The Genetics Behind Unequal Societies

0:00Trust the science. That's what we must

0:02all do. Yet for some reason, the science

0:05trademark doesn't seem to want to

0:06advertise its findings on certain

0:08biological studies, especially

0:11disparities between groups. No doubt

0:13fearing the backlash from the science

0:15deniers would much rather such data be

0:17buried so that they can continue in

0:19their fairy-tale worldviews like blank

0:21slat ism or egalitarianism.

0:23Which is why in this video we'll be

0:25covering topics that the anti-science

0:27crowd would rather be forgotten. And if

0:30you enjoyed it, consider subscribing. It

0:31helps the channel.

0:32But we'll be doing so with tact. Biology

0:35at scale can be a sensitive topic, which

0:38is why when discussing its effects in

0:40human groups, instead of naming the

0:42actual groups, I'll stick to

0:44hypothetical examples to illustrate my

0:46points. These will be the circles, the

0:49squares, and the triangles. And if you

0:52notice any real-life parallels, that's

0:54just you projecting your own

0:55preconceived notions, which if you think

0:57about it actually makes you the racist.

1:00One of the most important parts about

1:01biology that is often overlooked is the

1:03effect that geography has on it, which

1:06is why we'll be creating a hypothetical

1:08world to illustrate the points for our

1:09hypothetical identities. As you can see,

1:12the circles, squares, and triangles all

1:14live very far from one another.

1:16However, what's quite important to note

1:18is this region. It's a massive desert

1:21that has almost completely cut off

1:23contact between the squares and the rest

1:25of the world for nearly 40,000 years.

1:28For reference, domestic dogs became a

1:30distinct species about 15 to 30,000

1:34years. So naturally, under such a

1:36massive time span with very limited

1:38admixture, squares would continue to

1:40adapt under unique circumstances from

1:43the rest of the world. Biologists have

1:45many measures by which they demonstrate

1:46the genetic differences between

1:48organisms. One of the most widely

1:50recognized measures is the fixation

1:52index. It's simply a measure of the

1:55allele frequency in two organisms. The

1:58more matching alleles, the more related

2:00the organisms are. If the fixation index

2:02is below 0.15, the genetic difference is

2:06considered moderate to low. This is

2:08where we can find closely related

2:10subspecies or members of the same

2:11species. For example, different North

2:14American gray wolves, even though they

2:16are different subspecies, fall into this

2:18category. At levels greater than 0.15,

2:22we find greatly differentiated

2:24organisms. Often very different

2:26subspecies or an entirely different

2:28species. The domestic dog and the gray

2:30wolf, which are different species, for

2:32example, are usually measured at about

2:340.17.

2:36Now, what about circles, squares, and

2:38triangles? Circles differentiate from

2:40squares at a fixation index of 0.15,

2:43making them borderline greatly

2:45differentiated. Triangles differentiate

2:47from squares at a fixation index of

2:490.19, making them more distinct from

2:52each other than domestic dogs are to

2:54gray wolves. By comparison, the circles

2:57and triangles have a fixation index of

2:590.11, which is similar to what you'd

3:01expect from members of closely related

3:03subspecies or isolated members of the

3:06same species. But what do these

3:08differences actually mean in practice?

3:10After all, the purpose of the fixation

3:12index isn't taxonomy. There's a popular

3:15misconception in the world of circle,

3:17square, and triangle people that most

3:18differences between them are just

3:20cosmetic, skin deep. That has been

3:22thoroughly debunked. In a 2011 study,

3:26researchers comparing circle, square,

3:27and triangles consistently found that

3:30skin deep differences account for only a

3:32tiny minority of the total genetic

3:34differentiation. And in fact, genes

3:37impacting the nervous system were among

3:39the most differentiated. On screen,

3:42you're seeing the results. Naturally,

3:44when trying to build a cohesive society,

3:46similarities in the nervous system,

3:49which logically result in similarities

3:50in intellect, personality, and

3:52temperament are some of the most

3:53important factors.

3:56When studying the histories of circles,

3:57squares, and triangles, we find very

3:59stark differences in the societies that

4:01they build and thrive under. For

4:04example, generally the circles built

4:06individualistic and decentralized

4:08civilizations. Triangles instead built

4:10more collectivist and centralized

4:12civilizations. And lastly, the squares,

4:15for the most part, didn't build any

4:16comparable civilization.

4:18Are we to believe that these differences

4:20are purely random? Would it not make

4:22more sense instead to infer that

4:24different peoples optimize their

4:25societies for their own unique

4:27neurologies? Many in the world of

4:29circles, squares, and triangles treat

4:31politics as a god. They believe there's

4:34one objective system, usually their

4:36preferred system, that works for all

4:38peoples and that all would prosper

4:40equally. But their history contradicts

4:43this.

4:44In truth, it wouldn't be right for a

4:46circle to tell a triangle that his way

4:48of doing things, which has been working

4:50for the triangle for thousands of years,

4:52is wrong just because it wouldn't work

4:54for the [music] circle, and vice versa.

4:56Differences ought to be respected. Just

4:59because a Chihuahua and a German

5:00Shepherd are the same species does not

5:03mean they'll equally thrive in the same

5:04working dog roles. But this leads to an

5:07interesting question. What happens if

5:09significantly different people

5:11intermarry? What is the optimal system

5:13for their offspring? On screen, you're

5:15now seeing a graphic demonstrating the

5:17genetic differences between peoples.

5:20Imagine you are a circle person, and

5:22this data point is you. Here is your

5:24next-door neighbor, and here is a data

5:26point representing a circle you've never

5:28met from a different country you've

5:30never been to. These data points are

5:32representing squares, and these are the

5:34ones representing triangles. If you, as

5:37a circle person, were to intermarry with

5:38a triangle, this would be the data point

5:41representing your offspring. As you can

5:43see, your own son would be more

5:46genetically distant from you than a

5:48random circle person you've never met in

5:50a country you've never been to. The same

5:53is true from the perspective of your

5:54spouse. This will pose unique challenges

5:58because neither you nor your spouse are

6:00specialized to the environment your

6:02offspring would be most comfortable in.

6:04It's the same logic for if you breed a

6:05husky who loves snowy environments and

6:08an Ibiza Hound who prefers desert

6:10environments. The offspring in such a

6:12situation would neither thrive in the

6:14snow nor the desert, but only be

6:17partially adapted to both. And social

6:19order is a far more specialized and

6:22complex environment than climate.

6:24Thankfully, in a circle-triangle

6:26situation, both have shown partial

6:28adaptability to the other's social

6:30order. Not to mention that circles and

6:32triangles have never been fully

6:34separated from each other as you can see

6:36on the graph. Your offspring would fall

6:38into this pre-existing middle group

6:40which have developed specialized

6:41environments for him to thrive in. Plus,

6:43you can learn about to understand your

6:46son's unique challenges and advantages.

6:48As a result, circle-triangle people have

6:50generally adapted well to their

6:52circumstances. But the same cannot be

6:54said if there's intermarriage with a

6:56square. Again, as you can see, since

6:59squares were separated from the rest of

7:00the world for so long, the genetic

7:02midway point between them and any other

7:04group is sparse, effectively a

7:06no-man's-land. Not only is square

7:09history itself very sparse with very few

7:11clues about what works for square

7:13societies, your offspring would also not

7:15have any historical long-lasting

7:17communities that are genetically similar

7:19to him. When attempting to create an

7:21optimal environment for him to thrive,

7:23you'd effectively be shooting in the

7:24dark. You just have to hope that his

7:26neurology ends up taking more strongly

7:28to one of the parents. And this isn't

7:31just an inference. One of the most

7:33consistently reliable predictors for the

7:35success of square people worldwide is

7:37how dominant the circle administer they

7:40have is. It should come as no surprise

7:41then that square circle and square

7:44triangle people are seriously struggling

7:46in societies optimized for triangles or

7:48circles. And not only do we not know a

7:50fix for this, even if we did, we

7:53wouldn't be able to implement it without

7:55making the societies themselves less

7:57optimal for circles or triangles. This

8:00has not stopped the circles from trying

8:02though, but the results so far have been

8:04very poor. Neither the circles, nor the

8:06squares, nor the circle squares seem to

8:08be happy. The triangles on the other

8:11hand have opted generally not to try,

8:13and instead keep their societies

8:15optimized for their own. While some

8:17could argue this is callous, given the

8:19results, it's hard to disagree with

8:21them.