin 32 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

32 Responses to this entry

  • scientism Says:

    High-IQ immigration is problematic because it means you end up with a highly competitive, integrated population of immigrants in your economic centres. Look at the abundance of Indians in the professions in the UK. They’re smart enough to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, civil servants, etc, but they don’t assimilate culturally. If you intentionally sought out high-IQ individuals you’d quickly end up with a dominant minority. They’d likely maintain the current political environment because it renders the majority so docile. Creating such an ethnic split between rulers and ruled would probably lock-in The Cathedral for the long-term, since an ethnic minority would be even more immune to its side effects than the current elite. Look at the way Chinese minorities dominate in SE Asian countries.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    I also don’t know that the IQ-fleeing assumption (re: authoritarian states) necessarily holds in the absence of the predominance of democratic ideology. Hi-IQ people are attracted to big ideas, and if/when democracy is no longer one of them, the attraction to ‘democratically free’ states will wane.

    One way to diminish the IQ-shredder effect may simply be to reconfigure the default attitude towards ‘freedom’ – which may go hand in hand with authoritarian but not totalitarian states understanding ‘political economy’ in a different way. The garden metaphor is apt; the gardener does not grow any plants (the government does not grow the economy) but his job is to remove weeds and ensure the substrate (soil, air, spaces) are ideal for the plants in question to flourish.

    So perhaps an approach not of ‘economic freedom’ but of ‘economic flourishing’ might help the problem. The problem with a lot of Reactionary attitudes has been that they favor neither economic freedom or economic flourishing; in attitude (though not always in practice) they favor complete economic subordination. This is true of communists as well, albeit in a different way and to different ends.


    nydwracu Reply:

    The question is whether ‘cosmopolitanism’ is necessary or contingent.

    (The scare-quoted word is best understood as a detachment of culture and thede from place brought about by mobility and communication. A cosmopolis here is more similar to a cosmopolis over there than a not-cosmopolis here. It’s certainly not any sort of absence.)


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Agreed, though it may be that some kind of ‘cosmopolis’ must exist; each state trying to have its own would repeat the regrettable IQ shredding situation. But to have one – that’s not risking trying to thwart Gnon.

    Wyrd Reply:

    Brave New World touched on this with an aside concerning an all Alpha island. They killed each other.


    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 3:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Counter-Dysgenics | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 5:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Greetings Distinguished Gentlemen,

    And thank you for your fine blog.

    Your post today has inspired my first comment here, because it pets an ancient peeve of mine – that of appropriating formal concepts for uses they are not allowed to fill. So with due respect, please allow me to tug on the analogy between social darwinism and the second law of thermodynamics.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that what has drawn you to this analogy is the bridging concept of pressure. In both cases pressure gives the direction and magnitude of spontaneous flow in a permeable system (that modifier will be important). But pressure is not the fundamental concept – entropy is.

    To quantify entropy in classical thermodynamics, one must chose from an infinite* set of possible definitions for what will be “the system”, and what will be the macrostates under consideration, which are again arbitrary choices from the point of view of the cold and uncaring mathematical laws. The second law is idiosyncratic in the sense that its use is to reconcile a human intuition of what seems to be happening with what in a reductive sense is actually happening.

    Similarly, “dysgenic” is a concept which only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take: after one has agreed on what shall be called the population macrostates (e.g., “low IQ/high IQ”, “k-selected/r-selected”). In darwinism simplicter, there is no such thing as dysgenia; what is adaptive is what is eugenic, and what is eugenic is what adaptive. This is a rephrase of the idea that in darwinism simplicter, while there is the concept of the population, there are no macrostates, which are after all idiosyncratic.

But, perhaps that prelude isn’t interesting to you. After all, to you and me, there are macrostates, and we agree on what they are. We have yet to agree on what the system is, though. If we consider the system to be the population entire, then there is no escaping that the population evolves in the most adaptive direction. But if we divide the population into a sub-population and designate it “the system”, and the rest as “the surroundings”, the second law no longer applies, because the system is no longer isolated [1]. If the driving forces of gene flow were isomorphic to the forces of particle physics, then we could still achieve some entropic gains as long as we were willing to consider a smaller system. Heartiste’s first principle is interpretable as his willingness to consider a smaller system:

    1. Close the borders to Western nations indefinitely.

    To refute this proposition thermodynamically you must show that this system isn’t small enough; you must argue that eugenic gene exchange to the system of the West is not spontaneous, given his other five principles.

To extend Heartiste, what about considering even a smaller system? There are certainly systems that can eugenically exchange genes with their environment, even when the surroundings are fundamentally dysgenic, so long as we erect the right barriers with the right permeability characteristics. IQ shredders are particular examples of these smaller systems. (IQ shredders are mostly fantastic places to live, by the way.) The interesting question here is whether the largest of these possible systems is large enough to maintain sovereignty over its territory. Indulge this utopian flight of fancy: A federation of space stations that are immune to nuclear attack by virtue of stealth, and which selectively permit immigration on the basis of IQ and/or and genetic screening.

    Even deeper than the question of What is the system? is What are the forces? – this is a question that never arises in stat mech. The key difference between statistical mechanics and gene flow is just this: the driving force of population flow is immutable in the first case and mutable in the second case. The driving forces of the evolution of particle systems are the four fundamental forces, natch.

In contrast, the driving forces of the evolution of gene systems are – what? It looks like they change over time – they are functions parameterized by species, by technological epoch, by environmental conditions, etc. This is the essential difference. It certainly looks like policy can alter these driving forces, and it is not obvious that a genetic equivalent of Newton’s second law applies to these forces (pat as that would be). Thus you’ll certainly need more proof if you want to convince this reader that “Talented people will tend to flee a heavy-handed authoritarian state.” From where I’m sitting, it looks like talented people mostly flee taxes and untalented people.

    Selection pressure hurts. It is nasty stuff. When it’s being exerted on you, you can’t help but notice it. For example, this article conceptualizes the Jewish holocaust as selection pressure par excellance [3]. So was the Black Death, and so is malaria. It’s foolish to wish more selection pressure on yourself or your “thede”, (this word is new to me, having just come to, but that’s what you appear to be doing here when you argue for “Subsumption into an effective competitive environment”.

    Depending on your philosophical stance as to whether the universe is completely quantized or whether it is analog.



    admin Reply:

    “Selection pressure hurts. It is nasty stuff. …” — This is exactly right. No one wants to be ground up against Malthusian limits. The alternative, however, is inevitable degeneration. Nature does not have our convenience as a high priority.


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    I’m sorry, I made an unclear point there at the end. It was not only unclear on the page, but unclear in my mind. Your comment clarified it:

    Even though selection pressure hurts, the pain is not directly proportional to the pressure. This discrepancy is really the whole basis of positive eugenics. *Natural* selection pressure, in the sense of “things that kill you are thereby exerting selection pressure on you” is the nastiest kind of pressure. E.g., dying from malaria and giving birth control to those without malaria resistance genes can be made to exert the same kind and amount of pressure, but one is better for the organisms than the other.

    And, going back to the thermodynamics analogy, eradicating malaria does not change the population, but it does change the way we divide up the population into distinguishable macrostates: without malaria, we no longer care about malaria resistance genes, and no longer have a reason to subdivide the population along those lines. No pressure is exerted but still our population magically improves. Again, people invoke the second law whenever they are feeling fatalistic, but there is wiggle room!

    In summary, policy can shape the population less painfully than dumb selection, or even fundamentally change which macrostates (phenotypes) we care about, so there’s no need to be fatalistic about it. (“Subsumption into an effective competitive environment is the _only possible_ response that could work to reverse dysgenic trends”). The painfulness of raw-dogging our way to natural selection is reason enough to spend time thinking of alternatives to Heartiste’s list that are more plausible.


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Or maybe you just meant the only possible response that is political feasible, given our Zeitgeist, in which case, maybe.

    Different T Reply:

    Similarly, “dysgenic” is a concept which only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take: after one has agreed on what shall be called the population macrostates (e.g., “low IQ/high IQ”, “k-selected/r-selected”). In darwinism simplicter, there is no such thing as dysgenia; what is adaptive is what is eugenic, and what is eugenic is what adaptive.

    This appears to have been glossed over. Until it is addressed, the wallowing continues along with the inability to answer…

    Is the “controlling drive” (eg. Cathedral) not already the “superior form of “emergent order” that has issued out of ‘realist pressures’? If not, why not, what excludes it? Only the view of an idealised extension of optimisation strategies deriving from a current perspective of dissatisfactions, that proffers the results of its own historically entrenched bias as a self-fulfilling, ‘realist’ justification? -Artxell Knaphi

    nor see the contradiction between “tecno-commercialism” proffering “With slightly more precise terms – people [growing] richer so that they can achieve a greater satisfaction of their needs” and

    Subsumption into an effective competitive environment is the only possible response that could work to reverse dysgenic trends, and this will eventually occur, whether human politics cooperates or not.

    or the largest question yet: What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?


    Michael Reply:

    yes ive often thoyght what we really hate about the cathedral is were not directing it.and though i could argue against iq assuming we think its the cats meow why all this talk of high iq imigration when the lynchpin of reaction is iq difference and reversion

    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 5:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    By the way, has anyone read the entire Weiss paper? Is it worth the investment? There is so much to read. I need to find a more effective way to filter…


    Rasputin Reply:

    I read the whole Weiss paper and found it extremely worthwhile; ‘definitive’ even, as admin is fond of saying.


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Thanks, I’m going to dive into this one then.


    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 6:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    The Weiss paper is long, but definitive. That he comes to his conclusions independent of the Dark Enlightenment is a good signpost that the DE on to something.

    One possible solution for the IQ shredder is to incentivize high IQ boys and girls to get married and have kids in their 20s. Easier said than done, but short of full social and economic collapse, a return to pure patriarchy is a tough sell for many modern women.

    While women need to be mothers, saying that they should ONLY be mothers and wives is a dealbreaker. The bargain for civilization could be that they can have their careers, but only AFTER getting married and having kids. Have women skip college, and focus on finding a husband. Let them use their soft skills working in retail or some other soft skills job in their 20’s. Men would continue to go to college, get professional training, and then enter the workforce.

    There would need to be considerable social pressure applied to get them marrying and settling down in their 20’s and having kids.

    One way to motivate the men: write off a percentage of their student loan for each child they have (in marriage). Have three kids, and you are clear of student debt.

    One way to motivate the women: give them the same loan deal for each child they have (in marriage). Kids all in Kindergarten? Great, now you can go to school part time, and get started on your career.

    Women could be in their early 40’s, have 3 kids reaching adulthood, and be graduating from college and ready to roll to start their careers. They would have a ton of lifeskills, fresh training, and 20 or 30 years to be or do whatever they wanted to do, professionally.

    High IQ women can have it all – just not all at the same time.


    nydwracu Reply:

    One possible solution for the IQ shredder is to incentivize high IQ boys and girls to get married and have kids in their 20s.

    If the Reds could do it…

    (Unless that was just Nixon in China. And speaking of China…)


    scientism Reply:

    What’s interesting is the degree to which female “empowerment” seems to be tied to the education bubble. Women are still fairly absent from STEM, except where it leads into medical or care work, and we’ve seen a proliferation of soft degrees to accommodate women. Women go into graduate programs and academia in lower numbers. After they get their empowerment conferring degree, they tend not to do anything spectacular career-wise either. Thinking about it, although we usually think of the fields women go into as being suited to their aptitudes, they’re also fields where it’s easier to create new positions through legislation. That is, fields like medicine, politics and law, where jobs can be legislated into existence. They’re also associated with bubbles. This leads me to wonder to what degree female employment has been a mirage. Perhaps it’s more like a perverse welfare system that stops young women from assuming normal gender roles by creating nonsense degrees and nonsense jobs to occupy their time instead. Could it persist in a truly competitive environment?


    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    I think you are on to something. This should be further investigated.


    Different T Reply:

    Similarly, “dysgenic” is a concept which only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take: after one has agreed on what shall be called the population macrostates

    What’s interesting is the degree to which female “empowerment” seems to be tied to the education bubble. Women are still fairly absent from STEM, except where it leads into medical or care work, and we’ve seen a proliferation of soft degrees to accommodate women.

    What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?

    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 7:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    If Weiss is onto something this is not about IQ and educated women not having kids. This is about the relaxation of selection through low mortality, allowing mutations to accumulate until our medicines can’t fix it any longer.

    Basically it’s about going back to Gregory Clark’s world, i.e. the death of 10-20% of the population through disease and deprivation every generation. And that includes a fair amount of the middle and upper classes.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    The mutation accumulation hypothesis definitely needs to be looked at. Extreme asthmatics, hyper allergies, atrophied immune systems, these sorts of things lend the idea credence. However IQ may still related, an underlying potential theory of generalized intelligence is that high g is a symptom of a healthy genome. So to be relevant as a proxy for good genetics all the other factors affecting IQ would have to be accounted for. For example an African with an IQ of 100 would be relatively genetically fit but the opposite for a Jew at the same IQ level. A more precise genetic screening method that identifies specific mutated genes would be ideal but I’m not sure how we would get there short of sorting through mountains of data. An updated mouse utopia experiment (which has been discussed in the comments on a previous post) could make it past the prog censors and the later version of genetic screening shouldn’t offend them to much (they’ll want it for their own kids) so it might not be completely hopeless.


    spandrell Reply:

    Yep, the mouse experiment should be redone with a bigger environment; to see if there’s a generational time limit when mutations accumulate and all goes to hell; or it’s just about population density.


    admin Reply:

    I’m in complete agreement with you about the core message of the Weiss paper. It resolves, in passing, the problem that seems to be tormenting Scott Alexander: Why is Leftism popular? It’s popular because people don’t want to be grated up against the Malthusian culling machine, and will therefore seize upon any ideas that promise other long-term options. It’s not very complicated.


    spandrell Reply:

    I don’t think forced displays of acceptance of 50 year transsexuals or colonies of Somalis in Minnesotta are about denying Malthus. I mean yeah in some way it’s all about the “unconstrained vision” but there’s something more in there.


    Blogospheroid Reply:

    The common thread is compassion and experimentation. Atleast, once upon a time, it was compassion and experimentation.

    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 5:55 am Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Has anyone found anything about how the Weiss paper was received by the larger scientific community? Or even by the smaller HBD / IQ friendly scientific community?

    Cochran or someone might be willing to read it.

    The paper is convenient but it seems like an outlying data point, maybe a little too convenient for our prejudices.


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 2:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    shouldnt the strange attraction of weise be in a chaos patch


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I was a changed man after reading Weiss. Absolutely worth the read. And it’s really not that long. Print it out and take a pen and highlighter and go on a hike. To me the guts of the Weiss piece (aside from the data) is his discussion of Germans in Transylvania and whites in South Africa: Over the course of 3-6 generations these high-IQ minority populations collapsed (or couldn’t keep pace). They couldn’t keep their fertility rates up to 2x (the Germans) or sufficiently competitive with the blacks (the South African whites). The Germans just disappeared altogether and the South African whites lost political control — a fact which was predicted back in 1925 by some astute observer. I see the same dynamic now at work in Buenos Aires, which is becoming more indigenous at a fairly rapid clip. European culture just isn’t faring well down there. The women are getting more barren, more tattooed and less attractive.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Oops … that was supposed to be a reply to Kwisatz …


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    I had read Weiss’s paper some time ago, but had felt something was missing.

    I feel that if a civilization ever wants to dance the dangerous dance with evolution, trying to co-opt evolution to produce something, you need to be very vary of possible side-effects.

    The caste system in India for example. A darwinist couldn’t have dreamt of a more darwinian system. It produced good resuIts for some time, great wealth, but left the people horribly divided amongst themselves. When the first raiders who could defeat the kings invaded, Hindu civilization was conquered and ruled over for 1500 years. Destruction of the warrior genes was so comprehensive that Indians suck at sports till now.
    Even today if you ask Indians on what is their greatest failure, most would say the low social capital (aka corruption) and the disunity.

    The greatest intellectual achievements in modern India stem from either southern India which had social reform/ cathedralization in the earlier century or from the sikhs, whose religion absorbed the egalitarianism of islam. So, that’s a counterpoint. The hotbeds of casteism are not exactly intellectual gardens.

    The caste system has the mercantile castes of rajasthan and gujarat as positive examples of what is possible, but their intellectual contributions are relatively less. But undermining the vaisyas is exactly what you’d expect a brahmin like me to say.. 😉


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 10:41 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment