Wednesday, August 3, 2016

The essential strategy of ethnocentrism

As we are seeing in real time in both Europe and the USA, ethnocentrism trumps humanitarianism the vast majority of the time:
In this study, we examine the possible temporal coincidence between population saturation and the establishment of ethnocentric dominance. Both the mediation and direct hypotheses predict a close temporal coincidence between population saturation and ethnocentric dominance. Both hypotheses also predict that the frequency of humanitarian agents decreases with ethnocentric growth, though the direct hypothesis predicts a direct relation not using the mediating influence of free-riders.

Our methodology is the same as in the original simulation (Hammond & Axelrod 2006b), except that we record strategy frequencies at every evolutionary cycle in 50 worlds and stop at 1000 cycles because solutions are always stable by then. We record results at every evolutionary cycle to provide a more complete picture of evolutionary processes and insights into the determinants of stable evolutionary outcomes.

To examine the unique predictions of each hypothesis, we perform a mediation analysis to determine whether the relation between ethnocentric and humanitarian strategies is mediated by suppression of selfish strategies. The direct hypothesis would be uniquely supported by finding an unmediated negative relation between ethnocentrism and humanitarianism, while the mediation hypothesis would be uniquely supported by finding evidence of such mediation through selfish free-riders.

Mean evolving strategy frequencies over the 50 worlds are plotted in Figure 1. These plots indicate that ethnocentric dominance occurs, on average, at around 300 evolutionary cycles. Until that point, there is strong competition from humanitarians. Both selfish and traitorous strategies increase over the first 300 cycles but then stagnate at such low levels that they never pose much of a threat to either humanitarianism or ethnocentrism. A plot of evolving population sizes in 50 worlds, in Figure 2 left-side Y-axis, indicates that world population saturates at around that same time, 300 cycles. The right-side Y-axis in Figure 2 shows that the proportion of out-group interactions, averaged over 50 worlds in a fresh simulation, increases across the first 300 evolutionary cycles and then stagnates at just under .2. Proportion of out-group interactions is computed as the number of out-group interactions divided by number of total interactions (out-group interactions + in-group interactions). In summary, as the world fills up, out-group interactions reach a maximum and final decisive splits in strategy frequencies emerge. Similar to earlier results (Hammond & Axelrod 2006b), the mean proportions of strategies at 1000 cycles are .08 selfish, .02 traitorous, .73 ethnocentric, and .17 humanitarian.
Translation: the West has severely endangered itself by exchanging nationalism (ethnocentrism) for globalism (humanitarianism), and can only recover by abandoning the latter.


Jeff said...

Diversity + proximity = ????

(my favorite saying from Heartiste)

Anonymous said...

But loving of your own people makes you a monster, goy.

dc.sunsets said...

The humanitarians won't stop until it's illegal to produce white kids.

Bullets, not ballots.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Question is, what is it going to take to get the West to abandon it?

Anonymous said...

Pepe memes, apparently.

From where I'm sitting, that seems to have moved the needle the most anyway.

Unknown said...

Any system which does not include as one of its principle an instinct of self-preservation will in due time amount to nothing more than a suicide pact.

For all of their so called surreptitiousness and anti-scienticisim, religions at the very least seem to have a certain degree of respect for the principles of evolution, if not in the letter then certainly in practice. Is suicide part of the Christian doctrine?

At the risk of sounding dramatic: woe to those who tie a knot around their children's neck.

(As for those who wonder how we wake "the masses" up from their stupor, the answer is: a liberal education.)

Aeoli Pera said...

.02 traitorous


Anonymous said...

"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."

I like how they include "traitorous" agents in their model. Gotta account for shitlibs and Angela Merkel somehow, I suppose.

I do think they should tweak "selfish" agents to cover amoral familists like the Muslims, with their rampant inbreeding.

"These results indicate that the decline of humanitarians is due to direct exploitation by ethnocentrics and is not mediated by humanitarian deficiencies in out-competing selfish agents. As the world fills up and clusters of agents collide, ethnocentrism starts to dominate its closest competitor humanitarianism by virtue of ethnocentrics directly exploiting humanitarians across cluster boundaries."

Translation: more gibsmedats and fewer whiteys will kill humanitarianism.

The only thing they didn't mention was: will humanitarians shift to ethnocentrists, or simply be displaced and replaced by ethnocentrists?

"Most interesting for the mediation and direct hypotheses, however, is the extent to which humanitarians thrive in the absence of ethnocentrism. In simulations without ethnocentrism, humanitarianism dominates in a manner similar to ethnocentrism. This is evident in both three- and two-strategy simulations. Figure 4 shows mean strategy frequencies for three-strategy simulations that disallow either humanitarian (EST) or ethnocentric (HST) strategies, across 10 worlds averaged over the last 100 of 1000 cycles. Humanitarians perform similarly to ethnocentrics here, greatly outperforming both traitorous and selfish agents."

Translation: Humanitarianism "works" only if you don't allow ethnocentrists into your society.

Unknown said...

Ok, so the model predicts a stable population after 300 cycles. In human terms that's 300 generations, or roughly 6000 years. All the West needs for white supremacy is to ethnic cleanse the nations and keep them racially pure for six millennia. Six times as long as the thousand-year Reich. Hitler made it to 12 years. What do you propose?

Looking at it another way, if the model is even 10% accurate, and there were only four static breeding strategies in the future world, and color and ethnicity were synonymous with each other and independent of dozens of other real-life variables, then non-whites have a far better chance of achieving 'ethnic' 'purity' than whites.

JCclimber said...

Or, you could look at the young-earthy model that 6,000 years is the age of human society on earth. However, that belief includes a flood reset 2,000 years in, plus a really long life span. Biblically, the Tower of Babel included a divine scattering and mixing of languages, around 3,900 years ago.

Considering that this world hasn't really achieved true ethnocentrism in most areas, that would still fit the model's predictions. Give it about 2,000 more years. (Ugh, no thanks)

Unknown said...


Good point. Obviously, the Christian model is slightly different, in that men are to be united in Christ on the day of His return. This is not globalism - which, given that Satan is sovereign over the world, is essentially a Satanic ritual - but a global nation united by grace through faith in God's promises. God promises a kingdom united not by color or ethnicity but by love and righteousness. That's the only nationalist model that will not fail at some point.

Anonymous said...

@ Unknown

It should take less cycles than that. Liberals had a much lower TFR than conservatives. TFR for liberals is around 1 and for conservatives it's around 2. For extreme liberals it is lower and for extreme conservatives it is higher. So we are currently witnessing a a reduction in 1/2 of liberal (humanitarian genes) amongst whites every generation, to be filled up (among whites that is) with conservative (ethnocentric genes).

Of course, this doesn't affect the effect that culture has on ones ethnocentric or humanitarian strategy. Liberal culture means they could flip some conservative genes to their humanitarian strategy and conservative culture means you could flip some liberal genes to humanitarian strategy.

Anonymous said...

It should take less cycles than that. Liberals had a much lower TFR than conservatives. TFR for liberals is around 1 and for conservatives it's around 2. For extreme liberals it is lower and for extreme conservatives it is higher. So we are currently witnessing a a reduction in 1/2 of liberal (humanitarian genes) amongst whites every generation, to be filled up (among whites that is) with conservative (ethnocentric genes).

To be more precise, IIRC, it's 1.4 for white liberals and 2.2 for white conservatives in the United States, averaging 1.8, in the mid-2000s.

The gap among high-IQ liberals and conservatives is even wider (and much narrower among the less intelligent). Dysgenia is proceeding at a lighting pace among the Left, and in a couple of generations, they'll consist pretty much entirely of drooling morons. Academia is already collapsing and descending rapidly into a farce; where decades ago there were still quite a few dangerously intelligent Marxists, nowadays there's nothing -- they're relying completely on feelz.

Post a Comment