<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What substrate does this phenomenon run on? I don't think we need
to blame genetics or intelligence, culture is more than enough. A
strongly male dominated, competitive situation, perhaps with
highly mobile people, would tend to produce a situation where
tribal identity and parochialism become strong. And of course,
once you are parochial you will develop memes that maintain your
group and explain why this is the right way of life.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>### In-group cooperation and out-group hostility are too important to be completely left to the fickle vagaries of culture. There is a limited number of settings for behaviors that are compatible with group survival under EEA. When do you and your buddies attack the others? Do you do that openly or do you get him when nobody's looking? Local culture will modify these proclivities but there is a genetic bedrock of fear, love and hatred on which all is built.</div><div><br></div><div>Naturally, as any multigenic trait, there will be inter-individual variability. Not all Yanomamo have what it takes to be unokai (human-killer). Multigenic and variable traits undergo rapid changes under evolutionary pressures, driven by changes in allele frequency. Evolutionary pressures on the precursors of modern European populations have differed from EEA very significantly, especially over the past 1000 years.</div><div><br></div><div>I would be extremely surprised if these pressures did not produce genetic changes in social proclivities. Culture and genetics are entwined in reciprocal feedback, over longer periods of time one hardly changes without the other.</div><div><br></div><div>Rafał</div></div>