Economy Are some countries doomed to high unemployment due to their genetic pool ?

I was reading in The Economist that "many of society's ills, from economic stagnation to poor social mobility, could be solved by creating a more entrepreneurial society." The timing couldn't be better as I had been thinking about that very issue lately. Why is it that northern European countries, especially Germanic ones, have for so long had a lower unemployment rate than other countries, regardless of the economic climate ? I believe this indeed has something to do with the fact that northern European people are a particularly entrepreneurial bunch. Not only are they less afraid of taking risks, they are also more individualistic and independent than almost any other cultural group on the planet. Northern Europeans are therefore more likely to be self-employed or to start their own company.

Eight years ago I wrote about individualism vs collectivism and the five cultural dimensions used by IBM psychologist Geert Hofstede to compare working cultures around the globe. The two most interesting dimensions are individualism and uncertainty avoidance.

Individualism is a trait shared by ethnically Celtic and Germanic countries. For instance, North Italy (Celtic) is very individualistic, while South Italy (Greek) is far more collectivist. All non-European cultures are strongly collectivist. Collectivist-minded people like to feel part of a group and are much more likely to become employees or civil servants. That is why in a country like Japan (Asian therefore collectivist), as developed as it is, people will almost always choose to work for a company (the bigger the better) rather than be self-employed. Even professionals like doctors, lawyers and architects prefer to work in shared offices or firms than have their own office as they would in northern Europe.

Uncertainty avoidance is a slightly more difficult concept to grasp. People with a high uncertainty avoidance will take all the measures they can to limit risks and have things under control at all time, trying to foresee any eventuality. They would plan a trip well in advance, booking their hotels ahead and knowing exactly where they would be going. Ideally they prefer to travel in organised tours rather than by themselves. It's safer and more comforting. Individuals with a low uncertainty avoidance will take a last minute flight without knowing exactly where they would be going and adjusting their plans on the spot.

Even legal systems reflect the level of uncertainty avoidance. Roman and Napoleonic legal system (high uncertainty avoidance) trying to codify every possible infringement of the law. In contrast, English common law is much more compact and flexible, privileging a case-by-case approach at the judge's discretion.

Like for collectivism, the "default" (or ancestral) human nature is a high uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's scores, only the Scandinavians, Brits, Irish, Chinese and Vietnamese have a low uncertainty avoidance (the lowest being the Danes). There is surely a genetic factor too, since neighbouring populations (the Dutch, Finns, Southeast Asians) have an average score, and all other nationalities have a high score (even the Germans, who are more Celtic or Slavic in that regard).

When I was a student, I backpacked for a few months around Australia, and I was quite baffled by the fact that out of the hundreds of other backpackers I met, about 40% were English (not British as I only met one Scot and no Welsh), 30% were Dutch (but not a single Fleming), 20% were Scandinavian (mostly Danish), and the remaining 10% covered all other nationalities (mostly Japanese, German, Irish and French with a few occasional American, Canadian). Wherever you go around the world, you will always meet English and Dutch people. They have travel in their blood. The more out-of-the-beaten-track and adventurous the destination, the higher their proportion to other nationalities. I talk from experience, having myself travelled to about 50 countries.

I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia. I think that tells a lot about the cultural difference between northern and southern Europe. Interestingly, England and the Netherlands have the lowest combined scores for uncertainty avoidance and collectivism. In other words, English and Dutch people are individualistic, independent risk-takers. It is no surprise that they are so entrepreneurial too, and that they spawned vast colonial empires developed almost solely by private entrepreneurs (East & West India Companies) as opposed to state-sponsored expeditions like in the case of France, Spain, Germany or Japan.

Why do you think it is that English colonies fared so well ? Because more people migrated there to populate them ? Yes, but why ? British people having a low uncertainty avoidance, more individualistic and entrepreneurial, they were less afraid of leaving everything behind and migrate to the new colonies to start a new life. They were more successful at it too. In contrast, the Spaniards conquered the Americas in search for gold, silver and precious stones. They were motivated by greed, then usually came back to Spain to spend the fortune they had acquired. Others just went to convert the pagans (religious zeal). The most ethnically European former Spanish colonies today are Uruguay and Argentina, which both have big non-Iberian communities (French, Italian, German), mostly from 20th century immigration (far less adventurous than in past centuries). French colonies were almost only settled by the King's soldiers to protect the state's interests, but didn't attract a lot of immigrants. English colonies were not commissioned by the state, by individual enterprises, and each colony was completely independent from the next.

The Dutch colonisation of South Africa is the one rare other example of a major European colony founded by a group of people just leaving their homeland of their own will to create a new colony of their own without seeking fortune or thinking of extending their country's dominion. Actually the Dutch, Danes and Swedes all had minor colonies in North America that were all later absorbed by the mass of British migrants. This included New Amsterdam (now called New York), and what would become the states of New Jersey and Delaware (New Sweden).

I am convinced that entrepreneurialism, like individualism and uncertainty avoidance, is deeply rooted is one's genes. One cannot choose if he/she is individualistic or not, no more than he/she can choose if he is a risk-taker or not. The ugly truth behind this is that countries where the gene pool has a high percentage of entrepreneur-minded, independent ("self-employed-minded") people will naturally have a lower unemployment in equal circumstances compared to a country of collectivist-minded people with a high fear of risk. This is undoubtedly why northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia, founded mostly by risk-taking entrepreneurs from northern Europe, will always cope better in the adversity than southern European countries (or most non-Western countries). When the economy is bad, employees and civil servants get fired and less people are hired to replace those who retire. You can't lose your job if you are self-employed. You don't have to worry about being hired if you start own your business.

Instead of waiting for a company or the government to recruit them, the 50% of unemployed Spanish youths should try doing something useful and start their own businesses, instead of blaming society or the economy. Unless they just can't because their genes is preventing them, riddling them with fear. But who is to blame then ?
 
What I have discovered about my American redneck/Germanic culture that was brought up to believe in is that it is highly maladaptive for the modern world. Perhaps it works when everybody else has that same Germanic sense of individualism, but it usually breaks apart in large cities and in modern communities which are highly diverse.

When I would work at jobs I would do twice the work as everybody else yet get treated worse. Nobody valued me. Even the typical white American. Their main desire is for friendship, validation etc. things which I never cared about. In other words laugh and joke with the boss and co-workers, drink with them, go play golf with them yet be totally lazy and useless on the job is highly valued. Be the best worker in the entire company but don't talk to others and probably you lose your job.

I find the "corporate culture" here to be inferior, yet we must adapt to reality. It applies in other ways. In urban environments "networks" are useful and having good networks is more important than actual personal intelligence or skill. It's not what you know or how smart you are that gets you ahead in life- it's WHO you know, who you are friends with.

Most Germanics/Nordics have a difficult time grapsing this concept... so they become like the "cattle" of the world. They are always working hard, pulling the weight of the rest but with little benefit to themselves. Many of them get disgusted with the modern world because they totally lack in social skills (both culturally and perhaps genetically) so they are inclined to go live in a rural area where there is less competition, less need to network. Many of them dream of some past world where they could live as vikings and not need to compete with various networks and globalism.

So I find this to be the achilles heel of most Northern Europeans. It is the main reason I strongly disagree with ideas of Nordic superiority. Sure they make great societies, sure they do all the hard work of bettering the world (that most won't do) but they only benefit from it in the short term.

In Europe we see mostly Germanicized mediteranian racial types at the top of the food chain, as well as Ashkenazi Jews which are almost identical to Germanicized mediteranian types. Usually some German or Russian sceintist invents something, but it's the Jew who makes use of the invention and ends up profiting most from it. Or in other endeavors it's usually the Nordic plowing the field but again a Jew or non-Nordic Germanic actually getting most of the profits from this endeavor.

Asians actually are a bit better adapted at networking. Yet only Japanese really share the same sense of strong duty, pride in work etc. Maybe Koreans as well. Chinese maybe a few creme of the crop feel this way, but most chinese have a similar "southern european" ethic.

What I notice for example a lot of Chinese immigrants come to the United States and simply do everything possible to escape paying taxes, even though the country made them rich. They will cheat the system at every turn for personal gain. A sense of collective duty and lack of corruption probably factors a bit higher than I.Q. in national success. In I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations it was shown that statistically I.Q. and "corruption" could be averaged out and account for about 95% of a nation's wealth. The rest mostly was simply natural resources and population density. most of the world has this same "chinese" morality other than Northern Europeans and the far east asians.

For Germanic society to survive they need to learn better social and networking skills as well as form more personal groups. We can say already that most of the "elites" know how to network otherwise they wouldn't stay on top long. Yet for me personally I never learned this. It's not part of the typical culture of most north europeans (other than more mediterianized ones like French).
 
I think the evolutionary reason for this is that "Nordics" evolved in a rural area in the far north. Until recently Northern Europe could not support large population density. In fact it wasn't until the 1500s that this happened (mostly when the potato came to Europe and some better farming techniques). There never was a need to network. With some technology gains and the introduction of resources from the new world, north europe was able to rise quickly. I see now it is falling quickly as well. In the long term it could be that southern europe is a bit better adapted in some ways (as well as East Asia). Or again we could say the Jewish element of Northern societies better adapted and thus re-engineering society in its own image eventually.
 
Interesting thread, i think about this subject all the time, both the cultural and genetic components. After my father being on social welfare after a few spinal surgeries (we're Australians of NW euro descent) it got me wondering about his inability to "come back" after such an injury and wondered whether it was factors of mental weakness or purely physical incapability. The only reason i contemplated was because i have fiercely independent and entrepreneurial attributes (even turning down a high paying, highly secure public service job because it conflicted with my beliefs). I researched down the male line as well, his father passed away young but the further you go back the more independant they were. Mostly farmers who were in business for themselves, my great-grandfather even being in business until the day he died.
 
What I have discovered about my American redneck/Germanic culture that was brought up to believe in is that it is highly maladaptive for the modern world. Perhaps it works when everybody else has that same Germanic sense of individualism, but it usually breaks apart in large cities and in modern communities which are highly diverse.

When I would work at jobs I would do twice the work as everybody else yet get treated worse. Nobody valued me. Even the typical white American. Their main desire is for friendship, validation etc. things which I never cared about. In other words laugh and joke with the boss and co-workers, drink with them, go play golf with them yet be totally lazy and useless on the job is highly valued. Be the best worker in the entire company but don't talk to others and probably you lose your job.

I find the "corporate culture" here to be inferior, yet we must adapt to reality. It applies in other ways. In urban environments "networks" are useful and having good networks is more important than actual personal intelligence or skill. It's not what you know or how smart you are that gets you ahead in life- it's WHO you know, who you are friends with.

Most Germanics/Nordics have a difficult time grapsing this concept... so they become like the "cattle" of the world. They are always working hard, pulling the weight of the rest but with little benefit to themselves. Many of them get disgusted with the modern world because they totally lack in social skills (both culturally and perhaps genetically) so they are inclined to go live in a rural area where there is less competition, less need to network. Many of them dream of some past world where they could live as vikings and not need to compete with various networks and globalism.

So I find this to be the achilles heel of most Northern Europeans. It is the main reason I strongly disagree with ideas of Nordic superiority. Sure they make great societies, sure they do all the hard work of bettering the world (that most won't do) but they only benefit from it in the short term.

In Europe we see mostly Germanicized mediteranian racial types at the top of the food chain, as well as Ashkenazi Jews which are almost identical to Germanicized mediteranian types. Usually some German or Russian sceintist invents something, but it's the Jew who makes use of the invention and ends up profiting most from it. Or in other endeavors it's usually the Nordic plowing the field but again a Jew or non-Nordic Germanic actually getting most of the profits from this endeavor.

Asians actually are a bit better adapted at networking. Yet only Japanese really share the same sense of strong duty, pride in work etc. Maybe Koreans as well. Chinese maybe a few creme of the crop feel this way, but most chinese have a similar "southern european" ethic.

What I notice for example a lot of Chinese immigrants come to the United States and simply do everything possible to escape paying taxes, even though the country made them rich. They will cheat the system at every turn for personal gain. A sense of collective duty and lack of corruption probably factors a bit higher than I.Q. in national success. In I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations it was shown that statistically I.Q. and "corruption" could be averaged out and account for about 95% of a nation's wealth. The rest mostly was simply natural resources and population density. most of the world has this same "chinese" morality other than Northern Europeans and the far east asians.

For Germanic society to survive they need to learn better social and networking skills as well as form more personal groups. We can say already that most of the "elites" know how to network otherwise they wouldn't stay on top long. Yet for me personally I never learned this. It's not part of the typical culture of most north europeans (other than more mediterianized ones like French).

I agree so strongly with what you're saying, though there are a few exceptions like Warren Buffett/Charlie Munger team also Bill Gates who by today's corporate standards are very old fashioned and live frugally, relative to their immense wealth. Though, I totally understand where you're coming from and wholeheartedly agree.
 
Vae victis

I do believe that southern european, ashkenazi and east asian societies are actually superior in that they feel a stronger sense of clannishness. They do a lot for their family, race etc. Whereas Germanics are like that cattle of the world. They do all the necessary work of bettering the world, always giving to others etc. often at their own expense. Now England for example is mired in debt, third world immigration (associated crime and economic stagnation) and the Germanic race soon faces extinction.

Considering myself a Southern European, being of Corsican descent, I felt extremely interested when I read this thread, and I was delighted to see that some of you take our superiority for granted. I suppose I should fit in the Northern-italian paradigm, my mother being Frankish (both my grandmother and grandfather having very germanic surnames, one even meaning "son of Thor"). Therefore some of you may consider that I am some kind of mestizo, even though my father is also R1b.

This "mixed heritage" also allows me to feel impartial, as I am both descended from northern and southern Europeans. Now, I will just be playing a game, and I hope no one will believe I am serious. Let's play "I am proud to be a Southern European and I despise all those savages from the North". To be able to play the game, I will have to to find several reasons and arguments that will help me strengthen my stance.

First, let us have it at the Germans. The ancestors of these people destroyed classical civilization, sending us backwards several centuries, denying us access to a whole array of technologies that Southern Europeans would have had time to devise if they had not been enslaved, harassed, maimed and raped by Northern Europeans. After all, the steam engine was invented by the Greeks and these people even contrived a forerunner of the computer. I am not even talking about philosophy. The scientists found that several genes interacting with the Fox P2 gene ruling language were positively selected in European populations, but not in others. I bet they were selected in the agora, not in the Scandinavian marshes.

Let us also keep in mind that the Germans are responsible for the eradication of the population with the highest mean IQ in the world, that is the Ashkenazi Jews. That is a very dysgenic trend, isn't it? I say: savages!

From an evolutionary perspective, the German population is going to lose 15 million people between 2010 and 2050. This is due to the fact that Germans are individualists, not collectivists. Germans do not make children, because children are bothersome, and Germans do not like to be disturbed. Germans are self-centered and individualistic: that is why their economy is going to crumble in a few years when no one will be able to pay for all those parasites and retirees that Germany is going to be crowded with.

Take a Germanic guy like that Breivik poor bastard. He wanted to save his "race", so he found nothing better to do than killing ethnic Swedish children to prove his point. Isn't there a blatant failing in that man's reasoning? Well, that is exactly what another Germanic did: Hitler. He did not make children and killed his own. Isn't there a trend to be observed there? The Germans are doomed because they are rabid individualists who are only able to worship a state figure, but cannot love a family or real human beings. That is too complex for them.

A word about the "entrepreneurial Celts". The Irish, for instance, have one of the lowest IQs in Europe. They are universally known for their rashness, lack of planning, etc... Just read the Gallic Wars, and you will see that the Romans considered the Celts as very dim, to say the least. This gap in reasoning and the Celts' high tolerance to uncertainty allowed my careful ancestors, who liked certainty better, to enslave them and put them to good use. Actually, the Italians, southern Europeans, have one of the highest IQs in Europe.

The English make more children than other Northern Europeans. Why is that so? Well, because the English, like the French, are a cultural and genetic crossbreed between Northern and Southern Europeans. They are much better at communicating their emotions than other Germanics, and their language is heavily influenced by southern European languages. They have more warmth in their hearts and they are ready to sacrifice their time and their money to welcome children in their homes. They plan for a future.

Survival lies not in the economy, it lies in biology. Emotions are also carried by genes, and northern Europeans, like Neandertals, are lacking those. What differentiated us from the Neandertals was superior communication skills and the ability to relate to others. Northern Europeans are obviously lacking in those respects. That is why they will disappear.

Happy Father's day to all the southern European scum on this board.
 
There is not a big genetic distance between French, English and German, so it is impossible that Nordics are genetically anti-social and individualistic. All differences in Europe are cultural and learned behaviors. Personally I find Nordics to be more simple and straight-forward that Southerners, but also more plain. But flavor and emotion is not always good in business and work.
 
Nordics are genetically anti-social and individualistic.
I wouldn't put it this way. They are more socially complacent though, germanics are. There is a difference between socially interactive as southerners are, and follow the crowd, or a leader, the northerners are. I'm still not sure what is the main cause, but I think it is the heightened emotional state of south Europe, in general.
The southern europeans are the first to say I and My family, and the rest of society are They and government are They. Northern people are all We and will follow social and government regulations.

Italians will tell "vaffanculo" to the cop, but try to find German doing so.
 
This "mixed heritage" also allows me to feel impartial, as I am both descended from northern and southern Europeans. Now, I will just be playing a game, and I hope no one will believe I am serious. Let's play "I am proud to be a Southern European and I despise all those savages from the North". To be able to play the game, I will have to to find several reasons and arguments that will help me strengthen my stance.
Sadly, so much of being impartial.

First, let us have it at the Germans. The ancestors of these people destroyed classical civilization, sending us backwards several centuries, denying us access to a whole array of technologies that Southern Europeans would have had time to devise if they had not been enslaved, harassed, maimed and raped by Northern Europeans.
Wowowo. Rome decline was long and happened through centuries. Don't blame Germans or Slavs conquering Roman Empire. It wasn't much left of Rome to counterbalance people movement from east and north, around 5th century. You'd be better blaming little ice age for failing crops, population decline for fall of Rome than attacks of savages. It was more of economic/climatic than geopopulation affair anyway.
And yes, I'm also regretting that tribes of north were dumb enough and couldn't learn fast enough to sustain Roman achievements and science. Apparently, education of population takes time. Just don't blame them for fall of Rome. Rome was weak at the time that's why the uneducated and poor barbarians could succeed putting Rome down.


After all, the steam engine was invented by the Greeks and these people even contrived a forerunner of the computer. I am not even talking about philosophy. The scientists found that several genes interacting with the Fox P2 gene ruling language were positively selected in European populations, but not in others. I bet they were selected in the agora, not in the Scandinavian marshes.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter who invented what, it matters who can take the invitation to industrial scale, to bring invention and product to the masses.
Who knows who invented the wheel, tamed the horse, or smelted iron. But we know that Indo Europeans introduced them on massive scale and thanks to this conquered whole Europe and half Asia.

Let us also keep in mind that the Germans are responsible for the eradication of the population with the highest mean IQ in the world, that is the Ashkenazi Jews. That is a very dysgenic trend, isn't it? I say: savages!
It's getting old. Ordinary Germans knew nothing about this (during the fact), except top natzy elite.

From an evolutionary perspective, the German population is going to lose 15 million people between 2010 and 2050.
It's only a prediction, not a fact. Please, use your impartial judgment.


This is due to the fact that Germans are individualists, not collectivists.
I think it is in reverse. Even the socialism/communism was working the best in DDR of all soviet block countries.

Germans do not make children,
I'm sure I've seen a german child. I think there is a bit exaggeration in your tone.


that is why their economy is going to crumble in a few years when no one will be able to pay for all those parasites and retirees that Germany is going to be crowded with.
Are you sure you are still impartial?

Take a Germanic guy like that Breivik poor bastard. He wanted to save his "race", so he found nothing better to do than killing ethnic Swedish children to prove his point.
I'm sure there was France's "Breiviks" already in french history. Just refresh your mind. What about french revolution? How many died for the cause of someone's dream?
When one kills it is a domestic terrorism. If many kills it is a revolution.
(I'm not in favour of either, just pointing to the complexity of human brain in general)[/QUOTE]



Well, that is exactly what another Germanic did: Hitler. He did not make children and killed his own. Isn't there a trend to be observed there? The Germans are doomed because they are rabid individualists who are only able to worship a state figure, but cannot love a family or real human beings. That is too complex for them.
I'm still in search of impartial You! One more impartial statement like this and your are banned.

A word about the "entrepreneurial Celts". The Irish, for instance, have one of the lowest IQs in Europe.
Check again.

the Italians, southern Europeans, have one of the highest IQs in Europe
. There is no real difference of IQ of any European countries.

The English make more children than other Northern Europeans. Why is that so?
Maybe because they have most of emigrants?


Well, because the English, like the French, are a cultural and genetic crossbreed between Northern and Southern Europeans. They are much better at communicating their emotions than other Germanics, and their language is heavily influenced by southern European languages. They have more warmth in their hearts and they are ready to sacrifice their time and their money to welcome children in their homes.
Or maybe they are just more emotional?


They plan for a future.
Agh? Looks like North Europeans invest more in the future, future technologies, and well being of the planet in general. Is this more individualistic or social?

Survival lies not in the economy, it lies in biology.
So remind me why T-Rex is extinct? It was the strongest predator of all times?
Oh, right, he couldn't produce enough food to survive during crisis!


Emotions are also carried by genes, and northern Europeans, like Neanderthal, are lacking those.
You are on good track, you just exaggerate too much.
Still impartial?


What differentiated us from the Neandertals was superior communication skills and the ability to relate to others. Northern Europeans are obviously lacking in those respects. That is why they will disappear.
I'm sure that sooner or later you will realise that northern europeans are not Neanderthals. If they a bit less emotional it doesn't make them less human, is it.
Who said that humans are all about emothings? I believe that it is intelligence that we are most proud of. I also believe that right balance between intelligence and emotions is the most important.

Happy Father's day to all the southern European scum on this board.
And to you too.
 
I have banned this hate-monger of Athenid. In addition to posting a very offensive first post on the forum, his IP address was from Inverness, Scotland, while he pretended being a Frenchman living Paris. Typical tr0ll material.
 
Individualism/Collectivism can be twisted as needed to fit any agenda, because it is so artificial. Hofstede's dimensions (from the 1960's) are no true dimensions because they are highly inter-dependent, but they should be independent (orthogonal). Sure, it was a pioneering work, but not at all the final wisdom. I would talk much about this topic, but just one example for now: East asians are traditionally considered typical collectivist societies, whereas north-west euros as individualst (at least the last is politically motivated nonsense imho). Now, genetic research has revealed that most east asians lack important genes for empathy as opposed to caucasians/europeans

"The participants judged as less empathetic those people with either two As (AA) or GA than people with two Gs (GG)."..."On average, only about 15 percent of Caucasians have two A oxytocin receptor gene variants.", http://www.livescience.com/17018-empathy-genetics-behavior.html

So what are the conclusions: does empathy belong to individualism now, or are east-asians actually individualists? Are south-europeans collectivist because of their empathy, or exactly the opposite? Perhaps conformism has been misinterpreted as collectivism!?
I've read somewhere an interestring theory that asian conformism is a strategy to compensate this lack of empathy. I myself noticed a remarkable non-conformism and anarchism among south-europeans, even more than in north-europe. Makes sense. On the other hand, east-europe appeared similarly non-conformist and anarchic to me, which I can't explain yet.

(googling using "East Asians have much higher frequency of the AA" reveals two hits in google cache which has been apparently removed meanwhile)
 
Individualism/Collectivism can be twisted as needed to fit any agenda, because it is so artificial. Hofstede's dimensions (from the 1960's) are no true dimensions because they are highly inter-dependent, but they should be independent (orthogonal). Sure, it was a pioneering work, but not at all the final wisdom. I would talk much about this topic, but just one example for now: East asians are traditionally considered typical collectivist societies, whereas north-west euros as individualst (at least the last is politically motivated nonsense imho). Now, genetic research has revealed that most east asians lack important genes for empathy as opposed to caucasians/europeans



So what are the conclusions: does empathy belong to individualism now, or are east-asians actually individualists? Are south-europeans collectivist because of their empathy, or exactly the opposite? Perhaps conformism has been misinterpreted as collectivism!?
I've read somewhere an interestring theory that asian conformism is a strategy to compensate this lack of empathy. I myself noticed a remarkable non-conformism and anarchism among south-europeans, even more than in north-europe. Makes sense. On the other hand, east-europe appeared similarly non-conformist and anarchic to me, which I can't explain yet.

(googling using "East Asians have much higher frequency of the AA" reveals two hits in google cache which has been apparently removed meanwhile)

Really interesting comment. I like the conformist vs. collective comparison.

I do think as I learn more and more about these genetic findings that we have to watch out for a eugenics movement. Will somebody deem this lack of empathy a bad thing? (It may be, but it was put it in the genome for a reason.) I look to nature for answers here-- specifically the average tree canopy.

In most forests, jungles, even suburbs there is a nice mix of plant species. For example the area near my house has a bunch of maples, a few oaks, some birch and interspersed throughout all of these shorter trees are some much taller pines. I'm guessing a healthy mix of haplogroups (both paternal and maternal) and a mix of autosomal traits (like empathic vs. more distant) give our human species an advantage.
 
Oh and Athenid you're a douchebag.
 
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another.
So I guess somebody who lacks empathy would seem as a very rude and machine-like person, capable of doing attrocious things to others.
 
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another.
So I guess somebody who lacks empathy would seem as a very rude and machine-like person, capable of doing attrocious things to others.

Yeah, that's what most believe, but I don't. In fact, autistic people are found to be statistically less often involved in anti-social behaviour, e.g. crimes. I'm sure that empathy is not required to be a decent person. Autistic people (with exceptions of course) tend to be even more concerned about justice than normal people. That's because they are less fooled by empathy and tend to use reason and logic in order to compensate lack of empathy. A problem is that they also tend to follow rules more rigidly (conformism?). IMHO empathy is a fad. Empathy is actually very selective and unjust, it works only for closely related people, but not for the whole mankind because the latter is too abstract for emotions. But reason and logic can be applied to whole humanity. The Kantian imperative is such an example of an unempathic ethic.
 
One additional remark: Empathy is also very useful to identify the other's weaknesses in order to exploit them (cheating, blackmail, lying, manipulation,...).
 
Really interesting comment. I like the conformist vs. collective comparison.

I do think as I learn more and more about these genetic findings that we have to watch out for a eugenics movement. Will somebody deem this lack of empathy a bad thing? (It may be, but it was put it in the genome for a reason.) I look to nature for answers here-- specifically the average tree canopy.

I also don't consider empathy good or bad. But our opinion will not count, so obviously modern genetics is prone by nature to be used for eugenics eventually. Worse, eugenics selection criteria would depend more-or-less on certain fads, hypes or ideologies.

In most forests, jungles, even suburbs there is a nice mix of plant species. For example the area near my house has a bunch of maples, a few oaks, some birch and interspersed throughout all of these shorter trees are some much taller pines. I'm guessing a healthy mix of haplogroups (both paternal and maternal) and a mix of autosomal traits (like empathic vs. more distant) give our human species an advantage.

Right, never put all eggs in one basket.
 
Yeah, that's what most believe, but I don't. In fact, autistic people are found to be statistically less often involved in anti-social behaviour, e.g. crimes. I'm sure that empathy is not required to be a decent person. Autistic people (with exceptions of course) tend to be even more concerned about justice than normal people. That's because they are less fooled by empathy and tend to use reason and logic in order to compensate lack of empathy. A problem is that they also tend to follow rules more rigidly (conformism?). IMHO empathy is a fad. Empathy is actually very selective and unjust, it works only for closely related people, but not for the whole mankind because the latter is too abstract for emotions. But reason and logic can be applied to whole humanity. The Kantian imperative is such an example of an unempathic ethic.

It is hard to figure out people using reason only. I guess Lack of Empathy is harmless on a society with righteous laws, but it might get scary in Authoritarianism. I don't even want to imagine a 1984-like World Order operated by genetically non-empathetic bureaucrats and law enforcing officials.
Human leadership, before we through ourlselves off-balance in the Iron-Age, were the most spiritual people of the tribe, such as Shamans/priests/priesteses. People say Shamans can read minds; they cannot read minds, they can just recognize emotions better than others.
 
It is hard to figure out people using reason only. I guess Lack of Empathy is harmless on a society with righteous laws, but it might get scary in Authoritarianism. I don't even want to imagine a 1984-like World Order operated by genetically non-empathetic bureaucrats and law enforcing officials.

I understand what you mean, maybe you are right about authoritarianism, I don't know. Certainly the best would be to be both, empathic and reasonable. Still: Empathy is only one tool to gain knowledge about other's feelings (what's right and wrong), but it is not the only one and it is not even a very sophisticated one. And it is also not the same as having good intentions. A simple example for purely non-empathic reason is:
Person B suffers pain from a catastrophe (EDIT: in most cases it is trivial to understand when someone suffers just by rationally analyzing the situation rather than by reading his mind. Also, empathy would be restricted to direct personal contact, whereas reasonable situation analysis relies completely on formal data only, thus being applicable also to unknown remote persons.). I'm person A. I should help B because A and B are both persons (same species, probably(!) same culture). If I wouldn't help B, then I would violate logic because of double-standard. In this case I would risk to eventually suffer myself from the same double-standard I just created. (that's simple game theory reasoning)
Let's look again at austists: If the parents explain to an autistic child what causes harm to other peer children, then the autistic child is not less likely to comply to this information by behaving more ethically. Grown-up autists can figure out by observation and reason what is harmful or not to others. The only cases where autists truly often tend to hurt other people is when they say things too openly and blatantly. But this is not because of evil intentions but because of unability to understand finer communication nuances, which can happen also to non-autistic people if they come from a different culture with different communicative nuances. Being non-empathic is effectively like being of a foreign culture in some sense.
 
I also don't consider empathy good or bad. But our opinion will not count, so obviously modern genetics is prone by nature to be used for eugenics eventually. Worse, eugenics selection criteria would depend more-or-less on certain fads, hypes or ideologies.
Right, never put all eggs in one basket.

In order to understand what really empathy is, one has to understand the evolution of the human thinking and evolution of the value systems in people and human society as a whole. Empathy has also an evolving meaning, for one value system may only mean feeling sorry or sad for someones' situation and offering just a plain charity, but there is empathy when people want to change the world and fight for equality since they believe that only in that way they will fight the poverty. There is empathy that understands deeply the problems but sees that they do it to themselves and knows that whatever they do, it will not help them in the long term. There is also a more complex empathy that helps others to wake up and realize their potential therefore be able to make a better world. I have to point out that there were three systems in the human evolution that did not have the concept of empathy at all, and those were systems that were directed by DNA ("selfish gene" as Richard Dawkins calls it) while now we are evolving or getting constantly programmed by both genes and memes.
 
In order to understand what really empathy is, one has to understand the evolution of the human thinking and evolution of the value systems in people and human society as a whole. Empathy has also an evolving meaning, for one value system may only mean feeling sorry or sad for someones' situation and offering just a plain charity, but there is empathy when people want to change the world and fight for equality since they believe that only in that way they will fight the poverty. There is empathy that understands deeply the problems but sees that they do it to themselves and knows that whatever they do, it will not help them in the long term. There is also a more complex empathy that helps others to wake up and realize their potential therefore be able to make a better world. I have to point out that there were three systems in the human evolution that did not have the concept of empathy at all, and those were systems that were directed by DNA ("selfish gene" as Richard Dawkins calls it) while now we are evolving or getting constantly programmed by both genes and memes.

If I understand you right, you are suggesting several different definitions for empathy here?! Which is the right one? The fight for equality and things like that are actually good examples for non-empathic abstract moral reasoning which I explained above.
Also, scientists seem to consider empathy more as something basic neurological and subconcious, I would say animal-like (http://www.livescience.com/1628-study-people-literally-feel-pain.html). This is the level where I would seek for a proper definition of empathy rather than in the higher abstract levels, because these higher levels are controlled by conciousness and reason.
 

This thread has been viewed 219905 times.

Back
Top