Facebook knocks trending conservative topics down:
An anonymous former Facebook contractor says he witnessed colleagues suppress news about “popular conservative topics” from the website’s “trending” section.
This allegation, published on Gizmodo Monday morning, ignited a debate over whether Facebook and other social media companies are prioritizing liberal viewpoints in their trending topics…
But Facebook is not outright denying the suppression claims…
Sean Davis, cofounder of the conservative web site The Federalist, tweeted about the alleged suppression, saying, “We’ve all experienced it…”
Meanwhile, others expressed skepticism. “We at RedState have certainly never observed any of the behavior that is alleged in the article being targeted at us, specifically,” wrote Leon Wolf, of the popular conservative site RedState.
I love it. Redstate spends its time attacking Trump and doesn’t get blacklisted for it, so it then steps up to support Facebook as unbiased. Bear in mind, Evopsych’s ad account at facebook was shut down because they deemed the idea of politics as an expression of r and K selection strategies was hate-speech.
At least our enemies are beginning to congregate closer together, so they can be more easily recognized.
[…] Facebook Censored Conservative Topics […]
Redstate doesn’t get the logic: Conservative sites get censored by FB. FB doesn’t censor RS. RS therefore is not conservative.
It’s like I posted to my own blog — you can tell that Trump really is a conservative because the GOPe hasn’t already surrendered and given him everything he wants, like Obama, McCain and Romney.
As someone considering these matters with scientific objectivity, have you ever noticed a correlation between, say, the promotion of r-type behaviors, and the ethnicity of the promoters? Considering that you’d addressing heritable traits, I’m wondering if you’ve ever noticed whether any given set of genetically-similar humans has evolved to:
1) Participate in r-type behaviors themselves;
and/or
2) Participate in K-type behaviors themselves while actively fostering r-type behaviors in others who would not be able to survive without that promotion.
For example, are there any wealthy ethnic groups that foster welfare dependency in other, poorer ethnic groups? That foster younger sexuality, or that discourage traditional marriage and stable two-parent child-rearing in other groups?
Or, are there any highly genetically inclusive ethnic groups that foster a lack of in-group loyalty in other groups, without whose intervention other groups might retain in-group loyalty?
I thought I’d take a whack at this one higarka.
The short answer is no.
In history, there have been a few times of long prosperity where shortages both preceded and followed. But at those times, the elites seem to have led the decent into decadency, and by and large abandoned their forefathers principle of hard work.
Example, Ancient Rome had a terrible run of Emperors from the death of Augustus until the ascent of Nerva. There was a grain subsidy in Ancient Rome from about 58 BC through as late as some time in the AD 200’s (wiki’s article is a little thin on the end dates). But classic rabbiting going on in the sense of free resources.
However from AD14 to AD 96 Rome had terrible emperors. In there were both Caligula and Nero. Both were debaucherous and unconcerned with giving the empire to an heir. Many of the others were short timers ascending due to assassination and then being removed through the same.
From 96 to 177 there was a golden age of Empire and very good emperors with the exception of the last one Commodus who was the last one. He is the nasty Emperor in the moving Gladiator. And the only one in that period who was NOT adopted, but was a natural son. It is as if the Emperors took seriously the need for the group (Rome) to prosper and looked for good successors, rather than rely simply on blood. This in my mind is very K attitude. Mind you the grain subsidy was STILL IN EFFECT!
Again. There doesn’t seem to be a group where those advocating r habits in general were at the same time practicing K habits. It seems usually all or nothing.
About the only cases I can think of are of suppressing the out group. Case in point, the biblical story of Moses if we look at the Pharos motive of having all the male babies killed. In one generation, the only option for the women will be to become Egyptians through marriage. Out group, with plans of making them in group after time. Or in Muslim cultures, kill the men, make slaves of the woman. The woman’s children will come from Muslim men and be Muslim. Again, the out group is affected, making the children part of the in group in both cases.
Now my historical knowledge is mostly confined to the Western European, and thus I have failed to include much thought on Central or East Asia, pre-Columbian Americas, and Sub Sahara Africa.
But you mention genetics in the beginning. In my opinion, while many traits are inheritable, that is not definitive about them. The environment by why I don’t mean parents, but everything else. Many of these traits must be activated by something around them. Consider height. Our height is genetically bound, but it is activated by nutrition, and the right food at the right time. Ok with that said, I think r/K is on a scale. And for genetics, it is also on a scale. With say 10% on each end as going to be r or K unless extreme environmental factors kick in. And even then they may still be core r or K but behave as the other because it is easier to pass as the other.
The remaining 80% of the population varies in it’s r/K stance and is more susceptible to environmental factors. Never have any difficulties, always have resources? Leans r. Been mugged? had to struggle to make ends meet? leans K. Our society is the first in which true poverty, unable to get food every day – not choosing to skip meals, but truly unable to get food has been effectively eliminated. If you were poor in 1920, you didn’t eat some days. If you are poor today, you don’t have cell phone.
AC has said that we are the most r selected society ever. He is right. Resources in America, the west in general are higher than EVER before. It has allowed us to experiment to the crazy r, and when the bill for that comes due, it will crash down massively. The question is will we K shift fast enough to avoid that.
So is there some sort of selection going on genetically? of course. Is there a long term selection going on? Sort of. This resource glut and restriction happens to all species through out all times. Go do a search on predator/prey curves to see this in action and you can see the prey increase to a point where they reach tipping due to little food. the predator will increase as it can eat the prey and collapse as the amount of prey collapses. By which I mean our resources v population have always been in flux.
Are you suggesting that, if ethnic correlations between the promotion of r-type behaviors occur, they are random and/or coincidental? For example, if Mennonite organizations consistently speak out in favor of violence against police, and urge that society punish police officers who do harm to violent offenders, is it a coincidence, or does it indicate that the Mennonites have some manner of vested genetic interest in encouraging disrespect for the authority of non-Mennonite authority figures (such as police officers)?
Or, say that Mennonites consistently advocate for taking public tax revenues and spending them on providing assistance to, say, Aztec street gangs or Muslim jihadists who are trying to “immigrate” to the U.S.
Even further, presume that Mennonites are also involved in producing pornography, advocating for the transsexualization of preteens, and otherwise sexualizing young people.
If Mennonites did all of these things, would you call it a coincidence?
Different question: if Mennonites did all of these things, would you say that it was indicative of Mennonites being (a) rabbits or (b) wolves?
I’m saying that each group has some r and K gene’s in different quantity (Anonymous Conservative makes this point also). I’m saying that the group as a whole is the sum of the individual decisions. Some individuals have more weight do to how they fill the role in the group. But r and K are both there waiting for the right environment – lots of resources or few resources – to come out. Right now the West is in the lots of resources and this means lots of r behavior, even from those who might be VERY K in a time of shortages like the great depression.
Some online make a strong argument that everything we do has a genetic basis. That may be true, but if it isn’t exercised, if it isn’t activated, it goes no where. The same yeast that make beer and wine will also under different situation just rot food. Environment does matter on the results.
As to your final ‘different question’ at the end:
Based on the examples, the question becomes are the Mennonites seeing themselves as part of the larger regional group of the area? or just themselves. It would make sense for a K aclimated group to encourage other groups to behave in ways that made the other groups more vulnerable, and able to be removed as threats. Historical examples? I can’t think of any as I can’t think of a group that was able to exert that kind of influence on others. I suppose current ‘political elite’ (aka Peeteebee’s) as a group could be doing that to their fellow country men, but this assumes that they the Peeteebee’s see themselves as a group. I sometimes think that they do, and some times think that they don’t.
On the whole, I think that the Mennonites you fictionalize would lean heavy wolf assuming that the things that they advocate are for outsiders, but insiders are kept to strict K behaviors (no extra marital sex, no porn, hard work and its rewards). I think that Peeteebee’s OTOH are not able to stop their own children from poor decisions, simply because in each person is some r and some K, and while the Mennonites might beable to exclude the influences that run contrary to their beliefs, I don’t think that the Peteebees can. they can’t control the environment for their own children.
It was noticed by an Arab historian in the 1200’s or 1300’s that the Warrior who made the empire would leave it to a son who would maintain it and a grandson who would lose it. And that was in the days of no internet.
As for the Peeteebees running things like you suggest of the fictional Mennonites – I leave this thought “Never attributed to maliciousness what can be more easily ascribed to foolishness.”
Your theories are quite interesting, in that they remind me of a more up-to-date version of Trofim Lysenko’s work. The idea that we all possess these underlying characteristics, and that they may be “turned on” or “activated” by the right environmental circumstances, is right up his alley.
Recent western work on identical twins raised apart, or raised together but experiencing different kinds of adult influences, seems to suggest that this isn’t the case–that behavior, rather than being “triggered” by outside influences (e.g., the transmogrification of wheat to barley), is in fact much more strongly genetic.
Even things like welfare and crime work this way. Poorer Chinese Americans commit far less crime than wealthier African Americans, for example, even if the African Americans grow up in stable marriages in wealthy zip codes while the Chinese Americans grow up in low-income zip codes.
Your ideas are very personally appealing to me, though. I certainly do wish, in a sense, that the right kind of external influences could make the lion lie down with the lamb. I just don’t think that’s the kind of wish we get to have realized in this particular world.
One yes they are mostly personal beliefs, but I’m not immune to things like the twins studies.* It is just that I can see potential flaws and I’m not sure if the researchers have addressed them. And I will admit to not being familiar with Trofim Lysenko’s work.
Two, I believe that there is a genetic predisposition, that doesn’t mean it happens. There is a geneticist who studies mental disorders, and I can’t remember his name, or even the show I saw him on. But he found about 20 genetic markers related to what in a typical Western Culture we would consider psychopathic. These markers are often found in men like Gengis Khan and Charles Manson. Of these markers, not all were in all of the famous examples (ie nobody had all 20), but typically about 5 or 6 was enough to have you behave in a very anti social way. Anyhow he then began sampling people around him, including himself. He had 8 of the 20 markers. He should have been a psychopath based on his research, but he wasn’t. He was by all counts a loving father – if some what distant or focused at times, and a faithful husband, again if somewhat driven by work at times. When he reported this to his family, they said “sure we can see
this tendancy,” The scientist concluded that his very nice childhood had prevented these characteristics from becoming the extreme that we find in world conquerors like Khan or mass murderers like Son of Sam.
So this is what I mean by needing environmental triggers on the genetics. Much the same that a person may only grow to about 4 foot in height if he never has enough food as a child, even though his genetics would indicated he should be 6 foot.
This website and blog is devoted to the concept that as a biological, our biology is driving us to pass on our genetics. There are obstacles to doing this. As a species, we have developed two basic strategies to do so.
1 have lots of kids, and hope one makes it, but don’t invest the effort (r)
and 2 have few kids and devote time to make sure they get through (K).
Additionally our biology has given us brain chemicals that effect our behavior (dopamine and serotonin are two). And it is possible with our modern tech to get the chemical high in our brain without fulfilling our biological drive for actual reproduction. – this is why K’s today are more likely to have a lot of off spring instead of r’s.
The “All nature” guys want to say everything we do is predetermined by genetics – which is false for ALL, but has a validity for some or tendencies. The “All nurture” or “All enviroment” ignore that genetics has any basis in this, and therefore a frog embryo can grow up to be a lion. This also is false.
I’m on the genetic side with activations. It is hard for us to become something we don’t have the capacity for, but very few of us don’t have the capacity to behave inside the sum of human nature. I personally think most of us fit inside the first SD of any given human trait.
Look at the recently hot topic of homosexual marriage. I’m not arguing for or against it. But it has only been an item for 20 to 25 years. That is not long enough for most people who opposed to be bred out of existence on a biological level. In point of fact, no homosexual reproductive union generates offspring, so we should have at all times bred away from such a concept.
But the social mind has changed in 25 years to permit it. If this is the case, and our acceptance is biologically determined, then why was homosexuality opposed from the fall of ancient Greece to the Macedonians (about 2300 years before present) until 1990’s? Did some random mutation creep up 50 years ago that allowed this change? Nope, the capacity for acceptance has always been there. The environmental/social pressures changed and made it acceptable where before it wasn’t.
But let us go to the root of an issue that animal, specifically zoo animals show us about environmental factors. I don’t expect the lion to lie with the lamb and not try to eat it. Well actually maybe I do if it is a zoo animal, but let me go further. It is common today with zoo animals to keep them behaving in a way consistent with their natural living methods. Thus they keepers of lions try to have them pseudo hunt the food they are given and play in the way lions in Africa would. It has been found – most notably with animals raise in captivity and released back to the wild, that they don’t survive. They generally die much quicker than their wild born others. And they often are at best one or two generations inside captivity. Some are even just rescued eggs and thus are the product of completely wild animals. These animals die. So what is different about the environment. What is the parent lion teaching, the parent duck, the parent killer whale teaching that humans can’t or don’t?
So I don’t expect a duck egg to give me a lion. Or a wheat seed to give me barley. But absent conditions showing the duck or the lion how to be itself, they won’t develop in a way to be themselves and hence my lion may lie down with the lamb… and starve.
* when it comes to twin studies, I will admit to having not read many, but read other’s comments on them, and a few things strike me. First and fore most, I think most of the reviewers see what they want in them and thus over emphasis the results. I’m not immune and admit I might over discount the reviewers. Of those I’ve looked at, I see most people who review them making conclusions that the original researchers didn’t specifically state.
I also am curious about when and why a correlation is strong enough to be traced to a causation, or the values given to the “controlling for other factors.” Lastly I’m well aware in medicine and also in psychology research that later researchers trying to duplicate the work are unable to. The reports indicate the failure rate is 60%. That is 60% are unable to be duplicated. If this holds, it would imply that only 40% of the twin studies are valid. But again I’m in the trap of do I trust the study showing that only 40% are duplicable?
Remember most peer review is simply that a peer of presumed equal capability read the research, reviewed the reported numbers and said that it all hangs together, NOT that he repeated the experiment and got the same results. – which is the true platinum standard. It is not feasible in most science to reproduce the original experiment. How many twins are there? if it is a drug trial, you have to spend years redoing it, etc.
Higharka,
I thought more on this. And thought perhaps that after the Russian (and maybe French) revolution the rulers were inclined to more ‘r’ behavior in the people. abortion was first legalized in the 1920s in the Soviet Union. I personally view abortion as a very r behavior – remember it is dopamine seeking without responsibility. So either no kids, or kids quickly grown. But this assumes that the powers of USSR are a unified group. I’d argue that they weren’t. So there is some blatant plays for power. And I think even rabbits will monopolize power if they have the chance. Partly because there is K in just about everyone? But I think that post revolution period of both the French and Russian’s might be analogous to what you are describing. Only again, lacking a group at the top. Maybe 2 or 3 K groups fighting for dominance and trying to make the people ‘r’ to win “votes.” Let’s face it the life of free dopamine is much easier and more enticing than the life of hard work.
Also those post revolution morals were short lived periods of maybe 10 years. In part because pre modern USA, resources have always been in short supply