What is your ideal identity and its membership criteria?

submitted by fschmidt from self.nonmorons

Every meaningful identity has a clear membership criteria so that you know who is a member and who isn't. An American is an American citizen. A Muslim formally said the Shahada. A Jew has a Jewish mother or went through a formal conversion process. Members of a Mennonite church must be formally accepted by the church. Identities lacking a clear membership criteria are muddled and such identities fade away.

So my question is: what is your ideal identity and its membership criteria? I will answer my own question in a comment.

all 29 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]seyda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Include a racial component because even if you allow high quality minority individuals their offspring will suffer from regression to the mean and diminish your gene pool.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There is a racial component in my proposal in that the children of Mikraite parents would also be Mikraite. The goal is to create a new race since all current races are worthless. Is this good enough?

[–]seyda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Your proposal would filter for exceptional individuals. But their children would revert towards the mean of their races. So the great grandchildren of your black Mikraiters would be more like average blacks.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But their children would revert towards the mean of their races.

Why? I see no reason why this would happen.

[–]seyda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Regression to the mean. Tall parents tend to have kids shorter than themselves, short parents tend to have kids taller than themselves, smart parents tend to have kids dumber than themselves. Here is an in depth article about it in regards to IQ

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/

This will be a problem especially if you are filtering for individual excellence, which is a personal moral achievement and which history clearly shows is not reliably hereditary. You can keep the population obedient through a good religion but you cannot expect the same individual quality for the great grandkids as for the original, rare individuals who chose to join. Eventually you will have a population of average genetics relative to the inherited population stock.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The paper you linked to is incoherent because it doesn't start by defining exactly what it means by "regression to the mean". Even if "tall parents tend to have kids shorter than themselves" I would assume that their kids would still tend to be taller than the average. And so adding tall people to a gene pool would make that population taller. If you keep adding tall people to a population and you let some random people in the population leave (by marrying out) then that population will increase in height. This is basic breeding.

[–]seyda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Whites have an average IQ one standard deviation higher than blacks so a black with a 130 IQ will be a greater outlier than a 130 IQ white and due to regression to the mean of his race his descendants will be above average but closer to average than the outlier was.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on this reasoning I should only accept Ashkenazi Jews and Brahmin Indians. But the bottom line is that the children of parents (of any race) with a 160 IQ will generally be smarter than the average of any race. What you say is true but isn't significant if the Go skill requirements increase over time as the IQ of the group increases. Breeding works. You can take an inferior stock and breed them to be superior over time by using selection.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Catholic, want to institute the mythological body of Christ and make property a right for all through instilling community, family values against Masonic Judeo-naturalusm, which must end.

[–]trident765 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is an important question, because if the membership criteria is too lax, as it is with Baha'is, what ends up happening is that people with proselytizer personality types end up converting their friends who are also proselytizers, and then before you know it the entire religion becomes a religion of proselytizers and they occupy every meeting with discussions of how to convert people, and then the people who actually care about the substance of the religion stop attending out of boredom. I don't think other types of converts are a problem - only the proselytizers, because they grow like a cancer.

At the moment I am having trouble thinking of a requirement that would keep the proselytizers out, short of banning conversion or forcing members to keep their religion a secret. The problem with a written test is that if at some point a proselytizer becomes the head of the religious community, he will rewrite the test so that only proselytizers will join. This is actually happening in the Baha'i community right now, where certain privileges are conditional upon completion of a sequence of courses in proselytism. I can't think of a good requirement that will keep out proselytizers, but I am sure their is one.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people I identify with are perhaps not ideal. Brothers and Sisters of the Pale Forest, Children of Night, my drug and CA brothers and sisters, people who love books, people who love animals, and especially semi aquatic mammals.

clear membership criteria

Hmmm, I guess you kinda know but the criteria is hard to explain.

so that you know who is a member and who isn't

You feel it.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ideal identity: be true to yourself, mean what you say, respect the sovereignty of others

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

individualist = evolutionary dead end

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This argument is appaled by stoicism.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I do believe in my direct family/my clan. I'm not sure how much of my identity that represents though. I'm still struggling to have goals, like proper modern scum.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Clan isn't enough. Even primitive people organize themselves into bigger groups, namely tribes. Humans evolved for tribes just as zebras evolved for herds. People who don't belong to a tribe have a huge evolutionary disadvantage.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

well apparently anyone is allowed to be white these days, so that's my fallback plan

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Please say goodbye to your genes for me.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

“Never Can Say Goodbye” – Gene

(Don't listen, it's terrible. But I couldn't resist.)

[–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Identity to you is group membership?

Many such cases. Sad.

I identify as an attack helicopter. I don't need your validation to go BRRRRRRRPT.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I identify as an attack helicopter.

Great, please try flying off of a tall building and let me know how it goes.

[–]thefirststone 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nice hate crime.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Since I am not satisfied with current identities, my ideal identity would be something new which I will call "Mikraite". The membership criteria is:

Either born of two Mikraite parents or pass a test on Old Testament knowledge and a test of Go skill. Then say "The Mikraites will be my people, and the god of the Old Testament will be my god. I will teach the Old Testament and the game of Go to my children." to formally join.

In theory this would select for religious commitment and intelligence to produce a new eugenic ethnicity.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

eugenic ethnicity.

I support eugenics, but you realize your genes probably wouldn't be included in the eugenic paradise because you seem like you're on the autism spectrum, right?

I wouldn't be included either unless an exception was made for my brilliant mind and good looks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

because you seem like you're on the autism spectrum, right?

hahahaa

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not mean that as an insult.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You miss the idea. I am against conventional eugenics where some bureaucrat selects genes. My idea here is to have simple group membership criteria that will statistically select for better genes. And I would easily be included based on this criteria.

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As if a bureaucrat like you even could have a glimpse on what we are doing.

We understood war, before you read in on it.

We understood books before you burned them.

You are just a person that tries to force her opinion on others.

[–]wendolynne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since you don't want bureaucracy involved, you answer is in who you choose to mate with, and who you convince to mate with you. The line between group membership and bureaucracy is fuzzy.