Anti-Salterians wrong again.
Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.” Let’s look at what the data say about that.
Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.
I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.
…ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution.
Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work). That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).
… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…
That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.
Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.
Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure. Read it and weep, HBDers.
Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.
This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago. This paper explains it well.
The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders’ own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.
Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians! The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data. Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won’t even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.
Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.
This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, “unreliable.” No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.
Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors’ greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.
Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap. Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.
Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.