3 ms·
I think she is tangential to some completely unobjectionable stuff as well as some (to me) objectionable stuff. The things she talks about the most which I fin
by rdl 8y ago
I think she is tangential to some completely unobjectionable stuff as well as some (to me) objectionable stuff. The things she talks about the most which I find interesting are the internal-to-Europe differences in family patterns (family size, manorialism, adoption, etc.) and how those have changed population genetics within europe over time (culture impacting genetics; unclear the extent genetics impact culture). Also that in England and other NW Europe the most violent people were executed for crimes fairly aggressively, and only elites had large numbers of children, leading to a long-term improvement in genetics with time.
- dan-robertson 8y agoIf this is true and significant then it does not imply a long-term improvement so much as a specialisation towards (a) not being caught for crimes and (b) being able to become an “elite,” potentially by violence, cruelty, manipulation, and other traits one likely would not consider desirable.
- rdl 8y agoOn crimes I disagree, because committing violent crimes and being caught for them tend to be fairly correlated; crime is rarely a one-time thing, and criminals get unlucky or are stupid too. As for elites -> more children, since there were various routes into "elite" for smart/competent/etc. people (the church in various roles, not all of which precluded reproduction; skilled trades/guilds, etc.), it did have a positive effect in amplifying traits (intelligence, etc.) which I think people broadly support (I do). Similar to the assortative mating issues with colleges and elite workplaces today.