Why Are We in the West So Weird? A Theory | Hacker News Reader

Why Are We in the West So Weird? A Theory

nytimes.com

25 pointsfortran7728 comments

> The centerpiece of Henrich’s theory is the role played by what he calls the Roman Catholic Church’s Marriage and Family Program, featuring prohibitions of polygamy, divorce, marriage to first cousins, and even to such distant blood relatives as sixth cousins, while discouraging adoption and arranged marriages and the strict norms of inheritance that prevailed in extended families, clans and tribes. “The accidental genius of Western Christianity was in ‘figuring out’ how to dismantle kin-based institutions while at the same time catalyzing its own spread.”

I did very much like "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, which mentions this WEIRDness on several occasions to make a distinction so he is able to speak about a certain cluster of political and social environments today.

The book actually tries to draw more evidence-based claims to explain some of our core political differences as rooted in psychological differences that are rarely salient to us, let alone mutable. It also makes a very compelling case for trying to understand and empathize with core values that people on different sides of the political spectrum fight for, which is especially convincing if we accept that these values are not always the result of a conscious decision. They rarely are the result of something egocentric like selfishness but rather the result of how we prioritize different parts of society, and some balance is probably desirable between opposing views here.

This reads like thinly veiled racism. Replace "weird people" with "superior people" and "West" with "white" and this article leaves a bad taste.

> what it doesn’t need, and shouldn’t provoke, is ideological condemnations

The whole premise of western cultural superiority in this book is on very thin pillars, I'd venture to guess.

It’s not racism to point out differences between cultures.

Is it racist to observe that homosexuality is severely punished in Islamic societies?

Using "western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic" is more than "pointing out differences". It implies non western = poor, uneducated etc. aka of lesser value.

It was severely punished in all societies until recently. Islamic societies have not developed yet, and its not entirely clear that it's because of Islam. First you have to accept that ideas, rather than the material conditions, are primarily responsible for changing society. That's not obvious, and it's not obvious that the material conditions primarily change society either. Both culture and material conditions are responsible, and things are unimaginably complex, to the point that we as humans collectively can't control the direction of history.

As someone from the East, I look up to the West. The West has values such as "trust by default unless otherwise proven" that we in the East are hoping for. In the East, it is mostly "Distrust by default" which creates a lot of friction in the society. It goes both ways, the West could learn from the East in terms of beauracracy and regulations.

It is ok to point out differences. I also like to criticize cultures - yes. It should be possible to do this without offending people. Same thing with religion.

Racism is the following in my view: When you simply consider someone inferior purely by the way they look or the skin of their color or where they're from or their ethnicity. The definition of racism ends there.

It is difficult to criticize a person of minority without invoking the suspicion of being a racist - how can I criticize someone who is _____ (fill in a minority race of your choice) not based on their race but based on their actions?

We've got to grow a thick skin, it is increasingly difficult to criticize anything without offending someone, getting cancelled and getting excluded from social fabric.

I think that the onus is on the person who is getting offended and not the offendee for 99% of the cases. If humans constanly offend each other, we would create a massive echo chamber of a society - kind of like LinkedIn of the whole world... there is not a single dissenting opinion on LinkedIn, it is all pats on the backs and massive, pardon me for the language, circle jerk.

Indeed. Very "subtle and nuanced" racism as a friend of mine put it. The next generation of "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life".

> WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic.

How precious.

Right. That's the silly part.

As the reviewer says, "This book calls out for respectful but ruthless vetting on all counts."

The main point seems to be “The accidental genius of Western Christianity was in ‘figuring out’ how to dismantle kin-based institutions while at the same time catalyzing its own spread.”

Do societies with strong kin-based structures have scaling problems?

I would say they do have scaling problems in the form of rampant corruption. You need to destroy local power to form a bigger nation. Nobility has always resisted kings and kings emperors.

Maybe they're:

1. trapped in their Whole Foods NYC filter bubble?

2. they've seen too much in their densely-packed, urbanite existence where there is little community or reputation management?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2C5rnVC8QE&list=PLmiHNp6eb6...

3. American and so presume they have it "good so everyone must be good too," when the society is actually more unequal than ever like a Brazil or a Russia?

Yeah I reckon this term reeks a bit of insinuated superiority as well, but the article (and the feeling I get from the book it references) is more concerned with examining the differences between western and non-western cultures, and apart from this term in particular I think it does it quite reasonably (from my western perspective!)

Not "a bit". The differences make some better adapted, hence "particularly prosperous".

It’s supposed to read: Western AND Educated AND ..

I.e intersection of all those traits.

Nazi Germany or present-day Greece are excluded. There is nothing “precious” about it.

Looting and ruling most of the world did help. Too bad the locals could not match up to the capability of the West.

You mean locals like for example "Genghis Khan"?

He held out for a limited time in history, he end his empire is gone. Western civilization rules much of the world today, though not all.

Too bad the locals were weakened by other overlords who already crushed their armies.

The Indian Mughal Empire, the South American Incas, Maya and Aztec empires, the Chinese Manchu - they were all already looting and ruling. For the locals, nothing changed. The West just conquered conquerors.

Actually, life may have improved for the locals. The American slave trade tapped into the already existing African slave trade. Where are the descendants of the slaves who didn't make it to America?

If eradication of 80-90% of population is "life improvement" for locals, then sure, their lives improved, only most of them died in the process of improvement.

When it is 100% in comparison, then it is, isn't it?

I do agree with this premise but many intellectual discussions in the West simply gloss over the importance of colonialism in their history. Literally having access to the most resource rich lands and conquering new territories for yourselves (USA, Canada, Aus, NZ just a few examples). Till recently (historically speaking) non whites were not allowed to these places unless as slaves or for specific reasons (Chinese building first US trans continental railroad).

Having said that a lot of importance should go to the internal fights between European nations that helped them learn human behaviour to rule other countries. Off course mainly though propelled by development and spread of scientific ideas, industrial revolution and simply the need generated by the same.

One of the problems in old India was that we always had enough: Culture, food, weather and this led to many internal divisions and no need for invading foreign lands. The internal divisions were nicely exploited by Mughals first and British after.

I do not view these issues as Black and White, however i feel Western intellectuals really does not give enough respect to Eastern schools of thought. The Bhagavad Gita or Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' as well as Chanakya's 'Kautilya Arthashastra' etc. developed far before. The pertinent question is why didn't these societies ever develop like the West ? The answer then always takes a form of a thinly us vs them narrative.

>no need for invading foreign lands.

Apart from India itself being invaded by the Hindu culture. If I am not mistaken, then the lowest castes are the tribes that resisted conquest the most. It's conquests all the way down.

>The internal divisions were nicely exploited by Mughals first and British after.

>The pertinent question is why didn't these societies ever develop like the West ?

The usual argument is that Europe prospered because of the internal struggles and conflicts. But as you write, India had them too. India also invented 'Arabic' numbers, and had iron very early on.

Similarly, why did Arabic culture stall when they translated and thus had access to all the Greek treatises? Why didn't the Romans or Greeks get to it initially?

Could Weird be right, and it was the destruction of tribal structures?

There was a submission about Singapore some days ago that mentioned in passing that the long-term leader introduced Western thinking - whatever that is.

Personally, I think that it is observable in nerd culture. If you have a bunch of nerds, but no math, chemistry or physics, then it will take some years and it will be reinvented. With those weapons, whoever is left with some bully tendencies can conquer the world.

The question is: why are there not enough nerds in other cultures? Maybe for lack of the printing press? Not for the books, but books need paper, and you need cheap paper to write down your notes.

Hinduism has been a part of Indian culture since times of recorded history. I am not sure who told you that Hindus invaded India. A so called Aryan invasion theory was promoted by British historians in India and has been disproved time and again.

Thanks for the correction.

I’m a huge fan of Dan Dennett’s online lectures. Reading a few comments here, and the first few paragraphs of the text I started to despair. I fear in his efforts to bring the reader into the piece, he is missing the current cultural climate. Brrr.

Dennett’s lectures are very engaging, and I appreciate not being put to sleep on a topic I only tangentially engage with, and I hope someone who is not in his ‘ivory tower’ at Tufts mentions it to him.

Though, fear not, for Dennett rights the ship. In fact he seems to speak directly to this community (and exchanges I had here recently about fake-science) with this passage:

“A good statistician (which I am not) should scrutinize the many uses of statistics made by Henrich and his team. They are probably all sound but he would want them examined rigorously...”

On point I should say.

I'll try to read the book because maybe it answers this, but I struggle to see how they determine causal relationship in the direction of "prohibiting cousin marriage" to "more individualism and less kinship and less nepotism". Seems more likely that it could have been the other way around (or, more directly, cultures with strong kinship were just less likely to prohibit things that strengthen those bonds, like allowing cousins to marry).

Good question. Did the church come up with accidentally ingenius doctrines, or were they simply codifying cultural norms that emerged as people realized that inbreeding had negative effects?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com