Research Paper on Genetic Altruism and Kinship

Greetings again to everyone. Hope you've all had a wonderful day. Before I start, I guess I'll just put the question out there, does anyone know how I'd be able to install an online counter to check the number of visitors for my website? I've searched for free online counters and copied the html code into my source code, but I don't know exactly where to put the code and even when I manage to squeeze it somewhere, when I look back at my blog I can't actually see where the counter is?

Alright, now that the question is out of the way, I'll introduce my new research paper written by the famous Professor Philippe J. Rushton. Perhaps "infamous" professor would be a more accurate term given his controversial and ground-breaking research in the inheritability of intelligence and IQ. Clearly, given his research background you can see that he places quite the emphasis on examining how genetic origins determine other human traits and conditions, one of which I'm immensely interested is kinship studies. I relate this to ethnic nationalism [in a way of supporting the contentions of ethnic nationalism] and the previous paper because in my last post, I quoted Kahn when he was saying that people naturally self-segregate themselves into identifiable groups for various reasons, one reason of which he said was a "socialization to the same cultural norms." Whenever you hear that word, "socialization," you can't help but imagine it spewing from the frothing mouth of a deranged Marxist in their obnoxious attempt at "re-socializing" or, in Putnam's words "reconstructing" ourselves which in itself is but a euphemism for promoting the disappearance of an entire distinct genetic group of people. I'm not saying that Putnam and Kahn are Marxists by any degree [not that I know of!], simply that they do adhere largely to the liberal consensus in race relations which places a great emphasis on "reconstructing" and "resocializing" ourselves to change into something totally alien from what we once were. They [liberal, socialists, multicultists etc.] incessantly attempt to convince us that we can be magically "re-socialized" to fit new norms that transform our identity from being European one day to African or East Asian the next, this is nothing short of sheer lunacy.

Before we can even get into an intense conversation about socialization - which I do believe does have quite a degree of influence in establishing cultural norms yes [think peer pressure], but that doesn't change identities to any great degree - we need to establish what circumstances that society emerged from in the first place! This is where kinship studies and ethnic nationalism fits in; it's in our common genetic history that our ethnoculture is created and hence our subsequent society and social values are established within the realm of kinship and our relation to one another. Man after all is a social animal, we are always striving to create a society with an identity, and that identity comes from our ethnoculture which in turn comes from a common genetic history. There you go, I just covered the whole process from both angles in case anyone was confused, essentially, it's: common genetic history-->creation of ethnocultural identity-->creation of societies and social values-->last step is socialization of these values. This is my perspective, we shall see what Rushton says in his research paper. You can find the paper here, it is titled "Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory." I strongly urge all readers to read the entire paper as well.

The thesis made by Rushton is that "At the core of human nature, people are genetically motivated to prefer others genetically similar to themselves." [P. 2] Central to this view are the notions of self-sacrifice and altruism as a means of preserving those who are genetically similar to themselves even if it comes at the cost of their own lives, an action which is individually irrational but collectively rational. Therefore, if this is individually irrational, what motive or incentive - using modern terminology given that these days radical individualism is heavily promoted to the point of juvenile delinquency - is there to encourage one to sacrifice themselves? Rushton and several scientists before him established that we make this conscious decision on account of recognizing the shared genetic characteristics of those we are saving, and that in a way, given the two of you -both the one sacrificing themselves and the one being saved - share common genes derived from a common genetic history, that by saving that individual, you are in an indirect way ensuring that your own genes are passed down. Ultimately, altruism and kinship are behaviours that are used so that our vehicles [our bodies] can ensure the optimal perpetuation of our genes onto future generations, that is why this behaviour is not so much socialized in us as much as it is a very intrinsic and deep part of our human nature that will doubtfully change.

Rushton provides several experiments done on animals showing an uncanny awareness of genetic kinship. Probably the most surprising example are the tadpoles, which were separated before hatching and reared in isolation. When put in the tank, the tadpoles surprisingly congregated with their siblings away from those that were not related to them despite never having even met their siblings before. [P. 6] There must be some form of genetic awareness that allows us to sense genetic commonality and relationship beyond what the overt physical senses such as sight or smell can tell us. Instinct goes a long way in shaping society it seems.

Furthermore, Rushton found that "By matching across the entire genome, people can maximise their inclusive fitness by marrying others similar to themselves, and like, make friends with and help the most similar of their neighbours, as well as engage in ethnic nepotism." [P. 7] I only thought that I'd highlight this statement to show the genetic advantage in choosing someone that is genetically fit and genetically compatible with oneself - along with avoiding the dangers of genetic incompatibility [breeding outside of the group] and inbreeding. This I believe correlates well with a discovery in another study on Icelandic breeding available here. Essentially, what the researchers found was that 3rd and 4th cousins who were couples had on average 0.5 greater children and had an additional 1.5 more grandchildren than those that were first or second cousins or those that were 8th cousins [essentially unrelated] and beyond if I'm not mistaken. I think that the underlying theme here is that when mating, there is an optimal result that does indeed balance out the potential defects innate in inbreeding along with the high degree of genetic incompatibility [the mother's body attacking the fetus for example in some cases] when two very diverse and non-similar individuals inbreed. Furthermore, given the socio-economic conditions of Iceland, socio-economic reasons are not a reliable or valid predictor of why such results would have occurred and hence these results must be almost entirely based on genetics and biology.

The political implications of the Icelandic study involve completely refuting the outlandish and completely absurd argument by multicultists that if we were to force say Germans for example, all 82 million of them [well, let's stick with this figure even though by descent probably only 65 million are genuine Germans] to breed only within their own group that inbreeding would result. This is a blatantly idiotic argument that has absolutely no bearing in reality given the results of the Icelandic study [an intelligent modern population numbering 300,000 seemed to have suffered few effects from the "inbreeding" boogeyman that the multicultists continue to threaten us with!] and simple logic, 82 million people provide endless numbers of couple combinations. Furthermore, I think it goes a small way in denting the much hyped argument for hybrid vigour; the notion that when populations arbitrarily mix that somehow, for some reason, the ultimate result is better than the original?!...Yea...Given that this is almost solely applied in European nations, it can be seen as being an implicit attack on the genetics of Europeans, claiming that we're weak as we are and are required to mix with the "much stronger" non-European populations in order to survive. I don't know about you, but that sounds extremely racist and highly supremacist! What the study actually found was that inbreeding and I suppose you can say "outbreeding"/hybrid vigour provided equally diminished results in contrast to the reproductive successes of 3rd and 4th cousins - haha, I can imagine in the future that people who will critique this post will likely say I'm in support of breeding with cousins, you know how they're famous for taking quotes out of context...In any case, I'd say that we need to use a deal of common sense in our breeding, clearly don't consider you're first or second cousins AND consider the implications of breeding two relatively more incompatible people together [i.e. of different racial backgrounds, miscegenation], both produce a less than optimal result with the balance being achieved somewhere in between. So there you have it, yes I condone Germans breeding with other Germans and Europeans breeding with Europeans without fear of inbreeding :P! We can throw that multicultist argument out the window now. Like Rushton says, "the ideal mate is one who is genetically similar but not a close relative." [P. 7] Alright, back to the article.

A few more quotes of importance:
"Several studies have shown that people prefer genetic similarity in social partners, and assort on the more heritable components of traits, rather than on the most intuitively obvious ones." [P. 8]<--Essentially, spouses choose one another based on hereditary inheritability as opposed to those that are less hereditary. The example he uses is that spouses were more similar on wrist circumference which is 71% heritable than neck circumference which is 48% heritable, one minor example, he provides several more on page 7 and 8.

This refutes the Culturalist theory in an ingenious way according to Rushton because "culturalists" would say that spouses choose one another based on socialized preferences that they've been taught to appreciate or value higher than others [bicep size for men, waist width for women etc.] during their immersion in society. However, Rushton finds a higher correlation between spouses choosing other spouses based on genetically inheritable traits as opposed to merely imposed social values. This he indicates makes Genetic Similarity Theory a far more accurate predictor of preferences.

Rushton later uses another proof, that of adoption studies. He finds that children who are twins, both fraternal and identical that grow up in the same environment have friends with similar interests. Adoptive siblings on the other hand, those who share only their environment [their "socialization" according to culturalist theories] and not their genes end up choosing friends that have different interests from the friends of the other sibling, likely due to their different genetic predisposition. [P. 9] Once again, this refutes the culturalist myth that environment alone and "socialization" is what determines our interests.


Once again on Page 9, Rushton discusses how couples who have children are on average 52% similar while those that are childless are 43% similar which goes back to two things I mentioned earlier. One, regarding the tadpoles, was that there must be a form of genetic awareness or sensory perception that allows us to subconsciously distinguish people who are genetically related to us and those who are not - it seems that couples who have children choose to, OR are able to do so [my next point] with people who are genetically similar to themselves. As I just alluded to, my second point is about their ability to conceive, something that relates back to the Icelandic article that showed couples with a moderate/balanced degree of genetic relation produced more healthier offspring than those who were less related or too related. Once again, mere "socialization" does not quite explain this phenomenon.

The last proof I'd like to touch upon is how women "prefer the bodily scents of men with genes similar to their own more than they do those of men with nearly identical genes or genes totally dissimilar to their own." [P. 10] Once again this emphasizes the balance in choosing a mate by avoiding inbreeding and outbreeding. The next one is what I found really interesting because of the implications it has in refuting the "socialization" theory as the only determinant in choice. Men and women rated versions of their own face, that was morphed into the opposite sex as being the most attractive for them. They did not recognize the faces as their own [P. 10]; this is very VERY interesting because in a day when you can't go a day without hearing a jealous youth blabbering on and on about societal expectations that teenagers need to be as pretty as the models in the magazines and in the movies by barfing, taking steroids, using four pounds of gel a day juicing up their hair etc. what we really find is that the epitome of beauty for people is not something entirely "socially constructed" in the tabloids and what not, but in-fact, it's a genetically predisposed preference that we're innately born with. Furthermore, when the subjects were exposed to the faces of strangers, turns out that they trusted the faces that looked most like their own more than those that were too dissimilar! [P. 10]<--This provides a very strong relation with the conversation we had last time about Social Capital and how trust plays a role in determining how strong a community is.

I'm sort of running short on time here so I must try to wrap this up as quickly as I can; Rushton goes on to list an interesting example regarding the Inuit and how their relationship with other tribes, regarding tendencies towards pro-social wife swapping practices and anti-social warfare were highly regulated by the genetic similarity they had with the alternate tribe. That is, the closer the genetic relation, the greater the likelihood for pro-social behaviour and vice versa. [P. 12]

He also goes on to talk about the ubiquity of what I guess I would call "Racialization" [in contrast to socialization]. Even children at a very young age organize people into "kinds" and groupings that they can easily identify with and understand, this is a very natural human tendency. [P. 12] This should seem obvious to even the most basic of minds, I'm just reiterating this point so that a committed "anti-racist" multicultist won't be able to muster enough gumption in accusing someone else of being racist just for identifying people with groups without risking calling children racist for simply doing what comes natural to them.

And finally, one part that I was hoping Rushton would touch would be how genetic origins and our pursuit for our own genetic perpetuation shapes the cultures and hence the societies we live in. And Rushton certainly delivers with an extraordinary example regarding Amerindian tribes that cooked maize with alkali to enhance the nutritional value of the maize making the population more reproductive and healthier. Tribes that did this tended to be more socially complex and had higher population densities [a sign of success]. [P. 13] The Amerindians did not know the biochemical reasons for why alkali helped maize, however, they realized the benefits in undertaking this practice and it developed into a cultural value, practically a tradition. This is an excellent argument that shows how culture, society and socialization themselves are dependent upon a more underlying basic principle, that is genetic perpetuation and genetic similarity [the two are supportive of one another]. It can also be used by conservatives to support the notion that traditions need to be preserved - things such as heterosexual monogamous marriage - because they carry within them implicit benefits that our society recognized in the past and made into a universal value by default for all to follow because of its advantages. I highly doubt such traditions are simply arbitrary, but I do acknowledge that with time, some need to be "reformed," however marriage is certainly NOT one of them. Anyways, before I get off-topic, back to the paper.

Other examples of shaping cultural and social values to promote genetic reproduction are certain religious beliefs that encourage good health and fertility. [ P. 13]

Lastly, Rushton ends off by saying that genetics plays a role in all facets of life, economics, politics etc. and cannot simply be discounted and replaced by offering up the "socialization" argument as a substitute. Ethnic identity will continue to play a role in the relationship between societies and states in the future because it is a part of our genetic heritage and human nature, something that as I've said before is doubtfully going to change.