Preselection and CSR theory

The numbers here are chosen by statistical intuition. My intuition is not to be trusted, but I wouldn’t recommend betting money against it either.

Preselection bias is a rapid emotional heuristic that humans have evolved to predict effects of positive manifolds like g. If there are two men, A and B, and it is known that A is physically stronger than B, then preselection predicts that A will also be a faster runner than B. 80% of the time, this will be true. It holds for all sexually desirable traits: intelligence, height, attractiveness, education, strength, speed, health, and so on.

It is extremely effective in societies where breeding choices are made by male political competition, because the male sexual preference is for the absence of defects (low mutation accumulation, attractiveness) rather than specialized traits. These are “competitive” breeding populations (popularized by Anonymous Conservative as “K-selected”) and they are characterized by patriarchy, matrilocalism (males are sent abroad for adventure and to form/join another tribe), linear social hierarchies, aggressive response to threats, low time preference with high value stratification, and heteronomous politics and religious culture (e.g. the RCC, aristocracy). Credo: “The biggest, fastest, and best-looking is also the smartest.” Usually true, but incomplete.

In the upper ranges of ability, a better heuristic is what I call “assumption of specialization”. If a person is in the top 1% of a population with respect to some ability, such as speed, strength, intelligence, and so forth, you should assume that the predictions of the positive manifold heuristic will be far too high. The fastest man in a population of one million is almost certainly not also in the extreme ranges of height or intelligence because at this level of competition those desirable traits actually become liabilities. It is more likely that he is merely above average in those traits (approximately +1 SD for polymorphic traits). This is especially true for abilities that are less “g-loaded”.

This heuristic exists due to eugenic specialization bubbles, which occasionally arise where breeding choices are determined by female political prestige-seeking behavior. The female sexual preference is much more slanted toward preferring highly specialized males (resulting in overselection for recessive genes and novel eugenic mutations) rather than males completely without defect. Such specialization bubbles can only arise within “stress tolerator” breeding populations in response to some kind of extreme environmental pressure. These are characterized by patrilocalism (don’t move the boundary stones!), high status for females in society (not quite matriarchy because violence is a hard restraint), tribalism, low time preference with low value stratification, and defensive insularity in response to threats. Their political, cultural, and religious structures will be autonomous (e.g. Protestantism, anarcho-capitalism).

Human examples of this are fairly infrequent. Jews are a recent example, having become specialized cosmopolitans. Neanderthals appear to have become specialized artisans, growing ridiculously large brains and technically tilted IQs. Puritans, Athenians, and some of the Viking tribes seem to fit a lot of the descriptions above. Extrapolating naively from the human artifacts of these examples in the modern day, it would appear that in the absence of a cohesive tribal response to environmental stress, stress tolerators become ruderal fags. Often this is literal, as in homosexuality, but it includes all aspects of ruderal faggotry such as pedophilia, early sexualization, lack of parental investment in children, atomization, high time preference, passive-aggressive response to threats, and low-investment itinerant lifestyle and work ethic. Ruderal populations are “opportunistic” breeders and socialist democrats, politically.

All political ideology follows from the maxim that humans will advocate an environment that favors evolutionary success for their phenotypal class.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Preselection and CSR theory

  1. Koanic says:

    “stress tolerators become ruderal fags. ”

    That is the primary devolutionary path, but there are exceptions.

    “All political ideology follows from the maxim that humans will advocate an environment that favors evolutionary success for their phenotypal class.”

    Boneflour’s bon mot, is it not? Explains a lot more than political ideology.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >That is the primary devolutionary path, but there are exceptions.

      I still intend to become such an exception.

      >Boneflour’s bon mot, is it not? Explains a lot more than political ideology.

      I can’t remember where it came from originally, but I’ve been saying this for longer than Boneflour’s been around.

      • Koanic says:

        Aeoli Pith

      • Boneflour says:

        Noice bost bro. Reason for the “Halo Effect” to exist. These heuristics often get painted by researchers/media as peculiar irrationalities, or problematic biases. The assumption is that instincts are useless or outdated. Instead, we should be building an algorithm of pure logic to run all of our decisions through. Because emotions are dumb. And box sorting is dumb.

        http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/

        “The influence of attractiveness on ratings of intelligence, honesty, or kindness is a clear example of bias—especially when you judge these other qualities based on fixed text—because we wouldn’t expect judgments of honesty and attractiveness to conflate for any legitimate reason.”

        Of course, if g exists, and g bleeds into everything… then any above average positive quality is an indicator of g… which means any above average positive quality implies more positive qualities. At least until you hit ultraspecialist level.

        So relatively attractive people ARE more likely to be relatively intelligent, kind, etc etc. The “pretty but ditzy” blonde is still relatively smarter than the Down’s Syndrome girl.

        “The intra-species conflict stems from each phenotype unconsciously trying to alter the environment to favor their respective reproductive strategies.”

        Wrote that in a reply to the Anonymous Conservative post. The idea is probably old as dirt. Aeoli’s smart, so he’d know it already. Seems to be a good encapsulation of the idea.

  2. bicebicebice says:

    “All political ideology follows from the maxim that humans will advocate an environment that favors evolutionary success for their phenotypal class.”

    Which is why I shant be joing the equatorial-melonid-empire on site, blondes in heat aren’t that smart. Yeah I know that sounded pretty weird… Would an Eskimo move to The Sahara for one million dollars, the caveat being he had to live there for x amount of time. Better yet, would the cold people ever invade the MENA for example? I don’t see it happening.

    “boundary stones!” is what I shall name my Vault. Itz dangerous to go alone, don’t go at all.

    Heat is degenerate – Autiste

    • Nottuh says:

      It’s not unheard of for cold climate people to invade MENA. The Mongolians did it.

      • bicebicebice says:

        Maybe cold was not good wording, ice people is better. Mongolian climate is very varied, they even have deserts. Maybe epigenetics plays a role and then combined with climate change. I hate heat, maybe the vikings loved it,
        Ice age invasions out of necessity, sure, but I don’tknowyouknowwhatimsaying.

        I can say that Swedish summers keeps getting longer and hotter, and the last years massive influx of ooga booga people. Coincidence or marxist good timing? Both?
        They do despise northern sweden because of the climate and the forests however, whilst southern sweden is very hot these days, and they love it. Same level of handouts, but they refuse to live in the north, instead “threatening” to go home.
        Lots of Iraqis did that in Finland hehehe…

        How much gibes me dats to live in hell? The Americans should offer Alaska to the ooga booga, give them one million dollars each, on the condition that they never leave Alaska, there they can have an ethno state. Would it happen?

        I would watch that tv show.

  3. Heaviside says:

    Where Anonymous Conservative goes wrong is in failing to recognize that most American conservatives are bovine peasant stock. They reflexively attack “heteronomous” (to use your term) systems such as slavery, Catholicism, Marxism-Leninism, fascism, hereditary aristocracy, monarchy, etc.

  4. Pingback: The relation of IQ and Game | Aeoli Pera

  5. Pingback: Slavery and political anthropology | Aeoli Pera

  6. Pingback: Measuring empathy (poker, charity, eye-reading, and IQ) | Aeoli Pera

  7. Pingback: Why women want to have sex with fabulous gay men | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s