Individualism and collectivism from China to the British Isles

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 31 October 2009 02:18.

James mailed me a link to Dienekes Pontikos’s copy and paste of this study by researchers in the psychology department at Northwestern university.

The study is interesting for two reasons. First, it is pleasing to see the emergence of gene studies into the racial phenotypes of individualism and collectivism. This, of course, is a live issue for us but as always much depends on its handling - which brings us to the second reason. The two lady researchers have linked causal pathogens to the pressures producing collectivism, which has the effect of rather neatly pathologising the individualism of Europeans as anxiety-ridden and presenting Asiatic indifference as calm!

The ladies concerned are:

Dr Joan Chiao, an assistant Professor of Psychology working in the Brain, Behaviour, Cognition and Social Psychology programmes. She is also affiliated with the Asian American Studies programme, among others;

Kate Blizinsky, a grad student interested in - wouldn’t you know it - the neurology of stress and well-being.

Speaking purely as a know-nothing racist white man, I find the dynamic opposites used in this study misleading from the European perspective. To my cavalier mind, the individualism of Europeans is not polarised in that evolutionary human way against the collectivism of East Asians, but against the Europeans’ own weak cooperative nature. We Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves therein. That is an affront to our nature. I strongly contend that if Europeans ever “slough off their anxiety” and so evolve away from individualism, it would not be towards indifference.

I am reminded from long ago of a couple of television programmes on military confrontations with East Asians, one being Slim’s campaign in Burma and the other the forced retreat from Gloucester Hill in Korea. What those two programmes left me with was the negligible (not to say pathological) value which, respectively, the Japanese and Chinese soldiers attached to life. In both programmes, the British ex-soldiers described them as vermin throwing themselves into the fire of the enemy. These were not men, for they did not behave in any way the Brits knew men to behave, and killing them was not difficult or a cause for regret.

We Europeans can cooperate on the basis of our natural values, but it takes a certain effort. It is not our default position. We definitely cannot “do” blind collectivism like the East Asians, and I don’t accept that the polar opposite to East Asian collectivism is our innate individualism. It might be something closer to the chaotic assertiveness endemic among Sub-Saharan Africans. Perhaps a third leg to Africa - ending no doubt in West Africa - would make the research more complete and enlightening. It certainly seems to me that more racial space and a greater degree of subtle thinking is required of anyone seeking to split this psychological log. But what we have in this study is a Chinese woman who probably doesn’t comprehend very much about us, and a Jew whose “interest” would, in some hands, lend itself well to the tribal delights of pathologisation.

So with that (perhaps unfair) caveat, here are the money quotes:

CULTURE-GENE COEVOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND THE SEROTONIN TRANSPORTER GENE

Abstract
Culture–gene coevolutionary theory posits that cultural values have evolved, are adaptive and influence the social and physical environments under which genetic selection operates. Here, we examined the association between cultural values of individualism–collectivism and allelic frequency of the serotonin transporter functional polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) as well as the role this culture–gene association may play in explaining global variability in prevalence of pathogens and affective disorders. We found evidence that collectivistic cultures were significantly more likely to comprise individuals carrying the short (S) allele of the 5-HTTLPR across 29 nations. Results further show that historical pathogen prevalence predicts cultural variability in individualism–collectivism owing to genetic selection of the S allele. Additionally, cultural values and frequency of S allele carriers negatively predict global prevalence of anxiety and mood disorder. Finally, mediation analyses further indicate that increased frequency of S allele carriers predicted decreased anxiety and mood disorder prevalence owing to increased collectivistic cultural values. Taken together, our findings suggest culture–gene coevolution between allelic frequency of 5-HTTLPR and cultural values of individualism–collectivism and support the notion that cultural values buffer genetically susceptible populations from increased prevalence of affective disorders. Implications of the current findings for understanding culture–gene coevolution of human brain and behaviour as well as how this coevolutionary process may contribute to global variation in pathogen prevalence and epidemiology of affective disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are discussed.

Here, we demonstrate for the first time a robust association between cultural values of individualism–collectivism and allelic frequency of the serotonin transporter gene, controlling for associated economic and disease factors. Geographical regions characterized by cultural collectivism exhibit a greater prevalence of S allele carriers of the serotonin transporter gene, even when cultural regions rather than nations served as the unit of analysis. Additionally, we show that global variability in historical pathogen prevalence predicts global variability in individualism–collectivism owing to genetic selection of the S allele of the serotonin transporter gene in regions characterized by high collectivism. Importantly, we also reveal a novel and surprising negative association between individualism–collectivism, frequency of S allele carriers of the serotonin transporter gene and global prevalence of anxiety and mood disorder. Across nations, both collectivism and allelic frequency of the S allele negatively predict global prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders. Critically, our results further indicate that greater population frequency of S allele carriers is associated with decreased prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders due to increased cultural collectivism.

The current findings suggest a novel demonstration of culture–gene coevolution of human behaviour. Emphasizing social norms that increase social harmony and encourage giving social support to others, collectivism serves an ‘anti-psychopathology’ function by creating an ecological niche that lowers the prevalence of chronic life stress, protecting genetically susceptible individuals from environmental pathogens known to trigger negative emotion and psychopathology. These findings complement notions that cultural values of individualism and collectivism are adaptive and by-products of evolution, more broadly. For instance, recent evidence suggests that cultural values of collectivism also serve an ‘anti-pathogen defence’ whereby behavioural manifestations of collectivism, such as conformity and parochialism, function as buffers against the transmission and increased prevalence of disease-causing pathogens (e.g. malaria, typhus and tuberculosis) (Fincher et al. 2008). Our results provide novel evidence that geographical regions characterized by collectivistic cultural norms have a higher historical and contemporary prevalence of infectious diseases due, at least partially, to genetic selection of S allele carriers (Fincher et al. 2008). Taken together, these findings dovetail nicely as two examples of how cultural values serve adaptive functions by tuning societal behaviour so that social and environmental risk factors are reduced and physical and mental health of group members is maintained. Importantly, in the current study, we found that population frequency of the serotonin transporter gene was a singular predictor of cultural values of individualism–collectivism across nations, even when controlling for historical and contemporary pathogen prevalence. Hence, our findings illustrate that gene frequency plays a unique role in explaining global variation in the adoption of cultural norms and is fundamental to any comprehensive understanding of culture.

Tags: Psychology

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:09 | #

They’re saying culture is genetic. This ilk also say (elsewhere) that race is a social construct — i.e., race is entirely a facet of culture. Completing the syllogism: ergo, race is genetic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:43 | #

Of course they haven’t thought up that syllogism yet. Once they do, they’ll try to wiggle out of it. But in order to do so, which premise will they drop? If they drop “culture is genetic,” they’ll be denying their own science. If they drop “race is a social construct,” race must be genetic.

In fact, of course, maintaining in the year 2009 that “race is a social construct” — i.e., denying that race is genetic — already goes against every objective scientific finding of today, so they’re absolutely irretrievably lost no matter how you look at it .... but that won’t stop the Jews, that won’t stop the communists, that won’t stop the organized homosexuals, that won’t stop the faux-Christian sui-genocidalists, and that won’t stop the clueless women voters.

Posted by SUCH on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:10 | #

Where are the arab countries or where would they be?

Would religion play a part in this somehow (ie. Pan-Islam)?

Scrooby, wouldn’t the minor premise be “race is a cultural” construct?

I didn’t know individualism/collectivism was considered a phenotype. That’s sort of off-putting…maybe you could elaborate. I don’t know that N. Europeans have particularly weak competitive tendencies, but maybe that they’re more inclined to higher moral reasoning (Kohlberg’s stages of moral development)?

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:13 | #

I don’t know that N. Europeans have particularly weak competitive tendencies, but maybe that they’re more inclined to higher moral reasoning (Kohlberg’s stages of moral development)?

I keep saying the same thing, I think (never read Kohlberg).

Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:25 | #

I hate scientific language. It’s almost as if someone had decided once up a time that it would be a good idea to raise a barrier between the people and supposed knowledge. “Leave that education business to the mass media.” But why would anyone want to even write language of that sort? It’s obvious that these two ladies can’t think, so the reason can’t be their intelligence. Perhaps it’s true: if you use someone else’s language you’re his bitch. All original thinkers have defined their own terms and used their own language (think of our great philosophers). If your thoughts aren’t vacuous mimicry, your language won’t be mimicry either. If you use cliche terms, it’s an indication you’re thinking cliche thoughts. (Got sidetracked a bit, perhaps, but never mind.)

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:03 | #

Richard Weaver among others has insisted on clear definitions to promote clear thinking and clear communication; but it is possible to comprehend a concept without having a word to symbolise said concept. A rough, but distinct and known, symbol is simply used.

These ladies if they truly couldn’t conceive of such distinctions aren’t the bitch of their language but likely lazy or incurious.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:14 | #

”Scrooby, wouldn’t the minor premise be ‘race is a cultural’ construct?” (—SUCH)

That makes sense. Did I imply something else?

major premise: Circles are round.

minor premise: X is a circle.

Ergo: X is round.

maj: Culture is genetic.

min: Race is culture (is a “social construct”).

Ergo: Race is genetic.

My point wasn’t to dwell on ways to do classical syllogisms (there are lots of ways to set up and analyse classical syllogisms; for modern purposes, symbolic logic has replaced that) but to point out the other side are starting to contradict themselves because of scientific advances and will eventually be forced to recant entirely, all except the Jewish academics and Jewish political agitators for whom stubborn insistence on race-denial propaganda is become part of the Jewish tribal religion. The Jews will never relinquish it. Come back when the sun explodes, the Next Big Bang occurs, the Heat Death of the Universe happens, no matter: the Jewish academics will still be denying that races exist. These Jews don’t believe their own propaganda for one second. They know perfectly well races exist. They deny race solely for the goys. The goys (being very very stupid) buy into it.

Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:54 | #

Hi Frank,

There are no concepts, because there are no abstractions, only confused personal memories activated by stimuli in various combinations.

It’s a mistake to think that well-defined terms automatically take you close to reality rather than trap you in an endless death spiral of self-referential abstraction. But I agree that individuals should define their terms well, and rather by writing novels than by writing dictionaries; I don’t agree that herds, i.e., scientists should. Scientists wouldn’t have spent billions of dollars looking for the non-existent “God particle” if their abstract herd-languages didn’t continually deceive them about what kind of world they live in and what they understand about that world.

“Clear language” doesn’t make you think, doesn’t make you conscious of the fact that you have to think if you want to understand, and that only you can do that thinking, and that you can only do it through your personal memories. (Incidentally, most people can’t think because any objective manipulation of their memories by themselves, which is the definition of thinking, is made impossible by the interference of their loyalties, mostly to their own identities.) Do you understand the equation 1945349 + 92312849 = [whatever it is]? No, because the figures are too large to understand, but you can mimic a correct answer based on your memories of experiences in the class room, etc…. The same way, it’s easy for our fake anthropologists to drift in the seas of unreal without even noticing it, because they don’t understand how language works and their science is mimicry to them. The institutional scientist believes he is thinking when he reads experts or uses specialist words in his mind. There won’t be any thinking going on in his mind until he becomes aware of the primacy of thought and the necessity of avoiding herd languages.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:51 | #

Good study, because it increases our understanding of the said phenomena, but the researchers flounder in the discussion part.

Researchers write: “Emphasizing social norms that increase social harmony and encourage giving social support to others, collectivism
serves an ‘anti-psychopathology’ function by creating an
ecological niche that lowers the prevalence of chronic
life stress, protecting genetically susceptible individuals
from environmental pathogens known to trigger negative
emotion and psychopathology.”

* To some extent it is so, but it will also ravage psychologies unfit to conformism (ranging from the very individualistic to psychologically deviant to free riders), because harmony and support in larger scale is never achieved without some quantity of social and other punishments, gossip and ill will, psychological self-mutilation, restrictions and hierarchical orders, favoring the wanted conduct, etc.

“Recent behavioural evidence indicates that individuals
carrying the S allele exhibit stronger attentional bias for
negative words (Beevers et al. 2007) and pictures
(Osinsky et al. 2008), whereas individuals carrying the L
allele demonstrate a stronger attentional bias towards
positive pictures and away from negative pictures (Fox
et al. 2009).
By extension, S allele carriers may be more
likely to demonstrate negative cognitive biases, such as
engage in narrow thinking and cognitive focus, which
facilitate maintenance to collectivistic cultural norms of
social conformity and interdependence, whereas L allele
carriers may exhibit positive cognitive biases, such as
open, creative thinking and greater willingness to take
risks, which promote individualistic cultural norms of
self-expression and autonomy (Isen et al. 1987;
Fredrickson 2001).

For
people living in collectivistic cultures, heightened selective
attention and increased amygdala response to
negative information may be advantageous to achieving
collectivistic cultural norms, such as maintaining social
harmony.

For instance, greater vigilance to negative
information may be useful for early detection of another
person’s anger or fear as well as foreshadowing and avoiding
actions or interpersonal situations that may induce
negative emotional states in others. Also, greater vigilance
to negative information may encourage a stronger
narrow thinking and cognitive focus, enabling one to
effectively conform to social norms. By contrast, for
people living in individualistic cultures, heightened selective
attention and increased amygdala response to
negative information may be disadvantageous to achieving
individualistic cultural norms of self-expression and
assertion of self-interests. For instance, greater vigilance
to negative information may make one hesitant to express
their thoughts and feelings in social contexts or behave in
an assertive manner, making it difficult to form and
maintain meaningful social relationships in individualistic
societies, a social behaviour critical to reducing the risk of
affective disorders for genetically susceptible individuals. At the same time, heightened biases for positive information
may be advantageous in individualistic cultures.
For instance, positive information biases have been
shown to encourage creative thinking and openness to
novelty and risk-taking (Isen et al. 1987; Fredrickson
2001), which may in turn encourage independent, assertive
social behaviour and increase the likelihood of social
connection with others.”

* They make wrong inferences and interpretations, and present the evidence misleadingly. I make statements, remember them for later use.

1. Europeans’ greater preference to positive information is not because they notice negative information less (e.g. about other people), but because they avoid it more. Anxiety increases avoidance, if it is possible. East Asians’ lesser anxiety makes them nosy, they interfere with other people’s businessess more easily, they don’t see anything wrong with it and it doesn’t bother them. Europeans’ are more prone to see such interference troublesome, inappropriate, useless or something to be avoided. Universal European white flight in multiracial contexts is an example of this. Also Asians lesser anxiety doesn’t give them reasons and stimuluses to resist conformism or to react negatively when somebody is obtrusive towards them. Europeans’ greater anxiety creates hostility towards intrusions, and pressure to self expression and assertiveness when they think that something is done in wrong way and it should be done in other way (i.e. the same psychological pressure can create opposing actions; avoidance/ assertiveness).

2. Collectivism itself doesn’t ensure ethnocentrism. Collectivists might equally well conform to ethnocentric authorities as to liberal authorities. Many East Asian ethnicities in Western countries have been prone to mixed marriages and conformism to liberal values. We see from the study that Jews are genetically not much more inclined to collectivism than Europeans. Ethnocentrism is for the most part connected to selective fear of outgroups and selective preference for ingroup. This selective fear and preference ethnocentrism also increases collectivism of Jews despite their moderate individualism. Europeans lack sufficient ethnocentric selective fear and preference. Individualism is to some extent necessary to ethnocentric peoples, i.e. there must be sufficient numbers of selectively fearful/ preferring people, who act as sensitive reacters to slightest threats from the outgroups and then proclaim incessantly grave warnings and advice to their own people despite their possible prevailing contrary opinions and risks, and doom and destruction if they don’t listen (e.g. prophets in the Bible).

*****

Study says that Europeans are more predisposed to mood disorders, like bipolar disorder, i.e. the alternation between depression and euphoria/ hyperactivity. Bipolar is connected to increased creativity. Here in the end, let’s give a face to bipolarity. Would like to show her heaven?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO544SPasA8&feature=related

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:59 | #

Correction: Would you like to show her heaven?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO544SPasA8&feature=related

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:00 | #

I didn’t know Maria McKee was bipolar. By the way, a memorable Maria McKee performance was “I Found Love” by her 1980s band, Lone Justice: listen to her use that voice of hers to really belt this number out, and watch her move as she does it — unforgettable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6NP8KFcLqo

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:54 | #

Trivia note…Fred, that Lone Justice appearence was from a BBC music show, Whistle Test. Often used to watch that, maybe even saw that episode.

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:18 | #

Maria Mckee is good and I liked her version of Wayfarin’ Stranger in the movie Songcatcher but it is not a patch IMHO on Emmylou Harris’s version of Barbara Allen in that movie.

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:25 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagPiI16PJo&feature=PlayList&p=00C2A860BAF70AE5&index=1

I couldn’t find a copy of Emmylou’s Barbara Allen so here is a song with Emmylou and The Chieftains

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:24 | #

A couple of versions of Barbara Allen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_6-rL0a3zk&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8woUkSu7FBs&feature=related

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:10 | #

Good tunes Fred, I prefer the second with the briar rose ending, being a sentimental fool. I couldn’t find who sang that version though.

The second Songcatcher cd was very traditional and after getting that I chased down some Smithsonian reproductions of traditional Appalachian music. You may enjoy them too http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~library/appalchian music cds.htm The first cd on that list is Sheila Adams who was the musical consultant in Songcatcher and goes back many generations in Appalachia. She was in the band in that party scene, the girl who shoved the losing fighter off the stage with her boot, that whole scene was hilarious.