nonmorons

nonmorons

log in
sign up
subreddits
search
sidebar

What is your ideal identity and its membership criteria?(self)

9 points8 points11 points submitted by fschmidt

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

seyda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 years ago

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.

Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

individualist = evolutionary dead end

forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

This argument is appaled by stoicism.

[deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

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 years ago

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 3 years ago

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

thefirststone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

Nice hate crime.

fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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

hahahaa

[deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

I did not mean that as an insult.

fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

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.