Great point. I hadn’t considered that cultural assimilation can also make people worse. Mainstream folks seem to assume that cultural assimilation only improves immigrants.
Part of the problem is the term "cultural assimilation." Immigrants to Western countries don't assimilate into "Western culture" — which is likewise a misleading term. They become acultural, like the majority of modern Western individuals.
Anyone who has spent time with people from cultures with a strong religious tradition, be it Christian, Muslim , Hindu , Confucian etc knows that such people have better values than many secular westerners. However this can be due mainly to functional cultural environment and without this people become “rootless” and antisocial behaviour emerges. Unfortunately the current western culture acts as a kind of poison for such people , as it is it is increasingly toxic even for those of us who grew up in it.
While I usually agree on the interplaying effects of culture and genetics, I cannot help but think there is something really off in both Lemoine's perception and yours, something that echoes the usual "unassimilable barbarian in the gates". Those who fully assimilate become invisible to these statistics but those who dont, are neither muslims nor have been liberated by the restraints of their communities. Its like the famous Özil sentence, "when I win, I am german, when I lose I am a german of foreign origins". If you come from a rural Riffian family, there is a high chance you are dealing in drugs because Riffians already do that in Morocco, but if you come from Kabyles you have a higher integration rate compared to the non-Kabyle riffians because they have a strong post-colonial bias towards the French. Sadly there are no concluding studies on this because of the non-ethnic collection of data in France, but in my experience (n=1), while being genetically identical there is a huge difference in educational outcomes amongst Moroccans if you come from Fes/Casablanca or even the Jbala group, compared to Riffians and Oujdis. Genetically basically similar ethnic groups because North Africans are endogamous, but in their diasporas the doctors tend to come from specific sub-tribes or ethnic groups. Also, Chleus are usually more educated than Riffians in France, while both being Islamic, Amazigh tribes.
Something that is forgotten here is the pre-séléction both culturally and genetically of those arabs migrating to France, if you could trace education level of migrating parents, urban vs rural, sub-tribe, and if those criminals already have criminal family back in their origin countries you would find a more elucidating answer. For example, Jbalas which are an ethnic group in the north of Morocco, tend to share a more egalitarian view of mariage and more freedom of mariage when it comes to women. In the Oujda region, adjacent, the women have no say in what men they marry, the family decides it. Both Islamic, both Arabic-speaking North African. Different outcomes in terms of education.
I think in this case, the selection is purely cultural and assimilation (full, endorsed by a strong state), and filtering of the sub-tribes/sub-cultures who are more prone to criminality due to recent history might fix most of the problems.
Sadly I have 0 sources on this because it has been personal experience, but I feel like Islam is not a factor and the high variance between subcultures (in part due to miscegenation with slaves from Europe and Africa) of the different tribes or "Ait" in North Africa eliminates any genetic selection that might have occurred over centuries.
North Africa is a subcontinent with a variety of populations. When I was at university, an Algerian student told me about the Mozabites and how they had specialized in trade. The Wiki entry is interesting and reminds me of other trading peoples:
"[...] les Mozabites sont devenus de très bons commerçants. En effet, pour les mozabites, le travail est un acte et un devoir religieux, la réussite terrestre ne peut être fondée que sur le travail, la piété et le respect des préceptes coraniques. Par tradition, l'éducation est très importante ; les associations culturelles et les écoles coraniques reçoivent des subsides très importants. Grâce à leur éducation, ils ont pu maîtriser les techniques commerciales modernes et la comptabilité." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozabites
Indeed, while the genetic populations are varied, the "rouleau compresseur" of colonialism which resulted in growing urban poplations and then the subsequent Arabization has forced a huge deal of mixing in populations which were already used to intermixing. While there are some rare exampls like Beni Mzbeb and the ibadi Amazigh groups of Tunisia, the macro Amazigh populations of Kabyles, Chleuhs, Souss, Riffians have been intermixing with Arabized populations a lot. It is something visible in later generations of North African families.
Peter, assuming that polygenic distribution co-evolves with culture, what are your thoughts on a scenario where individuals from a collectivist, shame-based culture, adapted to familial or group shame, lose these behavioral restraints in the second and later generations after being transplanted into WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic), guilt-based, individualistic cultures? Since they may be less prone to guilt over their actions in the absence of co-group shame—or if shame-based values are not instilled during childhood in a WEIRD culture—could this result in a multigenerational or even permanent increase in antisocial behavior?
We are seeing this "experiment" in South Korea. That country has undergone the most Westernization in all of East Asia. It now has the world's highest suicide rate among the elderly, due to the collapse of Confucian values of filial piety, as well as the world's lowest fertility rate.
This is what happens when you run the hyper-individualism of Western culture on East Asian minds. I've discussed this point previously:
I see, good points about South Korea. It’s a strong example of a high-average-IQ, collectivism-adapted society. Notably, relatively higher fertility rates persist among Middle Eastern and African immigrants in Europe, alongside the antisocial issues you mentioned.
On another note about your earlier post, while the Akbari study is highly trustworthy, Piffer, D. (2025a). "Directional Selection and Evolution of Polygenic Traits in Eastern Eurasia: Insights from Ancient DNA" is a low statistical quality paper. If it were up to me, I would not have published a paper with such poor data and/or resulting confidence intervals. I was excited after the first and second readings, but upon reviewing the original study and analyzing it, I was underwhelmed. The conclusion, "a steady rise followed by stagnation," while seemingly explanatory, is not supported by the subpar statistics.
- This is regarding your earlier post "Cognitive evolution in eastern Eurasia"
It's not always true that culture always replicates itself in genetics, it can go the other way too, depending on the specifics. For example, a highly prudish culture that frowns on sex and even marriage could cause people to have on average a higher amount of "mating effort" because without that, they won't be guided towards reproducing.
On the other hand, a culture where parents arrange marriage for children would be more friendly to "gay" genes than a culture where being "gay" is seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice.
One of the clearest examples of the weakening of social constraints exposing underlying genetic differences is the divergence in out of wedlock birth rates between white and black Americans in the mid 20th century. The group with a deeper history of evolving in a cultural niche that rewarded monogamy continued (even if at a reduced rate) marrying prior to committing to a child. The other had far fewer behavioral adaptations to fall back on after the cultural rug got pulled out from under them
Yes, that's an excellent example. Among African Americans, sexual relationships were much more stable and monogamous before the 1960s than they are today. The post-1960 period saw a general weakening of restraints on behavior for both African and Euro Americans, but the outcomes were much more dramatic for the former than for the latter.
The lack of understanding that social institutions exist and how they inform our behaviour as a social learning species (innovation is more important than invention) with a Paleolithic-long experience of inter-group competition (for individuals more than among groups themselves) as the main evolutionary process of our self-domestication is sad. #DEEPbreath
Social institutions are increasingly weak, transient, and ephemeral. We like to use words like "culture" and "community," but are they still applicable?
I think we may well mean different things by 'social institutions'. I certainly take a more activist poetic move on the term, rather than definitional.
I agree there are weak and strong forms. For example, among us the general population, the idea of a social institutions is weak, and their more famous examples similarly (marriage, religion), other social institutions, like that of the individual is very strong (such that we do not even see it as an institution) but not named as such. We can argue if everyone is allowed to be an individual, or has access to it, as a social institution (and not even looking at the ideas we have for citizenship).
Can the idea of a social institution be an institution? We usually call it the world.
More conscious worlding would have to consider the world as an institution as such, at least as a part of an uncovering of an otherwise "collective unconscious" outcome in our social learning species. The world has very little by way of dedicated work done on or with it. (You can scare the paranoid with 'world government' though.)
Ideology/dogma is one example of this lack of effort. Empire/slavery are other outcomes on the bad side of our inter-group competition for individuals… the world.
Adoption, education, technology, innovation are on the good. And we do not think of them as institutions, as you point out "We like to use words like "culture" and "community," but are they still applicable?"
So "institution" might be a useless usage. I suggest worlding, big and small as home. But that is almost idiosyncratic to me, and thus I reach out to the world.
"the 21st century will not be a walk in the park if we ignore genetic factors and their role in human differences."
So true. Thanks for putting it that way.
I agree 100%. Take the leash off the dog and you will allow the broader, natural repertoire of instinctive behaviors to be expressed.
Thank you for your work!
Great point. I hadn’t considered that cultural assimilation can also make people worse. Mainstream folks seem to assume that cultural assimilation only improves immigrants.
Part of the problem is the term "cultural assimilation." Immigrants to Western countries don't assimilate into "Western culture" — which is likewise a misleading term. They become acultural, like the majority of modern Western individuals.
Anyone who has spent time with people from cultures with a strong religious tradition, be it Christian, Muslim , Hindu , Confucian etc knows that such people have better values than many secular westerners. However this can be due mainly to functional cultural environment and without this people become “rootless” and antisocial behaviour emerges. Unfortunately the current western culture acts as a kind of poison for such people , as it is it is increasingly toxic even for those of us who grew up in it.
Post-World War 2 Western Culture is basically an Universal Anti-Culture.
Those are excellent points, Mr. Frost.
Thank You.
While I usually agree on the interplaying effects of culture and genetics, I cannot help but think there is something really off in both Lemoine's perception and yours, something that echoes the usual "unassimilable barbarian in the gates". Those who fully assimilate become invisible to these statistics but those who dont, are neither muslims nor have been liberated by the restraints of their communities. Its like the famous Özil sentence, "when I win, I am german, when I lose I am a german of foreign origins". If you come from a rural Riffian family, there is a high chance you are dealing in drugs because Riffians already do that in Morocco, but if you come from Kabyles you have a higher integration rate compared to the non-Kabyle riffians because they have a strong post-colonial bias towards the French. Sadly there are no concluding studies on this because of the non-ethnic collection of data in France, but in my experience (n=1), while being genetically identical there is a huge difference in educational outcomes amongst Moroccans if you come from Fes/Casablanca or even the Jbala group, compared to Riffians and Oujdis. Genetically basically similar ethnic groups because North Africans are endogamous, but in their diasporas the doctors tend to come from specific sub-tribes or ethnic groups. Also, Chleus are usually more educated than Riffians in France, while both being Islamic, Amazigh tribes.
Something that is forgotten here is the pre-séléction both culturally and genetically of those arabs migrating to France, if you could trace education level of migrating parents, urban vs rural, sub-tribe, and if those criminals already have criminal family back in their origin countries you would find a more elucidating answer. For example, Jbalas which are an ethnic group in the north of Morocco, tend to share a more egalitarian view of mariage and more freedom of mariage when it comes to women. In the Oujda region, adjacent, the women have no say in what men they marry, the family decides it. Both Islamic, both Arabic-speaking North African. Different outcomes in terms of education.
I think in this case, the selection is purely cultural and assimilation (full, endorsed by a strong state), and filtering of the sub-tribes/sub-cultures who are more prone to criminality due to recent history might fix most of the problems.
Sadly I have 0 sources on this because it has been personal experience, but I feel like Islam is not a factor and the high variance between subcultures (in part due to miscegenation with slaves from Europe and Africa) of the different tribes or "Ait" in North Africa eliminates any genetic selection that might have occurred over centuries.
North Africa is a subcontinent with a variety of populations. When I was at university, an Algerian student told me about the Mozabites and how they had specialized in trade. The Wiki entry is interesting and reminds me of other trading peoples:
"[...] les Mozabites sont devenus de très bons commerçants. En effet, pour les mozabites, le travail est un acte et un devoir religieux, la réussite terrestre ne peut être fondée que sur le travail, la piété et le respect des préceptes coraniques. Par tradition, l'éducation est très importante ; les associations culturelles et les écoles coraniques reçoivent des subsides très importants. Grâce à leur éducation, ils ont pu maîtriser les techniques commerciales modernes et la comptabilité." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozabites
Indeed, while the genetic populations are varied, the "rouleau compresseur" of colonialism which resulted in growing urban poplations and then the subsequent Arabization has forced a huge deal of mixing in populations which were already used to intermixing. While there are some rare exampls like Beni Mzbeb and the ibadi Amazigh groups of Tunisia, the macro Amazigh populations of Kabyles, Chleuhs, Souss, Riffians have been intermixing with Arabized populations a lot. It is something visible in later generations of North African families.
Useful info:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9tique_de_l%27Afrique_du_Nord
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41105158_Afrique_du_Nord_Anthropologie_Genetique_et_Histoire_du_peuplement_Humain
http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post%2F2016%2F10%2F24%2FDes-migrations-r%C3%A9centes-ont-form%C3%A9-le-g%C3%A9nome-des-populations-Berb%C3%A8res-et-Arabes-d-Afrique-du-Nord
Sadly I lost the documents of sources some North African supremacists sent me to justify endogamy and genetic closeness.
You are correct for the most part
Peter, assuming that polygenic distribution co-evolves with culture, what are your thoughts on a scenario where individuals from a collectivist, shame-based culture, adapted to familial or group shame, lose these behavioral restraints in the second and later generations after being transplanted into WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic), guilt-based, individualistic cultures? Since they may be less prone to guilt over their actions in the absence of co-group shame—or if shame-based values are not instilled during childhood in a WEIRD culture—could this result in a multigenerational or even permanent increase in antisocial behavior?
We are seeing this "experiment" in South Korea. That country has undergone the most Westernization in all of East Asia. It now has the world's highest suicide rate among the elderly, due to the collapse of Confucian values of filial piety, as well as the world's lowest fertility rate.
This is what happens when you run the hyper-individualism of Western culture on East Asian minds. I've discussed this point previously:
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2018/07/south-korea-ugly-side-of-westernization.html
I see, good points about South Korea. It’s a strong example of a high-average-IQ, collectivism-adapted society. Notably, relatively higher fertility rates persist among Middle Eastern and African immigrants in Europe, alongside the antisocial issues you mentioned.
On another note about your earlier post, while the Akbari study is highly trustworthy, Piffer, D. (2025a). "Directional Selection and Evolution of Polygenic Traits in Eastern Eurasia: Insights from Ancient DNA" is a low statistical quality paper. If it were up to me, I would not have published a paper with such poor data and/or resulting confidence intervals. I was excited after the first and second readings, but upon reviewing the original study and analyzing it, I was underwhelmed. The conclusion, "a steady rise followed by stagnation," while seemingly explanatory, is not supported by the subpar statistics.
- This is regarding your earlier post "Cognitive evolution in eastern Eurasia"
Lemoine is HBD yes?
Only he can answer that question. I would say he's open-minded.
It's not always true that culture always replicates itself in genetics, it can go the other way too, depending on the specifics. For example, a highly prudish culture that frowns on sex and even marriage could cause people to have on average a higher amount of "mating effort" because without that, they won't be guided towards reproducing.
On the other hand, a culture where parents arrange marriage for children would be more friendly to "gay" genes than a culture where being "gay" is seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice.
The Shakers frowned on both sex and marriage. They died out.
One of the clearest examples of the weakening of social constraints exposing underlying genetic differences is the divergence in out of wedlock birth rates between white and black Americans in the mid 20th century. The group with a deeper history of evolving in a cultural niche that rewarded monogamy continued (even if at a reduced rate) marrying prior to committing to a child. The other had far fewer behavioral adaptations to fall back on after the cultural rug got pulled out from under them
Yes, that's an excellent example. Among African Americans, sexual relationships were much more stable and monogamous before the 1960s than they are today. The post-1960 period saw a general weakening of restraints on behavior for both African and Euro Americans, but the outcomes were much more dramatic for the former than for the latter.
The lack of understanding that social institutions exist and how they inform our behaviour as a social learning species (innovation is more important than invention) with a Paleolithic-long experience of inter-group competition (for individuals more than among groups themselves) as the main evolutionary process of our self-domestication is sad. #DEEPbreath
Is that complexity too much to ask?
Social institutions are increasingly weak, transient, and ephemeral. We like to use words like "culture" and "community," but are they still applicable?
I think we may well mean different things by 'social institutions'. I certainly take a more activist poetic move on the term, rather than definitional.
I agree there are weak and strong forms. For example, among us the general population, the idea of a social institutions is weak, and their more famous examples similarly (marriage, religion), other social institutions, like that of the individual is very strong (such that we do not even see it as an institution) but not named as such. We can argue if everyone is allowed to be an individual, or has access to it, as a social institution (and not even looking at the ideas we have for citizenship).
Can the idea of a social institution be an institution? We usually call it the world.
More conscious worlding would have to consider the world as an institution as such, at least as a part of an uncovering of an otherwise "collective unconscious" outcome in our social learning species. The world has very little by way of dedicated work done on or with it. (You can scare the paranoid with 'world government' though.)
Ideology/dogma is one example of this lack of effort. Empire/slavery are other outcomes on the bad side of our inter-group competition for individuals… the world.
Adoption, education, technology, innovation are on the good. And we do not think of them as institutions, as you point out "We like to use words like "culture" and "community," but are they still applicable?"
So "institution" might be a useless usage. I suggest worlding, big and small as home. But that is almost idiosyncratic to me, and thus I reach out to the world.
see also a new level of hell
https://ataraxiaorbust.substack.com/p/dogmatism-turbocharged-by-generative