Anyone else frustrated mightily by this convo? The whole thing seemed like an exercise in Henrich willfully failing to admit the obvious or to abductively reasoning about anything.
The cognitive dissonance here was difficult and it made me ashamed to live in this culture. Usually academics will admit that group differences will exist but just pretend IQ differences don't exist. This guy was even pretending African runners don't even exist. I loved the part where he talked about tv show plots getting more complicated-it reminded me of that Joe Biden clip where he said black parents don't have the record player on so their kids don't hear enough words.
I remember reading a genetics book called Who We Are and How We Got Here by a Harvard professor (author Reich?). I don't think he touched on racial IQ but he was pretty honest and factual in general.
I suspect he agrees with you but doesn't want to get himself fired.
Honestly he probably does more good being mealymouthed on this one issue and dragging people closer to the truth on others, than just getting himself cancelled and nobody ever listening to him again.
I love Henrich but damn he is obtuse about population genetics and sports. It isn't a matter of Kenyans having a distance running gene (this struck me as a good gotcha akin to "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?) but rather far more Kenyans from a single tribe (Kalenjin) have more density of phenotypical traits ideal for maximal running economy and other ethnicities, say Polynesians, don't. I was a decent distance runner for years and far more Kenyans have long limb/short torso builds, healthy grown men that can weigh 130 at 6' tall. I raced at 6'4" and 170 and I was quite lean. I had a 4th tier Kenyan 2:14 marathoner friend who made a living pie cing together chump change prize money at small races who was 6'4 at 145! I'd be in hospital at that weight. Kenyans have the right bone proportions, don't put on muscle weight (look how skinny Kenyan quads are!) etc. Imagine an experiment where you trade 100 neonates Kalenjin for 100 nonate Samoans and raise each in the other's culture and train the Kalenjin in Samoa for powerlifting and the Samoans in Kenya for running. Nobody in their right mind would think we'd see the Kenyans squatting 600lbs and the Samoans running sub 28:00 10ks.
I have to say, it's pretty funny watching a Ph. D. Harvard Professor of EVOLUTION bend themselves into 4D pretzels denying the obvious underlying genetic reality. Anyone who isn't paying fealty to the Liberal Orthodoxy is keenly aware both Nature and Nurture matter a ton for basically everything. IQ, Endurance, Height, Weight, Blood Pressure, the list goes on. To constantly exclude IQ from the list using a litany of examples where Nurture is dominant is entirely unconvincing.
The Kenyan advantage is having more individuals with the skeletal/muscular structure for running economy - they don't have any better cardiovascular endurance. And it's practically single ethnic/tribal group responsible for all the runners.
"Remember we’re talking about some kind of group-level heritability as opposed to individual within-population heritability. It’s much harder to maintain population-level differences in genetics because any kind of gene flow is going to interrupt that."
Speciation is possible in the presence of gene flow:
It of course makes sense that this is the case, as even if the boundary between two gene pools is merely clinal, the two gene pools can still be different enough on net that said differences between gene pools have to be taken into when 'deciding' if a new allele is adaptive in one or the other. When this sort of gene-gene interaction structure starts to develop, this can make a difference between groups which was once purely clinal stop being so.
People like Joe + Adam Rutherford who think that gene flow has something to do with the plausibility of group differences are also more right than they know; as it turns out, countries with larger genetic distances tend to have larger absolute IQ gaps:
Now how continuous are the human group differences?
A) Although genetic distance increases with geographic distance, genetic distances between genetic clusters are larger than what would be predicted from the geographic distances between the clusters:
B) This of course makes sense gives that the boundaries between groups tend to align with geographic barriers like mountains + deserts + bodies of water + etc:
Or just empirically speaking, if that contention is correct, we wouldn't see population-level differences (that are undisputed even by the most ardent deniers) in genetic traits like height, facial structure, skin tone, lactose-intolerance, heart disease, diabetes, and on and on. Whether there is enough gene flow (or has been rather) to level genetic traits across different groups doesn't require theory to be answered decisively in the negative.
A good conversation. I suspect the differences in opinion are mostly unintentionally motivated emphasis, in both directions. A man who just wrote a book on marriage and culture is naturally going to undervalue genetics (even if marginally). Likewise, a man who is famous for being blunt (in a way that many find ugly) about differences between racial groups is going to de-emphasize culture (even if marginally).
I'll be blunt and emphasize culture! Have you looked at the Museum of African-American History and Culture? In case you haven't, it's a few blocks from the Neo-classical White House and Egyptian stele called the Washington Monument. It looks like a shopping mall from another planet compared even to the modernist Museum of Technology next door. Actually, it's an upside-down ziggurat, meant to mock the surrounding neo-classical federal buildings. But never mind. Pay no attention. Anyone who draws attention to such glaringly obvious images and gestures must be an ugly hater and of low status.
If there's cultural assimilation after 3 generations why do we NOW feel the need to build such cultural structures in the first place? You'd think marginalized groups would not want or need them.
It's like a rapper doing a version of the star-spangled banner, "Oh, say can you see. . ." but with a jarring, inappropriate style with obscene gestures. The nobility of the original form is destroyed even though the lyrics, the content, remain the same. The museum is not there to honor European heritage like the surrounding neo-classical buildings but to sing in an off-key. And it's done on purpose.
What about the Egyptian style Washington monument? How is that OK but the Mesopotamian style ziggurat is offensive? I feel like because you believe the design looks bad (which is perfectly valid), you have felt the need to conjure up a reason that it IS bad. Would you accept the possibility that some people may actually believe the building looks cool?
I don’t know about this hypothetical rap version of the national anthem, but what about Hendrix rendition at Woodstock? Was that offensive as well? I see nothing inherently wrong with the performance of the song evolving as the country and culture evolves.
Washington Monument right side up, Afro-American ziggurat upside down. Ergo, one is correct the other is a joke.
Hipsters are always cool compared to the squares. That's been going on since Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi, 1893.
Trouble is, honesty, integrity, serving the public is square. The hipsters don't believe in that because it's European racism (see, The White Negro, Norman Mailer).
The point of the surrounding Greek architecture is to remind the federal employees at a subconscious level how to conduct themselves. The Afro-American joke (and you are in on it) sends another message.
I had to turn it off after he said “what about hockey? There’s no Africans hockey in the NHL, is that because they don’t have the hockey gene?”.... lol I mean come on man. It’s because it costs 2000 dollars to play youth hockey (before equipment, camps, etc). Therefore black Canadians/Americans/Europeans are often priced out of playing given they are disproportionately likely to be poor. To the extent that black kids are playing hockey, they’re almost certainly over represented in the NHL. There’s more black players than ever, including sons of former NBA and CFL players. At that point you know you’re not being rational.
I love Henrich but damn he is obtuse about population genetics and sports. It isn't a matter of Kenyans having a distance running gene (this struck me as a good gotcha akin to "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?) but rather far more Kenyans from a single tribe (Kalenjin) have more density od phenotypical traits ideal for maximal running economy and other ethnicities, say Polynesians, don't. I was a decent distance runner for years and far more Kenyans have long limb/short torso builds, healthy grown men that can weigh 130 at 6' tall. I raced at 6'4" and 170 and I was lean. I had a 4th tier Kenyan 2:14 marathoner friend who made a living pie cing together chump change prize money at small races who was 6'4 at 145! Kenyans have the right bone proportions, don't put on muscle weight (look how skinny Kenyan quads are?) etc. Imagine an experiment where you trade 100 neonates Kalenjin for 100 nonate Samoans and raise each in the other's culture an train the Kalenjin in Samoa for powerlifting and the Samoans in Kenya for running. Nobody in their right mind would think we'd see the Kenyans squatting 600lbs and the Samoans running sub 28:00 10ks.
Comments like “what about the hockey gene” are so frustrating. Clearly this very smart guy understands the distinction between “hockey” and endurance or speed. But if he understands, why say it?
This comment was my breaking point... no black hockey players because it costs 2grand a season to play youth hockey- plus equipment, camps, travel costs, etc. To the extent that black people do play hockey, they’re almost certainly over represented in the NHL. If black people played hockey at similar rate to white ppl, we would almost certainly see a majority black NHL.
Yes that was an incredible statement by Heinrich. It was also the breaking point for me.
The NHL example is an example of a complex overlay of several factors.
1) Right of the bat: ~50% of all players are Canadian (20% US, and the other 30% from ethnically homogenous European countries). Canada is 3.5% black.
2) Then you have the cost which just statistically screens out non high-income people.
3) There is/was some degree of discrimination against non-white players in the old boys hockey scene (at least in Toronto I am anecdotally aware of this). To the extent that that exists it would have further "whitened" the pool.
Even based on those 3 facts hockey is a terrible example for what Heinrich was stating. Soccer a far better comparison. Sprinting even more so. Go look at Canada's track stars or national soccer team.
Yea it was a dumb example and I find it hard to believe he actually believes what he’s saying there, I think it’s more likely that he knows the truth he just thinks too many people aren’t equipped to handle it without being racist. Which is ridiculous, honestly.
The NFL really is the best example because you have different positions that rely on different skill sets. Black and white kids play high school football at roughly the same rate in the US, yet there are some positions that are 100% black in the NFL. Cornerback, which is pretty much 100% dependent on explosive quickness and athleticism, hasn’t had a single white player on a roster since the early 2000s. The offensive line, however, which is more about pure size and power has about equally as many white as black players. There’s no possible way things would just fall this way because of culture, or because of chance, and its insane to think that that’s the case.
It's not even that Kenyans (one specific tribe) have ge es for better endurance. They just have more individuals with the body conformation ideal for distance running economy. More Kenyans at 7% bodyfat at 6' tall will weigh less and have less rotational weight in their legs than an American with similar proportions. And more individuals with ideal femur/tibial ratios. All elite Americans look like that too but say far more Kenyan women an be 5'4" and 95 pounds and be perfectly healthy, have periods, etc while American women at that height/weight would be malnourished and amenorrheic.
Based on the other comments, I was expecting this to be a trainwreck. But this was actually a decent conversation besides the middle portion where Henrich made pretty silly arguments about why Kenyans are faster at running.
It seems like an enormous difficulty for Henrich here to effectively say:
"Well, we know that the Roman city in Italy had a certain makeup and a certain unique status of the urban citizen, that didn't exist in the colonial Roman east or south. And we know that post-Roman Italy effectively continued around the Roman city plans and that the Roman roads predict the economic structure of Europe, to this day*. And we know that the earliest forms of the republic as a form of government form in Italy, around these city states, and the earliest universities are found in these city states etc.
But all of this doesn't really matter in any sense to prefigure the forms of European modernity; it's all the individual psychology created by the influence of the Church in breaking down extended kin structures".
There's also the huge problem that, Italy and the Roman Empire having laid down this pattern of relatively many, relatively decentralized cities (sharply distinct from East Asia, with fewer, larger cities!), and towns which Europe follows, this pattern is gonna be a cousin-marriage shredder, because of the probability of meeting and being able to trade beneficially with people who are not a cousin**.
As another criticism, I'm still not sure that "Analytic/Holistic Thinking" really does predict performance on science or on scientific creativity. It seems very conjectural; should we control for spatial IQ, would we find analytic vs holistic thinking in a population of 10k students would really predict science literacy, for example?
* https://web.econ.ku.dk/pabloselaya/papers/RomanRoads.pdf -"Exploiting a natural experiment, we find that both persistence in road density and the strong link between early road density and contemporary economic development weaken to the point of insignificance in areas where the use of wheeled vehicles was abandoned and caravan trade routes replaced road-based trade from the first millennium CE until the late modern period. "
The most mind-numbing claim in a conversation rife with them is that raw pattern recognition is negatively correlated with measured IQ. How do you put up with this?
I guess WEIRD people naturally happen after people are living in an urbanized and prosperous culture for several generations. Which is why individualism was present in early historical societies like classical Athens, itself a very exceptional society for pre-modern standards (wrote a little bit about evidence we have about antiquity here: https://rafaelrguthmann.substack.com/p/on-the-prosperity-of-different-periods)
It's historical correlation with Christianity might be an accident. In fact, up to recent centuries, European civilization was perhaps more individualistic and certainly much more politically democratic during the pre-Christian classical period, when Hellenic culture was dominant than during Late Antiquity and Medieval periods, when Christianity was more dominant than today.
So, the causation is inverse: it's not that WEIRD people made Europe develop and conquer the world but that being developed creates WEIRD people. So why Europe and it's colonies developed? Many causes but I can sum up into two categorías: favorable geography plus favorable institutions.
Also, East Asian societies are not exceptionally rich: China's living standards are marginally better than Egypt or Algeria. Japan and Korea are just 25% richer than Turkey in per capita income. In a few decades I think India might surpass China in per capita income as well.
Isn't the argument that being WEIRD created favorable institutions? Also I don't think Europe was more particularly urbanized in say 16th century than the Middle East, India or East Asia..
The medían 16th century Russian peasant was not WEIRD just like the comtemporary Indian or Chinese peasant.
However, in 16th century Europe there were hundreds of city-states called and their inhabitants were citizens called the burgeoise who lived isolated from the peasant culture of most europeans. Our modern market-based urbanized civilization comes from these people, which were a small minority in Europe but other parts of the world lacked it.
Other cultures had cities but their function was quite distinct: they were imperial or provincial capitals, political cities exploited the peasant population around it rather than acting as self contained centers of civilization unlike European city-states. European city states were also quite unique in developing republican political institutions rather than centralized autocratic regimes.
Anyone else frustrated mightily by this convo? The whole thing seemed like an exercise in Henrich willfully failing to admit the obvious or to abductively reasoning about anything.
Reason*
The cognitive dissonance here was difficult and it made me ashamed to live in this culture. Usually academics will admit that group differences will exist but just pretend IQ differences don't exist. This guy was even pretending African runners don't even exist. I loved the part where he talked about tv show plots getting more complicated-it reminded me of that Joe Biden clip where he said black parents don't have the record player on so their kids don't hear enough words.
I remember reading a genetics book called Who We Are and How We Got Here by a Harvard professor (author Reich?). I don't think he touched on racial IQ but he was pretty honest and factual in general.
I suspect he agrees with you but doesn't want to get himself fired.
Honestly he probably does more good being mealymouthed on this one issue and dragging people closer to the truth on others, than just getting himself cancelled and nobody ever listening to him again.
I love Henrich but damn he is obtuse about population genetics and sports. It isn't a matter of Kenyans having a distance running gene (this struck me as a good gotcha akin to "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?) but rather far more Kenyans from a single tribe (Kalenjin) have more density of phenotypical traits ideal for maximal running economy and other ethnicities, say Polynesians, don't. I was a decent distance runner for years and far more Kenyans have long limb/short torso builds, healthy grown men that can weigh 130 at 6' tall. I raced at 6'4" and 170 and I was quite lean. I had a 4th tier Kenyan 2:14 marathoner friend who made a living pie cing together chump change prize money at small races who was 6'4 at 145! I'd be in hospital at that weight. Kenyans have the right bone proportions, don't put on muscle weight (look how skinny Kenyan quads are!) etc. Imagine an experiment where you trade 100 neonates Kalenjin for 100 nonate Samoans and raise each in the other's culture and train the Kalenjin in Samoa for powerlifting and the Samoans in Kenya for running. Nobody in their right mind would think we'd see the Kenyans squatting 600lbs and the Samoans running sub 28:00 10ks.
I have to say, it's pretty funny watching a Ph. D. Harvard Professor of EVOLUTION bend themselves into 4D pretzels denying the obvious underlying genetic reality. Anyone who isn't paying fealty to the Liberal Orthodoxy is keenly aware both Nature and Nurture matter a ton for basically everything. IQ, Endurance, Height, Weight, Blood Pressure, the list goes on. To constantly exclude IQ from the list using a litany of examples where Nurture is dominant is entirely unconvincing.
The Kenyan advantage is having more individuals with the skeletal/muscular structure for running economy - they don't have any better cardiovascular endurance. And it's practically single ethnic/tribal group responsible for all the runners.
"Remember we’re talking about some kind of group-level heritability as opposed to individual within-population heritability. It’s much harder to maintain population-level differences in genetics because any kind of gene flow is going to interrupt that."
Speciation is possible in the presence of gene flow:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.010
These things are a matter of degree.
It of course makes sense that this is the case, as even if the boundary between two gene pools is merely clinal, the two gene pools can still be different enough on net that said differences between gene pools have to be taken into when 'deciding' if a new allele is adaptive in one or the other. When this sort of gene-gene interaction structure starts to develop, this can make a difference between groups which was once purely clinal stop being so.
People like Joe + Adam Rutherford who think that gene flow has something to do with the plausibility of group differences are also more right than they know; as it turns out, countries with larger genetic distances tend to have larger absolute IQ gaps:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691630174X
Now how continuous are the human group differences?
A) Although genetic distance increases with geographic distance, genetic distances between genetic clusters are larger than what would be predicted from the geographic distances between the clusters:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
B) This of course makes sense gives that the boundaries between groups tend to align with geographic barriers like mountains + deserts + bodies of water + etc:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz280
Or just empirically speaking, if that contention is correct, we wouldn't see population-level differences (that are undisputed even by the most ardent deniers) in genetic traits like height, facial structure, skin tone, lactose-intolerance, heart disease, diabetes, and on and on. Whether there is enough gene flow (or has been rather) to level genetic traits across different groups doesn't require theory to be answered decisively in the negative.
A good conversation. I suspect the differences in opinion are mostly unintentionally motivated emphasis, in both directions. A man who just wrote a book on marriage and culture is naturally going to undervalue genetics (even if marginally). Likewise, a man who is famous for being blunt (in a way that many find ugly) about differences between racial groups is going to de-emphasize culture (even if marginally).
I'll be blunt and emphasize culture! Have you looked at the Museum of African-American History and Culture? In case you haven't, it's a few blocks from the Neo-classical White House and Egyptian stele called the Washington Monument. It looks like a shopping mall from another planet compared even to the modernist Museum of Technology next door. Actually, it's an upside-down ziggurat, meant to mock the surrounding neo-classical federal buildings. But never mind. Pay no attention. Anyone who draws attention to such glaringly obvious images and gestures must be an ugly hater and of low status.
If there's cultural assimilation after 3 generations why do we NOW feel the need to build such cultural structures in the first place? You'd think marginalized groups would not want or need them.
Why do you think it’s meant to mock the neoclassical buildings around it? I’m honestly curious as to where you drew that conclusion from.
It's like a rapper doing a version of the star-spangled banner, "Oh, say can you see. . ." but with a jarring, inappropriate style with obscene gestures. The nobility of the original form is destroyed even though the lyrics, the content, remain the same. The museum is not there to honor European heritage like the surrounding neo-classical buildings but to sing in an off-key. And it's done on purpose.
What about the Egyptian style Washington monument? How is that OK but the Mesopotamian style ziggurat is offensive? I feel like because you believe the design looks bad (which is perfectly valid), you have felt the need to conjure up a reason that it IS bad. Would you accept the possibility that some people may actually believe the building looks cool?
I don’t know about this hypothetical rap version of the national anthem, but what about Hendrix rendition at Woodstock? Was that offensive as well? I see nothing inherently wrong with the performance of the song evolving as the country and culture evolves.
Washington Monument right side up, Afro-American ziggurat upside down. Ergo, one is correct the other is a joke.
Hipsters are always cool compared to the squares. That's been going on since Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi, 1893.
Trouble is, honesty, integrity, serving the public is square. The hipsters don't believe in that because it's European racism (see, The White Negro, Norman Mailer).
The point of the surrounding Greek architecture is to remind the federal employees at a subconscious level how to conduct themselves. The Afro-American joke (and you are in on it) sends another message.
Jimi Hendrix wasn't a government bureaucrat.
I had to turn it off after he said “what about hockey? There’s no Africans hockey in the NHL, is that because they don’t have the hockey gene?”.... lol I mean come on man. It’s because it costs 2000 dollars to play youth hockey (before equipment, camps, etc). Therefore black Canadians/Americans/Europeans are often priced out of playing given they are disproportionately likely to be poor. To the extent that black kids are playing hockey, they’re almost certainly over represented in the NHL. There’s more black players than ever, including sons of former NBA and CFL players. At that point you know you’re not being rational.
I love Henrich but damn he is obtuse about population genetics and sports. It isn't a matter of Kenyans having a distance running gene (this struck me as a good gotcha akin to "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?) but rather far more Kenyans from a single tribe (Kalenjin) have more density od phenotypical traits ideal for maximal running economy and other ethnicities, say Polynesians, don't. I was a decent distance runner for years and far more Kenyans have long limb/short torso builds, healthy grown men that can weigh 130 at 6' tall. I raced at 6'4" and 170 and I was lean. I had a 4th tier Kenyan 2:14 marathoner friend who made a living pie cing together chump change prize money at small races who was 6'4 at 145! Kenyans have the right bone proportions, don't put on muscle weight (look how skinny Kenyan quads are?) etc. Imagine an experiment where you trade 100 neonates Kalenjin for 100 nonate Samoans and raise each in the other's culture an train the Kalenjin in Samoa for powerlifting and the Samoans in Kenya for running. Nobody in their right mind would think we'd see the Kenyans squatting 600lbs and the Samoans running sub 28:00 10ks.
iTs juSt thEiR cuLtUrE to RuN
Comments like “what about the hockey gene” are so frustrating. Clearly this very smart guy understands the distinction between “hockey” and endurance or speed. But if he understands, why say it?
This comment was my breaking point... no black hockey players because it costs 2grand a season to play youth hockey- plus equipment, camps, travel costs, etc. To the extent that black people do play hockey, they’re almost certainly over represented in the NHL. If black people played hockey at similar rate to white ppl, we would almost certainly see a majority black NHL.
Yes that was an incredible statement by Heinrich. It was also the breaking point for me.
The NHL example is an example of a complex overlay of several factors.
1) Right of the bat: ~50% of all players are Canadian (20% US, and the other 30% from ethnically homogenous European countries). Canada is 3.5% black.
2) Then you have the cost which just statistically screens out non high-income people.
3) There is/was some degree of discrimination against non-white players in the old boys hockey scene (at least in Toronto I am anecdotally aware of this). To the extent that that exists it would have further "whitened" the pool.
Even based on those 3 facts hockey is a terrible example for what Heinrich was stating. Soccer a far better comparison. Sprinting even more so. Go look at Canada's track stars or national soccer team.
Yea it was a dumb example and I find it hard to believe he actually believes what he’s saying there, I think it’s more likely that he knows the truth he just thinks too many people aren’t equipped to handle it without being racist. Which is ridiculous, honestly.
The NFL really is the best example because you have different positions that rely on different skill sets. Black and white kids play high school football at roughly the same rate in the US, yet there are some positions that are 100% black in the NFL. Cornerback, which is pretty much 100% dependent on explosive quickness and athleticism, hasn’t had a single white player on a roster since the early 2000s. The offensive line, however, which is more about pure size and power has about equally as many white as black players. There’s no possible way things would just fall this way because of culture, or because of chance, and its insane to think that that’s the case.
It's not even that Kenyans (one specific tribe) have ge es for better endurance. They just have more individuals with the body conformation ideal for distance running economy. More Kenyans at 7% bodyfat at 6' tall will weigh less and have less rotational weight in their legs than an American with similar proportions. And more individuals with ideal femur/tibial ratios. All elite Americans look like that too but say far more Kenyan women an be 5'4" and 95 pounds and be perfectly healthy, have periods, etc while American women at that height/weight would be malnourished and amenorrheic.
Based on the other comments, I was expecting this to be a trainwreck. But this was actually a decent conversation besides the middle portion where Henrich made pretty silly arguments about why Kenyans are faster at running.
It seems like an enormous difficulty for Henrich here to effectively say:
"Well, we know that the Roman city in Italy had a certain makeup and a certain unique status of the urban citizen, that didn't exist in the colonial Roman east or south. And we know that post-Roman Italy effectively continued around the Roman city plans and that the Roman roads predict the economic structure of Europe, to this day*. And we know that the earliest forms of the republic as a form of government form in Italy, around these city states, and the earliest universities are found in these city states etc.
But all of this doesn't really matter in any sense to prefigure the forms of European modernity; it's all the individual psychology created by the influence of the Church in breaking down extended kin structures".
There's also the huge problem that, Italy and the Roman Empire having laid down this pattern of relatively many, relatively decentralized cities (sharply distinct from East Asia, with fewer, larger cities!), and towns which Europe follows, this pattern is gonna be a cousin-marriage shredder, because of the probability of meeting and being able to trade beneficially with people who are not a cousin**.
As another criticism, I'm still not sure that "Analytic/Holistic Thinking" really does predict performance on science or on scientific creativity. It seems very conjectural; should we control for spatial IQ, would we find analytic vs holistic thinking in a population of 10k students would really predict science literacy, for example?
* https://web.econ.ku.dk/pabloselaya/papers/RomanRoads.pdf -"Exploiting a natural experiment, we find that both persistence in road density and the strong link between early road density and contemporary economic development weaken to the point of insignificance in areas where the use of wheeled vehicles was abandoned and caravan trade routes replaced road-based trade from the first millennium CE until the late modern period. "
** check out the number of cities and total population of cities in Europe relative to MENA - https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/2020WP/JedwabIIEP2020-9.pdf
Nice interview, I enjoyed that.
I also enjoyed Secret of Our Success but found a significant amount of it unreliable:
https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2022/08/08/the-secret-of-our-success/
The most mind-numbing claim in a conversation rife with them is that raw pattern recognition is negatively correlated with measured IQ. How do you put up with this?
I guess WEIRD people naturally happen after people are living in an urbanized and prosperous culture for several generations. Which is why individualism was present in early historical societies like classical Athens, itself a very exceptional society for pre-modern standards (wrote a little bit about evidence we have about antiquity here: https://rafaelrguthmann.substack.com/p/on-the-prosperity-of-different-periods)
It's historical correlation with Christianity might be an accident. In fact, up to recent centuries, European civilization was perhaps more individualistic and certainly much more politically democratic during the pre-Christian classical period, when Hellenic culture was dominant than during Late Antiquity and Medieval periods, when Christianity was more dominant than today.
So, the causation is inverse: it's not that WEIRD people made Europe develop and conquer the world but that being developed creates WEIRD people. So why Europe and it's colonies developed? Many causes but I can sum up into two categorías: favorable geography plus favorable institutions.
Also, East Asian societies are not exceptionally rich: China's living standards are marginally better than Egypt or Algeria. Japan and Korea are just 25% richer than Turkey in per capita income. In a few decades I think India might surpass China in per capita income as well.
Isn't the argument that being WEIRD created favorable institutions? Also I don't think Europe was more particularly urbanized in say 16th century than the Middle East, India or East Asia..
The medían 16th century Russian peasant was not WEIRD just like the comtemporary Indian or Chinese peasant.
However, in 16th century Europe there were hundreds of city-states called and their inhabitants were citizens called the burgeoise who lived isolated from the peasant culture of most europeans. Our modern market-based urbanized civilization comes from these people, which were a small minority in Europe but other parts of the world lacked it.
Other cultures had cities but their function was quite distinct: they were imperial or provincial capitals, political cities exploited the peasant population around it rather than acting as self contained centers of civilization unlike European city-states. European city states were also quite unique in developing republican political institutions rather than centralized autocratic regimes.