I agree with all of this, and also liked Henrich's book (it pairs well with McGilchrist's The Master and His Emissary). However, I think the "WEIRD" cognitive configuration, which, loosely, appears to be on the "autistic" spectrum as well, is also a consequence of various parenting practices in Western countries, including the offloading of caregiving duties onto poorer women, servants, or slaves, who are disproportionately non-white / non-Western. It makes intuitive sense to me that this would diminish in-group loyalty.
Henrich makes a convincing case, though I'm suspicious of monocausal arguments (and I think he gives short shrift to the power of ideas). In regards to Western parenting practices, I'd be interested in knowing how "weird" they are compared to other societies, how universal they are within Western societies, and how recent they are (if they don't go back far enough, they can't be at the origin of WEIRD psychology, though they could still contribute).
I agree re Henrich. Re "weird" parenting, I have a couple essays going into detail (I'll link below) but as far as I can tell the practices were historically at least pretty different (it's shifted a little now as Western parenting has been exported around the world and many Western moms are embracing more traditional styles under the "attachment" label), and go back to *at least* the 1600s. Spread via parenting books post-printing press. I'm guessing they were around sooner but the sources I relied on didn't provide evidence from further back (I guess due to lack of books / print sources). Many of the ideas (e.g. don't hug your kids) have fortunately been dropped by others (e.g. sleep training, babies should sleep alone) are still popular.
There's probably a cascade effect at work here. An individualistic society will have a different parenting style than a clan-based society, which will, in turn, increase that society's individualism.
However, I'm still curious about cross-cultural comparisons (which I see that you allude to in the first essay). You mentioned that WEIRD psychology is "on the spectrum," which got me thinking about other societies that can be characterized the same way. For example, Japan has both a high autism rate and cultural norms that bear at least surface similarities with autistic behavior. From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-conscious/202307/is-life-easier-for-autistic-people-in-japan: "Many autistic behaviors are slightly exaggerated versions of behaviors commonly observed in Japanese society [eg, a silence-filled communication style, lack of direct eye contact, discomfort with hugging and touching strangers]."
Definitely an interesting point, but unfortunately my knowledge/research (/ancestry/cultural background) is pretty European/Mediterranean/North American-centric and I just don't know enough about (for example) Japanese culture to really comment. I do think that Germanic cultures tend to be more baseline autistic and there seem to be *some* similarities between the Japanese and Germans. It'd be interesting to read a take on this from someone who is more familiar with Asian cultures, parenting practices, history (etc).
Yeah, I've been to Japan but can't claim expert knowledge. Japan, like the West, is a very "successful" country by conventional metrics (eg, economically prosperous, high standard of living, technologically advanced). It's an interesting question as to whether a somewhat autistic culture is conducive to group success, just like some "on the spectrum" tendencies can be positive for individuals (eg, methodical thinking, hyperfocus, careful attention to detail). Of course, these cultures, and these individual tendencies, also have their dark sides, which triumphalist narratives tend to underplay (and which I aimed to highlight in this essay).
'The WEIRDest People in the world' is probably the most eye opening book I have ever read, and I think your right that it brings up a major problem for how we create community in the West. I think the trouble is that a lack of built-in community, e.g. kinship institutions, isn't just a symptom of WEIRD societies, it is the very basis of their culture and their power. Westerners may be friendlier to strangers, but comparatively friendless. I think it's interesting to think about how the protests of 2020 came at a time when people were less connected than ever. It seems plausible to me that anti-racism was cultivated by a period where decreased socialization in turn decreased people's racial affinity. We know that oxytocin, the neurotransmitter central to forming social/romantic/kinship bonds is also key to racism, nationalism, or hating whichever outgroup. Neurochemically it has been argued that love and hate are not opposites but that love/hate are the opposite of indifference. Are the benefits of Westernism like strong economies, strong individual freedoms, low nepotism and (relatively) low ethnic conflict worth our crushing isolation? I'm genuinely uncertain.
My optimistic take is that we can have the benefits of Westernism without "our crushing isolation." The proof is that our isolation wasn't always so crushing, nor is it equally crushing to every Westerner in every context. However, WEIRD psychology and societies are inherently prone to anomie, which is why we need to consciously build and reinforce community. The only way out is through: individualistically choosing to channel our individualism into a collective. We can then make "collective action" decisions to reinforce our communal sources of meaning.
While it's hopefully a temporary extreme oscillation, this trend does bring to mind earlier distinctive historically permanent reorganizational shifts in human societies due to the intersection of technology and necessary collective reorganization—farming, writing, currency, navigation, trade, industrialization, radio/TV, DSP. These are all examples of developments which arrived and not only could not be unwound, but would necessarily follow all over the world, and forever adjust our collective social psyche. Whether they've been for better or worse, the crux of the issue is that it's impossible to say! We can't go back and perceive human existence as it was before we knew the technology and changes we know.
I guess the worry is that the current social trajectory of things is indeed the result of a technological paradigm shift which we cannot put back in its box. Hopefully smartphones and social media are a health crisis we wake up to and adjust for quickly and rebound from somehow.
My experience and sense of the difficulties of many young men in particular to find and cultivate communities is that doing so requires imagination and the willpower to imagine thusly. This sounds simple, but it's quite difficult for most human beings! As you said, we've evolved to be a certain way, and without traditional networks to casually participate in throughout our lives, there aren't really demonstrative examples or methods of re-socialization we teach ourselves. Like, there's therapy, and we all know the jokes about what men will do instead, which actually likely has a further shaming effect and sorta reinforces its own premise.
Lonely young men do have an advantage in the quest to overcome anomie. Namely, their sex drive. Joining a community is an ideal means of finding a mate. Alternatively, being part of a community can signal to prospects outside of that community that you possess some measure of social value. Then, in the process of seeking sexual satisfaction, you may unwittingly achieve emotional and even spiritual satisfaction. Of course, this process requires putting down your phone and properly directing your inner hunger, instead of wasting it on porn.
Pornography also has unsubtle analogues in many cheap ideologies spun up into mainstream influence over recent decades. Encouraging men to abandon pornography is a healthy development, and so is encouraging men to abandon easy answers presented by men whose entire identity is one of selling easy answers to young men.
But how to prevent this tribe from falling apart? You'd need communal rituals, myths, institutions, etc, and thus, ultimately, something more than liberalism alone. Liberalism can provide space for us to create meaning, but it is usually insufficient to do so on its own.
Having a common enemy helps, and we are unfortunately not exactly without those.
Rituals are a double-edged sword, but ain't voting a ritual, given how little each individual vote changes?
As for myths, there's more than enough of them around liberalism (American Civil War as "fight against slavery" is, to put it mildly, a strongly simplifying narrative, so is British "air too clean for slaves to breathe", so is "Enlightenment was a fight against church").
With institutions, a lot is needed to make the existing ones effective (e.g. UN not held hostage to US and Russia simultaneously).
A recent piece at Persuasion (https://www.persuasion.community/p/why-you-should-feel-good-about-liberalism) provides a liberal take on the limits of liberalism: "From the beginning, liberal theorists emphasized that liberalism can provide space for individuals, families, communities, and faiths to make meaning in their own ways, but it cannot, does not, and should not do that work itself. Liberalism promises the pursuit of happiness, not the actual thing."
Attempts to make liberalism provide a holistic meaning it wasn't designed to provide are likely to end in ignominy like the French Revolution's Cult of Reason (yes, this was an actual cult and not just a euphemism). I do, however, support reforming the UN.
I do not find Cult of Reason that ignominious an idea, it just happened to be introduced in a very ignominious environment. As for the lengthy quote, I know of it, but you probably won't be surprised to learn I perceive it in the same vein as scientist statements: "If a scientist estimates something can be done, they're probably right; if a scientist estimates something can't be done, they're probably wrong".
Besides the Cult of Reason, there are a number of extant secular humanist organizations, as well. They haven’t exactly seized the cultural zeitgeist or inspired fervor in the young. I’ll grant that a successful secular religion is possible, but to inspire real passion and collective action, it’s going to have to offer a more compelling vision than Unitarian Universalism.
I agree with all of this, and also liked Henrich's book (it pairs well with McGilchrist's The Master and His Emissary). However, I think the "WEIRD" cognitive configuration, which, loosely, appears to be on the "autistic" spectrum as well, is also a consequence of various parenting practices in Western countries, including the offloading of caregiving duties onto poorer women, servants, or slaves, who are disproportionately non-white / non-Western. It makes intuitive sense to me that this would diminish in-group loyalty.
See also:
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-lost-girls-and-boys
Henrich makes a convincing case, though I'm suspicious of monocausal arguments (and I think he gives short shrift to the power of ideas). In regards to Western parenting practices, I'd be interested in knowing how "weird" they are compared to other societies, how universal they are within Western societies, and how recent they are (if they don't go back far enough, they can't be at the origin of WEIRD psychology, though they could still contribute).
I agree re Henrich. Re "weird" parenting, I have a couple essays going into detail (I'll link below) but as far as I can tell the practices were historically at least pretty different (it's shifted a little now as Western parenting has been exported around the world and many Western moms are embracing more traditional styles under the "attachment" label), and go back to *at least* the 1600s. Spread via parenting books post-printing press. I'm guessing they were around sooner but the sources I relied on didn't provide evidence from further back (I guess due to lack of books / print sources). Many of the ideas (e.g. don't hug your kids) have fortunately been dropped by others (e.g. sleep training, babies should sleep alone) are still popular.
Dark history of parenting books: https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-dangers-of-reading-too-much-part-df8
Bit of a broader view on the relationship between and causes of early puberty and emotional stunting, but the second half largely deals with Western parenting and childrearing: https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-lost-girls-and-boys
There's probably a cascade effect at work here. An individualistic society will have a different parenting style than a clan-based society, which will, in turn, increase that society's individualism.
However, I'm still curious about cross-cultural comparisons (which I see that you allude to in the first essay). You mentioned that WEIRD psychology is "on the spectrum," which got me thinking about other societies that can be characterized the same way. For example, Japan has both a high autism rate and cultural norms that bear at least surface similarities with autistic behavior. From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-conscious/202307/is-life-easier-for-autistic-people-in-japan: "Many autistic behaviors are slightly exaggerated versions of behaviors commonly observed in Japanese society [eg, a silence-filled communication style, lack of direct eye contact, discomfort with hugging and touching strangers]."
Definitely an interesting point, but unfortunately my knowledge/research (/ancestry/cultural background) is pretty European/Mediterranean/North American-centric and I just don't know enough about (for example) Japanese culture to really comment. I do think that Germanic cultures tend to be more baseline autistic and there seem to be *some* similarities between the Japanese and Germans. It'd be interesting to read a take on this from someone who is more familiar with Asian cultures, parenting practices, history (etc).
Yeah, I've been to Japan but can't claim expert knowledge. Japan, like the West, is a very "successful" country by conventional metrics (eg, economically prosperous, high standard of living, technologically advanced). It's an interesting question as to whether a somewhat autistic culture is conducive to group success, just like some "on the spectrum" tendencies can be positive for individuals (eg, methodical thinking, hyperfocus, careful attention to detail). Of course, these cultures, and these individual tendencies, also have their dark sides, which triumphalist narratives tend to underplay (and which I aimed to highlight in this essay).
'The WEIRDest People in the world' is probably the most eye opening book I have ever read, and I think your right that it brings up a major problem for how we create community in the West. I think the trouble is that a lack of built-in community, e.g. kinship institutions, isn't just a symptom of WEIRD societies, it is the very basis of their culture and their power. Westerners may be friendlier to strangers, but comparatively friendless. I think it's interesting to think about how the protests of 2020 came at a time when people were less connected than ever. It seems plausible to me that anti-racism was cultivated by a period where decreased socialization in turn decreased people's racial affinity. We know that oxytocin, the neurotransmitter central to forming social/romantic/kinship bonds is also key to racism, nationalism, or hating whichever outgroup. Neurochemically it has been argued that love and hate are not opposites but that love/hate are the opposite of indifference. Are the benefits of Westernism like strong economies, strong individual freedoms, low nepotism and (relatively) low ethnic conflict worth our crushing isolation? I'm genuinely uncertain.
My optimistic take is that we can have the benefits of Westernism without "our crushing isolation." The proof is that our isolation wasn't always so crushing, nor is it equally crushing to every Westerner in every context. However, WEIRD psychology and societies are inherently prone to anomie, which is why we need to consciously build and reinforce community. The only way out is through: individualistically choosing to channel our individualism into a collective. We can then make "collective action" decisions to reinforce our communal sources of meaning.
While it's hopefully a temporary extreme oscillation, this trend does bring to mind earlier distinctive historically permanent reorganizational shifts in human societies due to the intersection of technology and necessary collective reorganization—farming, writing, currency, navigation, trade, industrialization, radio/TV, DSP. These are all examples of developments which arrived and not only could not be unwound, but would necessarily follow all over the world, and forever adjust our collective social psyche. Whether they've been for better or worse, the crux of the issue is that it's impossible to say! We can't go back and perceive human existence as it was before we knew the technology and changes we know.
I guess the worry is that the current social trajectory of things is indeed the result of a technological paradigm shift which we cannot put back in its box. Hopefully smartphones and social media are a health crisis we wake up to and adjust for quickly and rebound from somehow.
My experience and sense of the difficulties of many young men in particular to find and cultivate communities is that doing so requires imagination and the willpower to imagine thusly. This sounds simple, but it's quite difficult for most human beings! As you said, we've evolved to be a certain way, and without traditional networks to casually participate in throughout our lives, there aren't really demonstrative examples or methods of re-socialization we teach ourselves. Like, there's therapy, and we all know the jokes about what men will do instead, which actually likely has a further shaming effect and sorta reinforces its own premise.
Lonely young men do have an advantage in the quest to overcome anomie. Namely, their sex drive. Joining a community is an ideal means of finding a mate. Alternatively, being part of a community can signal to prospects outside of that community that you possess some measure of social value. Then, in the process of seeking sexual satisfaction, you may unwittingly achieve emotional and even spiritual satisfaction. Of course, this process requires putting down your phone and properly directing your inner hunger, instead of wasting it on porn.
Pornography also has unsubtle analogues in many cheap ideologies spun up into mainstream influence over recent decades. Encouraging men to abandon pornography is a healthy development, and so is encouraging men to abandon easy answers presented by men whose entire identity is one of selling easy answers to young men.
I sell only difficult answers that lead to more questions.
So let's belong to the tribe of "liberals of the Earth".
But how to prevent this tribe from falling apart? You'd need communal rituals, myths, institutions, etc, and thus, ultimately, something more than liberalism alone. Liberalism can provide space for us to create meaning, but it is usually insufficient to do so on its own.
Having a common enemy helps, and we are unfortunately not exactly without those.
Rituals are a double-edged sword, but ain't voting a ritual, given how little each individual vote changes?
As for myths, there's more than enough of them around liberalism (American Civil War as "fight against slavery" is, to put it mildly, a strongly simplifying narrative, so is British "air too clean for slaves to breathe", so is "Enlightenment was a fight against church").
With institutions, a lot is needed to make the existing ones effective (e.g. UN not held hostage to US and Russia simultaneously).
A recent piece at Persuasion (https://www.persuasion.community/p/why-you-should-feel-good-about-liberalism) provides a liberal take on the limits of liberalism: "From the beginning, liberal theorists emphasized that liberalism can provide space for individuals, families, communities, and faiths to make meaning in their own ways, but it cannot, does not, and should not do that work itself. Liberalism promises the pursuit of happiness, not the actual thing."
Attempts to make liberalism provide a holistic meaning it wasn't designed to provide are likely to end in ignominy like the French Revolution's Cult of Reason (yes, this was an actual cult and not just a euphemism). I do, however, support reforming the UN.
I do not find Cult of Reason that ignominious an idea, it just happened to be introduced in a very ignominious environment. As for the lengthy quote, I know of it, but you probably won't be surprised to learn I perceive it in the same vein as scientist statements: "If a scientist estimates something can be done, they're probably right; if a scientist estimates something can't be done, they're probably wrong".
Besides the Cult of Reason, there are a number of extant secular humanist organizations, as well. They haven’t exactly seized the cultural zeitgeist or inspired fervor in the young. I’ll grant that a successful secular religion is possible, but to inspire real passion and collective action, it’s going to have to offer a more compelling vision than Unitarian Universalism.