There is no question that the many debates currently taking place concerning education are well justified: assessments consistently show that our secondary students perform appallingly low compared to their counterparts in other economically advanced countries, and our universities are turning our fewer and fewer graduates who display high competence in their subjects of choice. But, in our rush to examine all of the myriad superficial flaws of our education system, we have forgotten to scrutinize something which should be uppermost in our agenda: the basic purpose of ‘academic’ education.

Nearly all of the debates on education focus on issues which are ultimately peripheral when compared with the issue of the original purpose of academics: for instance, most debates discuss deficiencies in pedagogy or performance standards. Rarely, if ever, do debaters ask the question: has education, particularly pre-university education, fallen away from its true purpose?

The purpose of ‘academics’ is not to produce a well-rounded or cosmopolitan individual; nor is it to merely transmit or impart large quantities of information to students; the purpose of academics is to contribute original material to existing disciplines, or develop novel disciplines, so as to increase our total knowledge of the world. The finished product of academic education is the professional scholar, an individual who, after attaining basic competence in a specific area, is dedicated to research and consumed with the desire to enhance our understanding of the world. Hence, genuine scholarship is characterized by originality: no matter how much an article reveals competence in a certain field, if it fails to make an original contribution, it cannot be counted as a ‘scholarly’ article.

Compared with this principle, every other facet of our academic system is trivial, because without this principle we cannot hope to turn students into professional scholars.

Against this standard, it would be impossible to speak of our pre-university academic situation in sufficiently low terms. Among the wide range of problems which could be referenced to provide support for this statement, the following two are perhaps the most significant: student engagement and overly broad curricula.

In order for academic education to work correctly, students must be consciously ‘engaged’ to a very high degree. A substantial amount of mental effort is required to master the fundaments of any given subject, and therefore it is critical that students be dedicated to achieve such mastery. The hullabaloo over money, pedagogical techniques, and the quality of books is unfounded unless this issue is addressed. After all, if students are not self-motivated ─ given that self-motivation is superior to external motivation ─ they will invariably fail to develop competence in any subject, regardless if the state has unlimited sums of money to throw at them.

Historically, the problem of student engagement required little attention, because the matter tended to be solved at the outset: beyond elementary school, the relatively small population involved with formal education typically had few disengaged students to begin with. Also, students who found academics not to their liking could opt to join the labor market at much earlier ages. And, academic standards were much less flexible, so a disengaged student would have to self-correct reasonably quickly or else risk repetition or expulsion.

Our system of broad curricula, particularly at the secondary level, is troubling for the following reason: although a system based on broad curricula may be helpful for developing a more ‘well rounded’ person, it fails to adequately prepare pupils for the demands of scholarship. As mentioned, the purpose of academics is to contribute original material, not to build an ‘informed citizen’ or increase cultural sensitivity; these things can be accomplished by other forms of education. A system of broad curricula will always obscure the level of expertise required to compete effectively in the world of professional scholarship. In order to compete as a scholar, a person must possess the following two things: he must possess a firm understanding of the foundational concepts and critical facts of his discipline, and he must also possess the creative and analytical abilities necessary to perform novel research. We need a system which emphasizes the degree of specialization involved in the scholarly world at a much earlier level.

It is doubly regrettable that both of these ills have grown to the point where they now affect academic education at the university level. According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy given in 2003, only thirty-one percent of college graduates ─ graduates, not students or drop-outs ─ scored at the ‘proficient’ level in prose literacy; on the literacy scale, ‘proficient’ merely signified the ability to read a reasonably complex book and draw correct inferences. What can we infer from this? Clearly, this means that modern universities are no longer willing to turn away disengaged students, and also that standards have reached an astonishingly low level.

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

A nation is a collection of human beings who cooperate with each other in order to increase survivability and facilitate reproductive success. Nations arise when a group of people is able to independently develop a cultural infrastructure which bestows upon its members a common script and common lifestyle ― in other words, when the cultural institutions of the group attain a level of sophistication such that they effectively isolate and demarcate members from non-members. If the cultural institutions of a group do not demarcate members in this way, if they do not allow for clear distinction between members and non-members, then the threshold of nationhood has yet to be reached.

The members of a nation must possess an identity which continually affirms and maintains awareness of the unique qualities and traits which flow from their cultural institutions. In other words, they must be actively conscious of the many features which form the criteria of membership in the nation.

Of necessity, the members of a nation must be of similar genetic stock: it is probably impossible to develop a universal yardstick which can be used in all instances, but the level of similarity must be such that solidarity, trust, and intra-group reproduction occur naturally, rather than as a result of indoctrination or other kinds of artificial intervention.

Nations are vehicles for reproductive (and therefore evolutionary) success: the cultural peculiarities and lifestyles which isolate members act as psychological barriers to reproduction with non-members; hence, membership in the nation confers an immediate evolutionary advantage because it reduces competition for mates by limiting the pool of potential mates to fellow members. If nations did not confer such an advantage there would be no reason for them to exist.

For this reason, it is imperative that a nation be concerned with the genetic composition of its population, both in terms of quality and degree of heterogeneity, because the genetic character of the population affects the probability that members will be able to achieve reproductive success and, consequently, the likelihood that members will maintain allegiance to the nation. The quality of members must constantly be assessed in order to ensure that no one who is of intolerably low quality is able to claim membership in the nation. A nation which fails to guard and protect the genetic quality of its population, and therefore guarantee that its members will have access to suitable mates, has no reason to expect allegiance from its members.

Within the nation, there may be a certain degree of internal competition for reproductive success (that is, competition for access to desirable mates), but this competition must remain within certain bounds: if internal competition denies a critical mass the opportunity to achieve reproductive success, or permits the development of more or less reproductively isolated classes within the larger population, then it severs the bonds of nationhood since it effectively retracts the very evolutionary advantage which nationhood is supposed to bestow. Internal competition must be tempered such that it does not prevent members from having the opportunity to freely reproduce within the group.

It is easy to see that the United States can only be considered a ‘nation’ if the requirements of nationhood are contorted to the point of meaninglessness. If ten citizens of the United States were selected at random, the chance is very small that all of them would share similar views on a whole host of critically important issues and topics. They may all speak English as their native language (although even this cannot be taken for granted), and they may share certain attitudes about America’s political traditions, but the probability that they would possess compatible views on a number of other vitally significant cultural institutions, such as marriage or childrearing, is exceedingly low.

The only thing which really unifies the population of the United States ― the only attitude which is held in common ― is the belief in an ‘open’ labor market, the belief that the market should accept the economic contributions of all human beings, regardless of racial or cultural heritage. Other than this, there is no barrier to membership in the nation.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the only way to comprehend this situation is to note the development of separate classes within American society, classes which are essentially closed entities with their own independent scripts and identities. In the United States, ‘class identity’ has replaced national identity as the dominant mechanism of association: although Americans are united on the issue of an open free market, their associational patterns reveal an acute awareness of differences in genetic makeup and cultural background. Whether the political leaders of the United States realize it or not, the evolution of such classes will ultimately lead to the end of ‘America’ as a national entity; eventually, the cultural differences between classes will grow to the point where interclass cooperation becomes impossible, and thenceforth even the most primitive crisis will be extremely difficult to resolve.

The United States is not a nation; it is a market, a market in which individuals compete in order to achieve membership in a particular class. Is it reasonable to expect such a society to endure for long?

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

Many historians, economists and political scientists have observed that the true vitality of a nation can only be discerned during periods of serious hardship and adversity; it is impossible to assess the viability of a nation if it has existed only in relatively pleasing conditions, if it has yet to be ‘tested’ by a harsh environment. Currently, the United States is saddled with the worst economic circumstances since the Great Depression, and as a consequence it may finally be possible to determine the true significance of the massive changes which have occurred in the post-WWII era. In a very real sense, America can almost be divided into two distinct entities: pre-WWII America and post-WWII America. We may now have the opportunity to see if post-war America is as capable as our current socio-economic elites claim it is.

Pre-WWII America was remarkably similar to its cousin societies of the Anglophonic world: it had a representative form of government, its identity was based partly on lofty ethical principles (such as honesty, self-reliance, diligence, equality before the law, etc.), and it was unusually individualistic. Social connectedness was maintained rather easily as a result of the high degree of similarity between society members; regardless of regional origin, Americans generally shared similar values, attitudes, and behavior patterns, particularly on fundamental matters. The term ‘mainstream society’ was still relevant in the sense that the average person could relate to the values displayed in mainstream cultural items.

Attitudes toward matters of sex (such as sex roles, sex differences, etc.) remained fairly consistent going back to the nineteenth century, although the early twentieth century did differ from the nineteenth in certain respects. Nevertheless, monogamy was still regarded more or less as the exclusive trajectory for intimate relationships, and this attitude was actively enforced in many ways. The legal system clearly promoted monogamy: for instance, the laws made it quite difficult to obtain a divorce, and most states considered adultery to be criminal. Perhaps more importantly, the culture also played a role in maintaining monogamy: those who did divorce faced enormous disapproval, and those who disregarded the norm of monogamy were ruthlessly socially ostracized.

Higher education was a sacred opportunity for the socially privileged and academically gifted, not a ‘universal right’ of all American teenagers. Universities were primarily academic institutions, as opposed to primarily athletic or social institutions. In addition to core subjects, however, universities also stressed moral education, etiquette, and social responsibility; it was not sufficient to merely perform academically, graduates were also expected to demonstrate skills and imbibe ethical principles consistent with traditional conceptions of adulthood. Pre-war higher education left little room for clever excuses and apologies: if a student failed to perform adequately in these areas, then he would not receive a university degree.

All of these things have changed dramatically in the post-WWII era, along with many other things as well. The post-WWII economy is very different from the pre-WWII economy, partly as a result of technological innovation, partly as a result of direct intervention. Our demographic picture is also quite different: in the pre-war period Americans of European descent made up approximately ninety percent of the population; today, the figure has dropped to roughly sixty percent, and it continues to drop further all the time. The whole conception of America, of what it represents as a nation, has changed also: today virtually all of our prominent opinion-shapers agree that the United States is a ‘universal nation’ lacking any specific ethnic foundation; in the pre-WWII era, this view would have struck the vast majority of Americans, white-collar and blue-collar alike, as very bizarre.

All nations, be they small or large, incipient or matured, are bound to undergo changes throughout their existence, even if they may wish to remain still. The question is never will change occur, but what character change will assume, whether it will steer a nation toward prosperity or toward obscurity and decay. What is the real significance of the changes described above? Will these changes spell the end of America as a serious power in the world?

Will Americans be able to grapple with economic hardship even as social connectedness has declined precipitously? Will our current educational model persist even as it continues to produce graduates ill-suited for adulthood or the workforce? What other changes can we expect to see as the percentage of Americans of European descent continues to decline?

Will life in these United States ultimately suffer as a consequence of these drastic, earth-shaking alterations?

Thoughts?

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

It was a night just like any other: Jay, O’Brien, Miles and Ol’ Bullseye gathered at O’Brien’s house to celebrate after a long day of tedious, joint-crushing work. The crew seemed to have nothing but a few hours of unadulterated enjoyment ahead of them; all of the essential elements were in place: alcohol, friends, familiar surroundings, and, of course, a suitable musical background. No one could have predicted the ordeal which was about to unfold.

O’Brien’s wife, Jewel, greeted the crew as they entered the house. Her love of a neat, tranquil domestic environment was temporarily overcome by the desire to share a good time with the guys.

“How ‘bout that pitch, huh? We’re gonna have to start chargin’ more for these really steep roofs, my knees just can’t take it,” O’Brien said as he poured the first round of shots in the kitchen.

Everybody nodded in agreement as they searched for their respective chasers of choice. The crew huddled together and clinked glasses before tossing the shots down their hatches.

“You said it, O’Brien,” Miles agreed. “We’re totally gettin’ screwed.”

The crew chatted in the kitchen for the next hour or so, laughing, sharing stories, and commenting on the ups and downs of the workday. The group drank a few more rounds before the bottle was finished; everybody then migrated to the living room. Miles flipped on the flat-screen television and turned the stereo to near maximum volume.

“You’re gonna bother the whole neighborhood if you keep it that high!” O’Brien warned.

“It doesn’t matter,” Miles responded. “If they have a problem they can take it up with me!”

Things continued normally for the next fifteen minutes until the crew’s party was interrupted by several loud, unmistakable thumps at the door. O’Brien’s prediction proved correct: behind the door stood the next-door neighbors, Ben and Scarlett. The music was so loud it muffled out the television program they were watching; they weren’t upset though: they decided to join the group for the duration of the party.

“I think it’s time for a smoke,” Ol’ Bullseye remarked. “Plus, we’ve got business to take care of.”

The four workers walked through the kitchen and opened the door to the garage. O’Brien passed out cigarettes and handed the lighter around. The group puffed cigarettes and made conversation for several minutes until Ol’ Bullseye shifted all of the attention toward him; he reached down into his pocket and, after fumbling over numerous items, grabbed a small capsule. The capsule appeared to contain about a dozen pills of various colors; he picked up three pills and then displayed them in his open palm for the group to look at.

“It’s time to take this thing to the next level,” Ol’ Bullseye said.

Miles responded immediately by snatching one of the pills and swallowing it without the slightest bit of hesitation. O’Brien held back, alternating his gaze between Ol’ Bullseye and the pill which seemed to be chosen for him. He was clearly reluctant to follow Miles’s lead; evidently, a few tugs of encouragement were needed to get him to participate.

Miles noticed O’Brien’s lack of enthusiasm and acted accordingly. “Oh, c’mon man, this is the good stuff! There’s nothing to fear; you need to let go, man,” he said.

O’Brien was clearly not convinced; he maintained a look of disinterestedness both during and after Miles’s speech.

Ol’ Bullseye attempted to supplement Miles’s remarks with his own words of persuasion. “Miles is right, this stuff is awesome; c’mon, don’t you want this to be a really good night?”

O’Brien’s wall of resistance was brought down. He reached down, pinched the pill with his thumb and index finger, and then threw it into his mouth. A firm smile developed on his face almost instantly; whatever reservations he may have had were now thoroughly buried beneath feelings of intense merriment.

“You won’t regret this, I swear,” Miles cheered.

The four of them waddled slowly back toward the living room and met the remaining three members of the party. The whole crowd pressed forward into the night, singing, passing in and out of various discussions, and delighting in the overall feeling of the moment. Ol’ Bullseye sat down in the cushioned rocking chair next to the television and turned to Jay. “Man, you should come with me and get some more stuff; my friend has the best stuff around, we should take my van to his house.”

Ol’ Bullseye’s voice and appearance revealed a person with temporarily impaired faculties; it would have seemed to any honest observer that in his condition he would make a less than totally competent motorist. Nevertheless, after informing the other members of their intentions, both Ol’ Bullseye and Jay walked out of the house and entered Ol’ Bullseye’s van. The two were accompanied by Ol’ Bullseye’s cat, who managed to jump into the side door before it could be closed. Before he could put his keys into the ignition, Ol’ Bullseye recalled a forgotten thought.

“Oh yeah! I forgot to tell you, I brought my gun with me; it’s right here in the glove compartment,” he said.

Ol’ Bullseye reached across the passenger seat and pulled out a small pistol which had been wedged in between a number of personal documents and several hand tools. He folded his hand around the gun until it formed a shooting grip and then laid the gun next to his leg.

“You didn’t know about this, huh?” Ol’ Bullseye asked. “I’ve had it for awhile. It’s my baby.”

Jay’s face featured an awkward expression; it contained feelings of fear and curiosity in near equal measure. Being keenly aware of Ol’ Bullseye’s condition, he chose to offer a cautionary remark before anything else.

“The safety is on, right?” Jay’s voice was frank and distant; he sounded similar to a judge delivering a prison sentence.

“Oh, of course,” Ol’ Bullseye replied. “This gun actually has two safeties.”

Jay’s anxiety was momentarily stalled. Ol’ Bullseye then fiddled with the gun for a few seconds, apparently trying to make certain that the gun was in fact incapable of firing. Subsequently, he gripped the gun as he did before and pointed it toward his opposite hand; having convinced himself that the safety was functional, he squeezed the trigger.

Boom!

Smoke filled the van as the gun fired with full force. The bullet blasted through Ol’ Bullseye’s hand and became lodged in his left knee. Both of them sat stunned, too mired in disbelief to say anything. Jay broke the silence after regaining his sense of composure.

“Are you okay?” His question was saturated with desperation.

“It went straight through; I need to go to the hospital!” Ol’ Bullseye replied.

The two workers rushed back into the house to alert the others. Ol’ Bullseye approached Miles and O’Brien and showed them his self-inflicted wound; he consciously avoided informing the other three members of the party about what had happened. Miles and O’Brien were catapulted into sobriety by the force of the situation. Miles and Ol’ Bullseye walked to the bathroom and wrapped Ol’ Bullseye’s hand with a roll of gauze taken from the cabinet above the sink.

“Keep putting pressure on it,” O’Brien said. “Try to keep blood from flowing.”

Ol’ Bullseye clutched his injury as he sauntered back out into the living room; Miles followed closely behind, his hand covering his mouth so as to stifle the sounds of chuckling.

“Don’t worry, man,” O’Brien assured. “We’ll get you to the hospital in no time.”

By now the remaining three members of the group had figured out what had happened. Emotions vacillated freely between sympathy, pity, and guilt-inducing pleasure. O’Brien, Miles and Ol’ Bullseye left the house and drove to the hospital; luckily for Ol’ Bullseye the hospital was located just a few minutes away. O’Brien led the trio and told the hospital administrator about Ol’ Bullseye’s situation; he put a rather substantial spin on the origin of the wound, however: he said that Ol’ Bullseye had been shot by several members of a local street-gang.

The trio sat quietly in one of the surgery rooms as they waited for the nurse to arrive; Ol’ Bullseye laid on the surgery bed, periodically emitting scarcely audible whimpers of pain and discomfort. O’Brien kept his eyes on Ol’ Bullseye, sporadically shaking his head in order to convey his irritation with Ol’ Bullseye’s behavior; Miles continued to find it extraordinarily difficult to conceal his level of amusement with the whole affair. After approximately ten minutes the nurse entered the room. She appeared to be quite young, likely no older than twenty-three. Though she had already been briefed by the administrator as to what had happened, she began to ask about the incident as she added an additional layer of gauze to Ol’ Bullseye’s injured hand.

“So someone shot you? That’s horrible!” Although not filled with overwhelming sympathy, there didn’t seem to be any trace of suspicion in her voice.

The nurse finished wrapping the wound with medical gauze and then gave Ol’ Bullseye a capsule of pain pills. She advised him to return to the hospital within the next few days to determine whether the bullet needed to be removed. Then, suddenly, just as the nurse was about release them, two officers of the local authorities opened the door of the surgery room.

“Hello, I’m officer Number One. We were told that the injury here occurred as a result of a crime. We need to ascertain a few things about the incident.” Officer Number One said.

The officers proceeded to interrogate the three of them on the details of what had occurred. The officers had been called in as a matter of protocol after the hospital administrator logged the false report fabricated by O’Brien. The trio regurgitated the false version of the incident to the officers. Needless to say, they were skeptical of the account.

“If you were shot from a distance, then how could the bullet cleanly penetrate your hand and then enter your knee? Are you saying you were shot multiple times?”

The trio came up with answers consistent with the fabricated version of what had happened. At one point Ol’ Bullseye even brought up the famous ‘Magic Bullet Theory’ to remind the officers of the fascinating range of possibilities permitted by the laws of physics. Though obviously not convinced of the veracity of the fabricated story, the officers eventually left after realizing the fruitlessness of asking any further questions. The trio then left the hospital and drove back to O’Brien’s house.

Ol’ Bullseye eventually recovered from the injury, although the bullet was never extracted from his knee. The bullet lives on deep within Ol’ Bullseye’s flesh, forever serving as a constant reminder of his profound abilities with firearms.

To this day, the creature deserving of the greatest sympathy is the cat: one can only imagine the kind of damage a firearm can do to feline eardrums.

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

Today, scientists are trying to bring together the various theories which, as of right now, form an impressive but nonetheless incomplete picture of reality. Currently, scientists have developed theories which are able to independently describe specific aspects of our world, but the mission to unify these disparate theories in a single, all-encompassing theoretical system is still ongoing. In the world of science, this as of yet undeveloped theory is referred to as the Theory of Everything (or the TOE), because it embraces the totality of our existence.

There is no similar project to create an all-encompassing theory of human social existence; there is no attempt to explain the totality of social interaction, to provide a basis for all social endeavors, regardless of significance, form or complexity. In short, there is no equivalent Theory of Everything in the area of human culture.

Skeptics may contend that such a project would be foolish from the outset, because the laws of science are qualitatively different from any laws which may apply to culture; but, in the author’s opinion, although it is true that human culture cannot be analyzed in the same manner as the natural world, it is in fact possible to determine a basic principle which encompasses the whole of social reality. Whether free or authoritarian, warlike or peaceful, parliamentarian or aristocratic, all societies are subject to a fundamental law which guides and directs every interaction which occurs.

The Law of Reciprocal Expectation

Throughout history societies have varied greatly in their nature, character and organization; for instance, societies have featured a wide range of economic systems: feudalism, fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and many others. Political systems have varied as well: history has witnessed monarchs, dictators, eupatrids, and democrats. In order to discern a rule which can explain both the rise fall of any given system at the most basic level of social interaction, the first thing to ask is the following: what traits do these societies share in common?

Regardless of whatever character societies have had, there is a feature which has been common to all of them; or, put more precisely, all of them have relied on a common occurrence: social connectedness. The ability to connect with other society members for the purpose of fulfilling societal goals ― no matter what those goals may be ― has been a shared facet of all human communities across history. This ability is obviously a necessity of human society, as without it the social body disintegrates into a muddle of conflicting values, competing interpretations, and radical individualism.

It is important to note that the ability to establish connectedness within the social body is distinguishable from the ability to promote altruism among society members. Connectedness of the sort being referred to here can be achieved even without societal harmony: the ancient Egyptians erected the pyramids, even though they embraced slavery at the same time; relations between serfs and lords can scarcely be described as congenial, and yet medieval feudalism in Western Europe survived for more than one millennium; these societies may have possessed little in the way of internal unity, but they did maintain connectedness for a very long period of time.

The feature being described is the ability to maintain expectations on the behavior of other members of society; this is the critical thing which really distinguishes societies from masses of disconnected, atomized individuals. Cultures may evolve in such a way that they permit immense disparities in status, massive discrepancies in wealth, or enormous differences in social influence, but they can never permit social disconnectedness beyond a certain degree ― they can never allow a wedge to develop such that members are unable to place expectations on the behavior of other members. It is immaterial what specific type of behavior is meant to be carried out: as long as society members are able to place certain expectations on the behavior of fellow members, there is enough of a framework for the development of social connectedness.

This is the ‘law of reciprocal expectation’: the ability to impose expectations on the behavior of other society members, with the understanding that reciprocal expectations will be carried out as they are imposed ― this ability forms the basis of all social connectedness. This is the Theory of Everything in the area of human culture.  It is the most basic principle which informs human interaction in an organized societal setting.

An Egyptian builder expecting that fellow builders will fulfill their duties; a parent expecting common childrearing practices to be followed by fellow parents; a lowly serf expecting the king to exercise his authority and command obedience: all of these are examples of social connectedness being achieved through reciprocal expectation, through a give and take interaction in the social world. The point is not that reciprocal expectations occur in a just fashion involving evenly distributed power, but only that society members be able to rely on other members to fulfill expectations which are part of an integrated whole. If this principle is not observed, and society members are unable to enforce expectations on the behavior of other members, then what exists is not actually a society at all, but a pseudo-society to be replaced in the future.

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

At its core, civilization is about the control of sexual impulses: the principal difference between ‘civilized society’ and the ‘state of nature’ is the amount of energy devoted to acquiring and maintaining access to sexual partners. In the state of nature, all of the central pillars of modern society ― technology, education, rule of law, etc. ― would be unthinkable, because there is no excess energy beyond the pursuit of sexual interests. Reproductive interests will always take priority over investment in the larger society, and so the only way civilized societies can arise is through artificial control of the sexual market.

Both inside and outside of the civilized state, human sexual interests are pursued in a market analogous to the markets of the commercial world. People use the currency (i.e. attractiveness) that they have to attract the best possible mate. In the uncivilized ‘state of nature,’ the sexual market is essentially uncontrolled: it is a ‘free market’ in the sense that there are almost no artificial constraints which obstruct competition at any stage. Men and women congregate at various points, but there is little concept of ‘family culture’ because people tend to remain ‘on the market’ in the competitive state throughout the whole of their lives. For this reason, there is almost no infrastructure for the purpose of transmitting advanced cultural information across generations.

Modern societies developed because they acknowledged this ‘hierarchy of priorities’ and took the appropriate course of action: they imposed constraints on the sexual market. These constraints were not overly stringent ― competition still took place, but it was kept within reasonable limits. People were able to focus on building the infrastructure of society without having to constantly worry about future sexual competition. The constraints made it impossible for a relatively small portion of the population to acquire a disproportionate influence over the reproductive direction of the society as a whole.

Even with such restrictions in place (in many cases enforced by law), modern societies still struggled to maintain a stable sexual marketplace; whether conscious of it or not, in their mission to uphold civilization they were confronting two extremely powerful forces which have troubled lovers of order and progress since the days of the primordial ooze: male variance and female hypergamy.

Male variance is one of the more well-established facts in the study of human differences; on virtually every trait worth measuring, men are much more likely to stray from the mean, and so the result is a rather complicated picture in which men are disproportionately represented at both the high and low ends of the spectrum. This is nothing other than nature unfolding as it should: male variance is precisely what keeps our species moving forward.

On the other hand, women are predisposed to select males based on status. This, in essence, is the phenomenon of female hypergamy: to prefer those who have obtained a high rank in the status hierarchy. The traits and behaviors which determine status may shift and fluctuate for a variety of reasons, but what stays unchanged is the fact that male status generally advantages a relatively small number and disadvantages a relatively large number. And, as it turns out, there is evidence that we as a species are predisposed to discourage the propagation of lower status males.

We have arrived at a paradox: civilization requires an elaborate cultural infrastructure which can only be maintained if the vast majority of society members are invested beyond reproductive pursuits, and yet our species tends to discourage most men from reproducing. Bearing these facts in mind, it is easy to see why controlled sexual markets are still chaotic: they are literally beating against our natural instincts!

So, the paradox of civilization is this: The continuation of civilized society hinges on a majority of society members being invested beyond the pursuit of sexual interests, and yet there is evidence which suggests that we are wired to discourage the reproduction of most men.

This is, perhaps, the greatest riddle of them all.

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.

Along with the rather bold characterization of human beings as living, breathing advertisements of genetic health, I’d like to add another unique perspective on the issue of genetic diversity: those who do possess desirable packages of genes ― that is, those who are attractive to the opposite sex ― are like a species of their own.

As explained before, humanity has one overarching concern: survival. Toward this end, humanity makes use of an extremely wide range of genetic configurations (or genetic ‘test kits,’ as they were referred to previously) in order to ensure the highest probability of future success. In this crazy, outrageous, endless game of genetic trial and error, some experimental models appear to have greater likelihood of success than others; these models are ones which are attractive to the opposite sex.

The Inner Core of Humanity

Given the fact that attractiveness is merely a representation of desirable traits, it makes sense to say that attractive people collectively take on a leadership role in the species. In a very real sense, they form a kind of ‘inner core’ of humanity; together they form the ‘rudder’ of the species, subconsciously guiding and instructing humanity in its central mission to survive and flourish. Under normal conditions, the remainder of the species takes its cue from this inner core.

Slowly but surely, science is beginning to formally prove this ‘pedestalization’ of the attractive: we have evidence that attractive people receive subconscious favorable treatment in hiring decisions.

Attractive people likely form an even more powerful ‘leadership core’ today than they did in the past for two main reasons:

1. Since civilization has to a large extent eliminated natural selection, sexual selection has become the dominant force in shaping evolution.
2. Culture plays an increasingly smaller role in determining mate selection, leaving individuals to select on the basis of genetic compatibility alone.

Harassing the Inner Core

Despite having status as the leadership core of the species, attractive people are not at all insulated from various kinds of harassment from people outside of the core. Occasionally, unattractive people will get fed up with following orders from the inner core; they’ll tire of having fewer options and fewer intangible benefits as compared with the leaders of the species. Many isms have been devised by ugly people for the purposes of undermining the authority of core people and ‘challenging’ the standards which they confer on humanity.

Consciously, we may understand and even sympathize with certain of their arguments, but ultimately the inner core will always march on. They can drive themselves crazy trying to push, pull and tug humanity in directions other than those prescribed by the core, but their efforts will inevitably prove futile. In the end, the rudder of our species will determine the course we take, because we all instinctively comprehend that it is they who offer the best possibilities for our future development.

Cross-posted at Lost Historian.