(This biohistory crap) reminds me of using that r/K selection theory to explain liberals and conservatives, and I would advise you to stop wasting time or thoughts on crack pots trying peddle you nonsense.
It’s a case of “so bad, it’s not even wrong.” In the former example, pseudoscience and broad generalizations were used to justify the genetic superiority of certain civilizations, through the magic power of hogwash. Someone else brought it up on another forum the other day, and I read a hilarious takedown by a historian of an article on the book conservative bloggers are touting- the one that I presume first tried to tie the r/K strategy paradigm to politics in the first place. Highlights were when she said the author actually wrote that WW2 could be explained because mothers of Europeans were stressed out during WW1, so the babies were born wired for anxiety and soon aggressively fought each other in a second war! In turn, the stress of WW2 led to the civil rights protests of the 70’s (rather than aggressively going to war as in the previous example). It’s totally a joke if you have even a passing understanding of all the complex motives of the various players. Remember, this is an internet historian tearing apart a popular consumption book written by a sociologist who only talked about what the average person knows of big events in history, and who probably knew nothing of the intricacies.
I didn’t save the link, but I’m sure read the book yourself you’d realize how ridiculously oversimplistic it is.
(Edit: found it and it’s still brilliant,
Hopefully you’ll do more research and reject it and everything that reeks of the same methodology, rather than continuing to seek confirmation bias in something so wacky. You can either read political drivel that won’t teach you any new facts, or read a less interpretive book that actually educates you on history/biology, and then lets you draw your own conclusions.
The science is not there yet, the history is bad, the interpretation of both are bad. The very wikipedia article has a section titled “caution”, probably written by someone who was tired of dealing with everyone from science-fiction to creationalists trying to use the latest tentative findings of statistical insignificance to support whatever. You’re supposed to interpret science conservatively, erring on the side of caution – the opposite of this.
By the way the video you linked to is a popular conservative youtuber who 8chan’s /christian/ regularly links to. I’ve seen a few videos of his before that I disagreed, and I am not impressed by his ability to insert his biases into his research. A good rule of thumb that I apply to his videos on socialism or immigration, is anyone who pays excessive attention to “preserving superior genes” is probably an asshole who thinks 1) he has high quality genes 2) his genes need to be preserved. He can’t even make a video where he talks about genes without talking about his racial ancestry (German and Irish or something.)
It disgusts me how many conservatives want to pretend they have better genes, and if they inherit wealth or are successful, their genes are the reason. They truly believe they are special people, and should be called out by more rational conservatives. This is just social darwanism disguised, with the underpinnings of facist eugenics. Lise I said, don’t waste time speculating on how hormones in the womb affect history and politics – it leads to all sorts of horribly misguided thinking.
I mean even if they admit they’re not religious, or Jews, and don’t lay claim to God’s providence, many of them can’t help themselves from instead focusing on the merits of their great ancestry to preserve many of the same views. It could even be a sign of a superiorirty-inferiority complex whenever someone’s own accomplishments feel so trite, they have to take pride in what your glorified ancestors did, as though their heroism still runs in your veins. And look, their true motive is revealed when so many of them jump with excitement that they might soon have an excuse to say their grandpa imparted his genes who, (did you know he heroically fought off twenty Nazis in WW2 with his bare fists?) Yes, and he gave a small fraction of his noble and brave genes to his descendents, so be proud of yourself.
If your ancestors did it so could you! Praise science for making us feel better about ourselves and accept the newest finding instantly, but otherwise be skeptical of the consensus!
It’s fine to attack the source an argument to save time dealing with crackpots. In theory every argument should be considered equally, bur pragmatically, no one in acadamia does that, and we shouldn’t on the forums either. I don’t see why you think I am attacking you either, I am merely pointing out the flaws in a way of thinking that may not be apparent to you. Flaws that exist in the links you’ve provided.
If you want a counter point, here: hunger early on in life increased the lifespan of the descendets of men in a certain Swiss village, but decreased the lifespan of women, thereby negating the commonly cited “science says abstinence and delayed gratification improves society” point. You can dig deeper and find more contradictions, and lousy lab experiments, but it shouldn’t be my job to do extraordinary effort for you to recognize crackpots when there isn’t a consensus yet. Whatever science there is has been covered with pseudoscience in interpretation. No one should make judgment calls on how it applies to society, and write narrative books on biohistory, when the evidence isn’t even solid.
Your current argument in one sentence boils down to, “stressed out mothers have worse babies/genes, and liberals are more stressed out, but religion removes stress for people making better genes.” It doesn’t follow, it oversimplifies complex problems, and it is absurd on its face. I can’t see how a high-libido person, liberal, or homosexual would be anything but stressed by Abrahamic religion, unless they accepted something like Wicca.
Where do you want to go with this idea now? Suppose I accept that biochemistry can effect dna for multiple generations, etc. Am I also required to accept without evidence that conservative values make for better offspring? There is a lot I am required to “take on faith” for this theory to work, and I think its justified to save time and not discuss it. I think right now you are showing true-believer syndrome: even after I and CeilYurei have attacked the heart of the argument from different angles to discredit it, you still believe its true.
Here is the picture that sums up your premises, which are shared by the host in the video you linked to. Right off the bat we can see the r/K paradigm doesn’t fit the narrative. Education correlates with having kids later, and liberals tend to be more educated. Conservatives tend to live in the country side, tend to oppose birth control, and tend to have more children. So in education, and babies, liberals are actually closer to following a K strategy, and the idea is a mess.
Meanwhile the host you linked to believes Europe is being taken over by people with inferior genes, and in time this will lead to the decline of civilization. He thinks the liberal policies, and the genes they pass on are accelerating the destruction of good genes, (which by happen-chance are European rather than immigrants.)
If I were to argue the opposite, (Liberals create better societies, because biohistory proves it, and therefore X), with just as much evidence you would probably call me out for it. We can play the “what if” game on anything, but unless it is reasonably grounded, it’s a waste of time.