The specification of uniformity in human capabilities, behavior, and character seems to be so obviously wrong, based on simple observation, why would such views have developed or retained any validity? A civil approach that aims to round off the rough edges, but otherwise allows for "lumpiness", would appear to be more optimal, and more realistically achievable.
It should not really take an awareness of evolutionary sources for various traits to accept that they exist. Plus, once we had the benefit of Darwin's theory, exploring and separating the contributions from natural/genetic components and cultural/nurturing ones would seem to be a fully logical and de rigor aspect of social analyses.
Of course, one of the all too common human traits is that of "Karens" who just cannot leave the rest of us alone, but must make us over into their flawed images and purposes. And the more charismatic ones become positively dangerous to individual liberty, and thus to a sane civil order.
Excellent question. The short answer is excuses. These systems build excuses for why observable differences exist that enable them to postulate an underlying uniformity that is distorted by [fill in reason]. Indeed, “understanding” this gives someone insight denied to others. That then also allows commitment to grand goals. So, there is a double status whammy involved.
There is uniformity among humans, but it's a uniformity of architecture, not function. The (false) argument is that since (practically) every computer in the world has the same architecture, therefore all programs must work the same. There are context-dependent patterns that turn out to work, but societal success requires maintaining a gene pool of variation and a working selection mechanism.
One nit about Communist views on this: its major tenet isn't uniformity of human nature, but the utter malleability thereof. In fact, much of the brute cruelty of practical communism results from attempts to anneal human variability in the pursuit of Socialist Man - uniformity being a desired outcome rather than a starting assumption.
Yes, the malleability claim is disastrous in so many ways. It is much more extreme in Communist thought than the Confucian notion of being malleable to moral example.
Brilliant as usual. But I would just point out that from the Xn point of view, there is uniformity in our fallenness, our bloody mindedness, our love of scapegoating, etc.
It is that uniformity in the tendency towards wickedness that binds us together. And there is no way out, humanly speaking. We know, though, that both the Jungle and the Cage are bad for us.
The other thing from a Judeo-Christian POV is that there is very definitely a meta-narrative that history is going somewhere. I would expect that to be the basis of a telos (?) within Western culture.
Martin Luther King’s notion that “the arc of history bends towards justice” makes sense in a Christian context. The Hermetic/Gnostic/Marxian versions have all sorts of problems (and yes, they are riffing off the Christian conceptions).
What do you think of this, supposing it turns out to be correct:
'I was just reading Wikipedia, and it said that Britain essentially copied China's civil service system.
"The origins of the British civil service are better known. During the eighteenth century a number of Englishmen wrote in praise of the Chinese examination system, some of them going so far as to urge the adoption for England of something similar. The first concrete step in this direction was taken by the British East India Company in 1806."
PS are you still writing your collection of essays on Helen Dale's Substack? I check regularly for them.
I am still writing the essays, though there was a bit of a disruption at my end due to other distractions. I have a completed one in the pipeline, but Helen has been very busy.
That Wikipedia entry seems about right. The book to read on this is Douglas Allen’s ‘The Institutional Revolution’.
Thank you for the recommendation, I will certainly be reading it. I read The Birth Of Plenty which touched on some of this, as well as The Tyranny Of Metrics. Always a pleasure to read your work, Lorenzo!
The Birth of Plenty is a great read, as is his Against the Gods. The Tyranny of Metrics I am not familiar with, but sounds like a very useful book—Tim Harford gives it a critical but admiring review.
The specification of uniformity in human capabilities, behavior, and character seems to be so obviously wrong, based on simple observation, why would such views have developed or retained any validity? A civil approach that aims to round off the rough edges, but otherwise allows for "lumpiness", would appear to be more optimal, and more realistically achievable.
It should not really take an awareness of evolutionary sources for various traits to accept that they exist. Plus, once we had the benefit of Darwin's theory, exploring and separating the contributions from natural/genetic components and cultural/nurturing ones would seem to be a fully logical and de rigor aspect of social analyses.
Of course, one of the all too common human traits is that of "Karens" who just cannot leave the rest of us alone, but must make us over into their flawed images and purposes. And the more charismatic ones become positively dangerous to individual liberty, and thus to a sane civil order.
Excellent question. The short answer is excuses. These systems build excuses for why observable differences exist that enable them to postulate an underlying uniformity that is distorted by [fill in reason]. Indeed, “understanding” this gives someone insight denied to others. That then also allows commitment to grand goals. So, there is a double status whammy involved.
Fantástico post!!!
There is uniformity among humans, but it's a uniformity of architecture, not function. The (false) argument is that since (practically) every computer in the world has the same architecture, therefore all programs must work the same. There are context-dependent patterns that turn out to work, but societal success requires maintaining a gene pool of variation and a working selection mechanism.
One nit about Communist views on this: its major tenet isn't uniformity of human nature, but the utter malleability thereof. In fact, much of the brute cruelty of practical communism results from attempts to anneal human variability in the pursuit of Socialist Man - uniformity being a desired outcome rather than a starting assumption.
Yes, the malleability claim is disastrous in so many ways. It is much more extreme in Communist thought than the Confucian notion of being malleable to moral example.
The first time I put on a uniform, I was told in no uncertain terms, that I was a worthless and useless recruit, along with everybody else.
That is deliberate breaking down of resistance to drill and instruction.
Dear Lorenzo,
Brilliant as usual. But I would just point out that from the Xn point of view, there is uniformity in our fallenness, our bloody mindedness, our love of scapegoating, etc.
It is that uniformity in the tendency towards wickedness that binds us together. And there is no way out, humanly speaking. We know, though, that both the Jungle and the Cage are bad for us.
❤️👍🎶🎶🎶
I am not denying human nature, merely that it is uniform. That there are common human things is clear enough.
The other thing from a Judeo-Christian POV is that there is very definitely a meta-narrative that history is going somewhere. I would expect that to be the basis of a telos (?) within Western culture.
Martin Luther King’s notion that “the arc of history bends towards justice” makes sense in a Christian context. The Hermetic/Gnostic/Marxian versions have all sorts of problems (and yes, they are riffing off the Christian conceptions).
https://newdiscourses.com/2026/06/totalitarianism-and-fantasies-of-the-sinless-man/
Such an interesting piece, Lorenzo!
What do you think of this, supposing it turns out to be correct:
'I was just reading Wikipedia, and it said that Britain essentially copied China's civil service system.
"The origins of the British civil service are better known. During the eighteenth century a number of Englishmen wrote in praise of the Chinese examination system, some of them going so far as to urge the adoption for England of something similar. The first concrete step in this direction was taken by the British East India Company in 1806."
PS are you still writing your collection of essays on Helen Dale's Substack? I check regularly for them.
A very useful review essay of Douglas Allen’s book is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Langlois/publication/258164579_The_Institutional_Revolution_A_review_essay/links/0c960533c175650596000000/The-Institutional-Revolution-A-review-essay.pdf
I am still writing the essays, though there was a bit of a disruption at my end due to other distractions. I have a completed one in the pipeline, but Helen has been very busy.
That Wikipedia entry seems about right. The book to read on this is Douglas Allen’s ‘The Institutional Revolution’.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo11040582.html
Thank you for the recommendation, I will certainly be reading it. I read The Birth Of Plenty which touched on some of this, as well as The Tyranny Of Metrics. Always a pleasure to read your work, Lorenzo!
The Birth of Plenty is a great read, as is his Against the Gods. The Tyranny of Metrics I am not familiar with, but sounds like a very useful book—Tim Harford gives it a critical but admiring review.
https://timharford.com/2018/02/review-of-the-tyranny-of-metrics-by-jerry-muller/
One thing's for sure: most of our politicians do not - and likely will not - understand this
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”