Lots of different measurements of impersonal honesty: a thread. The precise rank-ordering of these different measures varies, but the general picture is clear. First one is how many people claim to complete an impossible 5-minute task in 5 minutes. .
This one is the fraction of people who report a lost wallet, with or without money. A consistent pattern of China doing much worse than other high-IQ countries is clear across these.
Here's the Passenger's Dilemma (if your friend killed someone speeding and you were the only witness, would you lie to protect him?). Japan does poorly here.
Here's how corrupt people perceive their own country to be.
Stripe fraud rates (India, unsurprisingly, maxes out the scale).
Scientific retractions. Note that this is a function of both (1) how able you are to do science and (2) how fraudulent your science is. East Asia (both China and Japan) stands out, but India also has a lot of fraud considering their low scientific output.
How often did diplomats take advantage of their immunity to break parking laws in NYC?
Another measure of scientific misconduct, this one of obvious fraud like flipped images or impossible numbers.
The common thread: Germanic societies are the most impersonally honest, with other (non-Soviet) Europeans and sometimes Japan behind them. The rest of the world, including high-IQ China, is deeply dishonest as a rule. Nothing surprising to anyone who knows what WEIRD means.
I posit this is due to the Western European Marriage Pattern, which forced Northwest Europeans to rely on non-kin to survive for centuries. See here: substack-proxy.glitch.me/articles/arcto…
I believe Communism, which very strongly incentivized vice and penalized virtue, is partly to blame for the fUSSR and China's bad performance. Similar incentives from welfare states in the West are in the process of doing the same here.
Not only are impersonally honest societies more pleasant to live in, they're also more productive and efficient. You can hire non-strangers without fearing they'll steal and science can actually work (can trust colleagues results) rather than be an exercise in fraud/careerism.
Given how much of this is genetic, WEIRD impersonal honesty will not survive population replacement via mass nonwhite immigration. The result (already visible) will be poorer, less innovative, less pleasant, and more corrupt societies, and regression to the (low) human mean.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from the pre-Columbian chapters of T. R. Fehrenbach's Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico (1973/1995). This is a very dense and detailed book; this thread is not even close to comprehensive.
Meso-American civilization was one civilization; there were no separate Aztec/Mexic/Yucatec/Maya/etc civilizations. The peoples discovered by Cortes were inheritors rather than creators.
For its entire history, Meso-American culture was extraordinarily urban, more like the Orient than that of the European dark ages. But these were not so much commercial or mercantile cities as religious and defensive ones.
Thread with excerpts from Richard Pipes' Property and Freedom (1999). Pipes is a historian of Russia, and the thesis of the book is that private property, as something distinct and protected from public power and sovereignty, is indispensable to human freedom.
One of the fundamental differences between Russia and the rest of Europe lay in the weak development of private property; one of the major themes of Western philosophical history is the benefits and drawbacks of private property; Russian philosophers unanimously condemn it.
Freedom, as used by Pipes, includes political freedom, legal freedom, economic freedom, and personal rights. It does not include the right to public support ("freedom from want"); such 'rights' are at best a moral claim and at worst an unearned privilege.
Red state pension funds tend to vote with management if management is providing good returns (ie, doing their job); blue state pension funds tend to vote with management if the company does leftist things (ie, ESG, or not paying CEOs very much).
This reflects a general difference in attitude towards institutions; rightists prefer institutions do what they were created for (eg police should fight crime, the military should fight wars, companies should make money doing their business, schools should teach)...
...while left-wingers want every institution to have pushing the Party Line as its #1 priority (extremely totalitarian in that regard). The formers produces a better society, the latter is more politically powerful but destroys everything in the long run.
Training an LLM to be more politically evenhanded (as opposed to left-wing, as almost all LLMs are - so more right-wing) makes it more egalitarian in how it values the lives of people of different races without training to do so. PCT = Political Consistency Training.
LLMs trained in this way also value members of different religions, political creeds, and public figures coded left vs right more equally.
Almost all notable LLMs except Grok are left-wing on the US political spectrum, but in a very particular way, sort of like a superhumanly-knowledgeable Redditor or Wikipedia editor from the year 2018.
Since 2009, medical schools have had to prove they sufficiently discriminate against white men ("achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes") to get accredited.
White men are now significantly underrepresented among med school students.
Fortunately, competence isn't that important in doctors, so purging white men in favor of "underrepresented minorities" (blacks, LatinX) who can't pass clinical exams shouldn't matter.
European IQ's rising due to natural selection (as measured by PGS) continuing into the modern era whereas it stalled in East Asia could have been predicted from Gregory Clark's genealogical studies in both regions.
Clark found that "survival of the richest" was the rule in England from 1300-1880 or so, with huge differences in surviving offspring by class and this was much weaker in Qing China because higher class women didn't have more kids due to elite polygamy.
(IQ is not the only trait that goes into income or wealth, of course, so selection for wealth is only indirectly selection for IQ and also selects for a package of other traits, some of which are collective goods like IQ and some of which are not.)