Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: A study of 70 nations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: A study of 70 nations

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...70-Nations.pdf

    Interesting study, I'm a little sceptical of the degree to which the conclusions rely on biological determinism but even that is good for thought.
    We hunt the hunters

  • #2
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...70-Nations.pdf

    Interesting study, I'm a little sceptical of the degree to which the conclusions rely on biological determinism but even that is good for thought.
    sounds like racism (but that seems to be because I didn't know what the word consanguineous meant).

    Prokhorovka: The world's greatest tank battle. It never happened!

    Comment


    • #3
      Everything is a nail if all you have is a hammer.

      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lewinski View Post

        sounds like racism (but that seems to be because I didn't know what the word consanguineous meant).
        From Latin, literally means "with blood"; in common English it mean that members of a given group share a biological heritage, ie familial, clan, tribal, ethnic, nationalistic. Does not cover religious heritage, at least as it relates to the three great Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as their adherents do not empirically descend from a single line.

        wlfhnd: does the UK count as one of the seventy nations included in that study? I only ask because British subjects have never been consanguineous. Even at the time of the Norman conquest beginning in 1066, Britons were many different kinds of Celts and Germans, intermixed in many different kinds of ways. with grafted on Roman and Viking heritage, as well as the aforementioned French Normans -- who were themselves an admixture of Gauls, Franks, Germans, Romans, and Vikings -- and it would be pretty hard to view the British Isles as consanguineous at any time after 43 AD.
        Last edited by slick_miester; 04 Nov 19, 13:35.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't read the study as the premise seems a bit idiotic. Of course systems where power is based on blood lines, social status, "blue blood" are not receptive to democracy, because their whole structure of power is based on the bloodlines. Ie. European monarchies.

          A more interesting thing would be to see how democracy affects consanguinity .
          Wisdom is personal

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Karri View Post
            I didn't read the study as the premise seems a bit idiotic. Of course systems where power is based on blood lines, social status, "blue blood" are not receptive to democracy, because their whole structure of power is based on the bloodlines. Ie. European monarchies.

            A more interesting thing would be to see how democracy affects consanguinity .
            That would explain \Egypt's shaky democracy- all those long centuries of Pharaohs marrying their - sisters... having a 'cumulative social effect..."
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by marktwain View Post

              That would explain \Egypt's shaky democracy- all those long centuries of Pharaohs marrying their - sisters... having a 'cumulative social effect..."
              No doubt that explains why Tutankhmun looked like such a mess.

              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                From Latin, literally means "with blood"; in common English it mean that members of a given group share a biological heritage, ie familial, clan, tribal, ethnic, nationalistic. Does not cover religious heritage, at least as it relates to the three great Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as their adherents do not empirically descend from a single line.

                wlfhnd: does the UK count as one of the seventy nations included in that study? I only ask because British subjects have never been consanguineous. Even at the time of the Norman conquest beginning in 1066, Britons were many different kinds of Celts and Germans, intermixed in many different kinds of ways. with grafted on Roman and Viking heritage, as well as the aforementioned French Normans -- who were themselves an admixture of Gauls, Franks, Germans, Romans, and Vikings -- and it would be pretty hard to view the British Isles as consanguineous at any time after 43 AD.
                I don't know how to answer that question other than to point out that there seems to be a relationship between lifestyle and type of environment. Areas where the environment is unstable but less harsh seem to have fast lifestyle cultures while areas such as England where the environment is stable but relatively harsh have slower lifestyle cultures. As civilization arose in less harsh environments and migrated to places such as Northern China this seems to have influenced development of a K strategy.

                This like all theories of cultural development are necessarily oversimplifications in my opinion. That does not mean they should not be of interest. For example Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel" has been thoroughly "debunked" but remains insightful. If you are interested in such things I recommend Why the West Rules - For Now by Ian Morris. Morris's book has of course also been criticized for relying on "brute, material forces". The explanation for the severity of the criticism is undoubtedly linked to the predominance of quasi "Marxist" thinking in universities. Anything that challenges the social constructionist view of human development will be routinely dismissed by the dominant intelligentsia oddly enough on both the left and the right.

                To some extent these attitudes stem from a misunderstanding of human evolution. The evolutionary history of humans is culture first then big brains but people cling to the idea that culture is "invented" not discovered by accident. The idea that culture is influenced by the environment in ways somewhat similar to biological evolution is repugnant to most people. Of course it works both ways in that bigger brains have more accidental discoveries. At some point culture comes to dominate and biology lags behind. Complexity tends to obscure the importance of biology as culture develops.

                Perhaps the best example of the continuing importance of biology is that we are getting less intelligence post industrial revolution as selection forces are relaxed. That is simple biological "realism". As mutation loads increase in the population and life becomes easy these two factors work together in unavoidable ways. As we all know luxus tends to reduce reproductive rates but it does so unevenly to the extent that some groups are more prone to live their lives accidentally than others. This produces two opposing trends that complicate things a bit. As the more intelligent tend to have lived under relaxed selection longer they also carry the highest mutation loads. The more intelligent are unfortunately likely to be the least Darwinian groups. To the some extent the process degrades culture and social stability. The only question is the degree to which biology is responsible for civilizational cycles.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  Perhaps the best example of the continuing importance of biology is that we are getting less intelligence post industrial revolution as selection forces are relaxed.
                  This premise relies on some unfounded principles, as the emergence of hikimoris, incels and other undesirables proves. Furthermore, it's highly debatable if intelligence has much effect in any case.
                  Wisdom is personal

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    From Latin, literally means "with blood"; in common English it mean that members of a given group share a biological heritage, ie familial, clan, tribal, ethnic, nationalistic. Does not cover religious heritage, at least as it relates to the three great Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as their adherents do not empirically descend from a single line.

                    wlfhnd: does the UK count as one of the seventy nations included in that study? I only ask because British subjects have never been consanguineous. Even at the time of the Norman conquest beginning in 1066, Britons were many different kinds of Celts and Germans, intermixed in many different kinds of ways. with grafted on Roman and Viking heritage, as well as the aforementioned French Normans -- who were themselves an admixture of Gauls, Franks, Germans, Romans, and Vikings -- and it would be pretty hard to view the British Isles as consanguineous at any time after 43 AD.
                    Ok I will bite.

                    Britain is surprisingly genetically homogeneous and stable historically.

                    Fine distinctions are interesting but not surprising.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

                    I'm not sure how consanguineous plays into this. Or what point you are trying to make.


                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I offer this only to illustrate that part of any historical education should include evolutionary principles, genetics, and environmental influences. For those not to closed minded to follow the arguments it adds another layer to their understanding.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        No doubt that explains why Tutankhmun looked like such a mess.

                        Uhhh, yeah.
                        "It's like kissing your sister" had a whole different meaning in old Egypt….https://www.ancient-origins.net/news...royalty-003045

                        https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=evelyns+last+stand&view=detail&mid=B9C9F8 6E7229D8C4981CB9C9F86E7229D8C4981C&FORM=VIRE
                        Last edited by marktwain; 04 Nov 19, 20:49.
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                          Ok I will bite.

                          Britain is surprisingly genetically homogeneous and stable historically.

                          Fine distinctions are interesting but not surprising.

                          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

                          I'm not sure how consanguineous plays into this. Or what point you are trying to make.

                          If you consider Britain to be genetically homogeneous, then your entire argument is invalidated.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            If you consider Britain to be genetically homogeneous, then your entire argument is invalidated.
                            I don't know why you do this.

                            According to the scientists, “the majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40 percent of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.”
                            http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/sci...ion-02616.html

                            Granted your definition may vary but I mostly just go with the flow.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Not only have I been to Britain many times in my life, I was married to a Brit for 24 years. First of all, during WWII there was a mass evacuation of young children into the distant parts of England from the Greater London area and other vital cities. May of these children, my former wife among them, ended up staying there for various reasons, got married, and passed on their genes. Secondly, Britain now is not what bBitain once was, but is now a stewpot of former colonies all living, mating and reproducing under the same roof. Britain is hardly even "British" any more; therefore, the claim of homogeneity is false. " racially homogeneous : all the people belong to the same race." And I "do it" because you tend to make some fairly outrageous statements from time to time that do not bear scrutiny well.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X