The Rules of Religious Conversion and Adaptation

If we analyze adaptation and conversion two important attributes of a religion have to be distinguished. The type of religion and the ideology. The ideology describes the set of rules while type defines how these rules come into existance. Consequently, type is the more abstract term. It is the common denominator. Several quite contradictory religious ideologies can be hosted by the same type.

There are the following rules.

1. Rule

The most fierce competition is among different ideologies of the same type. While different ideologies of different type can easily tolerate each other.

For example: Judaism and Islam are of the same type, so they hate each other while both can easily accept or being accepted by Christianity that is of a different type.

2. Rule

While ideologies of the same type of religion have a fierce competition. The members of such a religion, actually the people, have not such a problem to switch to an other ideology if it is of the same type.

Example: (1) The well established religions know this quite well. Therefore they use perpetual indoctrination to prevent such conversions. (2) After WW2 German Nazis, all of them devoted stateists, had a few problems to assume a new stateist ideology both in the Western and the Eastern part.

3. Rule

For a member to change the type of religion even if the ideology resembles is difficult, as the way how rules come into existence is deeply engrained in a human’s behavior and social traditions. It either takes several generations or a genius to perform this step up the evolutionary ladder. It is easier to drop down.

Example: It is a well known fact that before changing the type of religion people rather adapt the new ideology the type already assumed. This was why so many Christian missionaries failed. This is also why in African countries, even with dominating Christian religion, satanism and other forms of superstition thrive. Finally, this also explains why the exclusively black American evangelical believer adhere to stateism.

These rules can be easily deduced from Fauceir Theory because of its analogy to biological evolution.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Religious Evolution and Political Preferences

A study that analyzes political leanings of religious groups confirms the Fauceir Theory of religious evolution. The study that was conducted by the PEW Institute found mainly the following trends.

source: PewResearchCenter

  1. Protestants are the groups that most tend to vote for republicans.
  2. All Christians taken together are more pro republican than all other groups including atheistic groups.
  3. The atheistic groups do not differ very much from other monotheistic groups.

Admittedly, there are some religious groups that I have no particular knowledge about, so I cannot explain their actual place in the diagram, but I will discuss the above mentioned trends.

In order to correlate these trends, two questions have to be answered:

  1. What are the trends in religious evolution.
  2. What is the ideological basis of a political leanings towards a party?

We start with the first question. In every evolutionary process there exists a simple rule, the time rule. This rule states that the latest innovation is the most advanced, the heighestly evolved. Or the other way around, the older the more archaic and primitive. This rule is generally true in biological, economical, scientific, technical (you name it) branches of evolution. And of course, it’s true in religious evolution too.

There are well known exceptions to that rule of course, but these exceptions follow an other rule. They are adaptations of archaic entities to recently opened ecological niches. This for instance happens with viruses and other pathogens. But nobody would argue that a recently originated virus is more evolutionary advanced than a vertebrate.

Thus there is a third rule of evolution. The more advanced an entity the more complex and the better adaptable it is. This third rule, admittedly, is difficult to prove sometimes. Some scientists therefore argue that this rule doesn’t exist at all. But the people who argue that way are mostly those that ideologically cluster with non-humanistic religions, which will be discussed later.

Of course, all these rules apply to religious evolution too. The general path of religious evolutionary advancement can be described in four steps.

  1. Shamanism or religious believes that we use to call superstition today.
  2. Stateistic religions that are centered on the ruler. Depending on the time in history we may call this type of religion pharaoism, kingism, or stateism.
  3. Theistic are religions that are centered on many Gods (polytheistic) or a single God (monotheistic). Theistic religions put the ruler under control of an even more important authority, which reduced a ruler’s capriciousness. While capriciousness was still an issue in polytheistic religions—the various Gods did rarely agree—this room for interpretation was further narrowed by monotheism.
  4. Humanistic religions are clearly human centered, which to my knowledge is only Christianity to these days.

Some people may want to add Mormons as the most recent innovation, but I’m not sure, as I don’t know exactly how this religion works. I’m sure, though, that atheism not exactly is an advancement. As Larken Rose famously elaborates in his book “The Most Dangerous Superstition”, most atheist are not really non-religious they just believe in the state instead of God which borders to superstitions and is at best characterized as stateism. Some atheists might be humanists, but most atheists just stepped back to stateism.

What is it that makes Christianity to stand out against other religions. It is that by Christianity for the first time in history human interests became the ultimate measure of ethical rules. We know that with pharaoism the ruler was the undisputed maker of rules. The Pharao was the only authority to make the rules if it please him he changed them all the time. With monotheism the measure of rules switched to an eternal authority. However this eternal authority could never be asked in person, so some clergy had the authority to interpret the will of God, and often enough it ended up as a pharaoism or stateism. By Christianity for the first time in history the authority to create ethical rules switched to the people. Of course Christianity was also abused, first by the Romans and later by feudalistic kings. As a rule of history all states enforce stateism. It is in a state’s nature. But in Europe the abuse of Christianity for stateism came to an abrupt end with reformation which brought back Christianity to is humanistic rules.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that countries dominated by evangelical religion were the most progressive in history. These countries simply possessed the best tools to quickly adapt the way of ruling a country to the needs of economical end scientific needs. In other words, evangelical Christianity enhanced the adaptability of nation and therefore has to be considered as an evolutionary advancement.

Now that the evolution of religion is understood, we may come back to the second question. The point what ideology determines a political party. First of all we have to issue a warning ideologies are only loosely related to parties. Parties are entitled to actively choose an ideology that best suites them to get and maintain power. Therefore all parties favor stateism, but they cover it up more or less effectively with respect to their constituency.

So the correlation explains as follows the more openly a party promotes stateism the more it is supported by non humanistic religions. The more secretively a party supports stateism the more it is supported by humanistic religions. In the United States currently the democrats are the strongest proponents of stateism, so they have the strongest support from those religions that are more theistic instead of humanistic.

BTW. This piece of theory also explains why Western governments currently try to replace their population by believers of theistic instead of humanistic religions.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Empathobesity—The Dynamics of Social Symbiosis and Parasitism

Social parasitism is a recurrent topic on this website. I tackled the question how such parasitism is unaware to those who contribute. Also the phenomenon of the evolution of a social parasite’s defense system was illustrated. In a recent article Heartiste, raised an other aspect of social parasitism. The systems theory’s well known fact that a symbiotic relationship can become parasitic (and vice versa).

This dynamics of a relationship’s mutuality, of course, is true for all relationships social included. Empathobesity is a role model. The concept describes the rise-and-fall process of Western societies by the impact of empathy.

As well as the process can be divided into rise and fall, the two phases are characterized by (1) a distribution of wealth, education, and power which translated into higher productivity and considerable ingenuity, and (2) growing inequality, declining education, and concentration of power which translates into stagnation and genuine ingenuity became replaced by just fancy but useless innovation such as ringtones. The two phases of the process even have a biological, population genetics, implication. While in the first phase the more prosperous people had more children, it is now the other way around, so even the genetic basis of ingenuity is in decline not to mention the schooling system and psychological and sociological research that supports a propaganda of educating the imbecile to become geniuses.

No doubt, this process was propelled by empathy mostly arising from Christian religious believes, and we owe those Christian ethics a great deal of our wealth and prosperity. The major question is why did the growth of prosperity came to a halt. The answer lays in the dynamics of relationships. Institutions that sprout from the grounds of Christian ethics like political parties and organizations and charities entered their parasitic stage of behavior. All these organizations have in common that they spread their political agendas by the help of creating empathy like the Christian Church did.

Thus empathobesity well characterizes this process. It is empathy that became obesity. Like obesity empathobesity results from doing in excess what is essential. If you don’t eat you starve, if you eat too much you become obese. Obesity like malnutrition is a disease, and both can kill you. The same is with empathy. It is essential to keep a society flourishing, but to much of it causes dangerous metabolic consequences.

The parasitic abuse of empathy has a long history and it has it re-birth again and again.


The young man on the streets of Prague creates empathy, but does he deserve it. Please take a closer look. His sneakers are as new as the ones of the bystanders and his backpack and his clothes aren’t ragged. He covers his face to not show that he is well shaved. My conclusion was he just wanted to create a feeling of empathy in visitors crossing the Carl’s bridge to pay for his vacation.

In a family, for instance, one member can force tho other into obedience by playing the sufferer. This is the trick played by men and women likewise, but only women showing such a behavior are supported by society. You can easily spot those women on facebook, for instance, by re-posting charity requests. The women don’t care the least about the poor chap who asks for help, but it is a test for her male followers who will qualify to become enslaved by her empathy trap.

But empathy parasitism is not restricted to personal relationships and personal contact like beggars. Whole institutions support on it. Charity organizations, Environmental protection groups, churches, and political parties all use to employ the human social instinct of empathy for their egoistic purposes.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

But empathy is not the only social behavior pattern (fauceir) that is abused by social parasites. Here follow some other examples of social parasitism:

  • A security agency that creates security risks to enforce their power and influence.
  • A news agency that creates new just for a good selling headline.
  • A health organization that creates a disease to have more patients to cure.
  • A company that creates a monopoly to increase revenue.
  • A scientific community predicting a disaster, such as an epidemic, to obtain more funds.

The faces of social parasitism is manifold, and what once has been a respectable institution can become a social parasite. This is made clear by the term Empathobesity when empathy in political realms becomes an obstacle of social advancement at best but in its worst case scenario become morbid leading to death of a culture. So many culture died already. They all died because they succumbed to their specific social parasites. BTW biological organisms die the same way.

Well from a fauceir historical perspective there is nothing wrong with that. Fauceir Theory has a non-partisan view. Nobody can avert the death of an organism. That’s true for biological organisms and social organisms likewise. Death and the subsequent degradation is the prerequisite of a life circle going on. If the Roman Empire hadn’t been degraded some thousand years ago we would not have the level of culture that we enjoy in Europe today.

Thus what can be done practically, is to prevent the dying social organisms to take to much human vitims, to destroy intellectual achievements and other natural resources.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Essence of Fauceir Evolution

Here go some quotes:

Evolution is not just about species [1] but includes all types of fauceirs [that form resources PN].

Evolution is not just about natural selection [2] but a set of optimization rules [including decotectulization and adaptation, for instance PN].

—– Mato Nagel
[addendum by the author]

[1] Darwin, Charles, 2008, On the Origin of Species. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. New York: Oxford University Press. (

[2] Wallace, Alfred Russel,1870,Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. London, New York: Macmillan and co. (

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Male intelligence and female preferences

This is actually a comment on Do women find bright men sexy?

Heartiste writes in his Dating Market Value Test For Men that only slightly above average men have an advantage. I would agree with that as it not only is consistent with my own experience but also coincidentally is found by a mathematical model of democratic election. Finally, it seems quite logical that higher intellectual capabilities are not perceived as an advantage but as a threat. According the Dunning-Kruger effect, we all are incapable to correctly evaluate capabilities that are more favorable than ours. We cannot understand a more intellectual person, and everything that we cannot understand we use to fear instinctively.

Fortunately, if women are capable to select slightly more intelligent men this is of evolutionary advantage over many generations, as these INDIVIDUAL decisions sum up over the generations.

Unfortunately, that is not true with democracies, as COLLECTIVE decisions always cut down over the generations.

The mathematical effect on variance is as follows: the former will increase variance, the latter decrease towards idiocracy.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Eugenics of intelligence

Eugenics became a verbal battleground recently. It has been a battleground since humans became aware of the possibility. Even the involvement of genetics to control hereditary diseases is reality in most countries. The recent flare is about intelligence coming into the reach of eugenics. The prospect to control an offspring’s intelligence re-ignited the human-history-long battle, and we will analyze the battleground as it allows to fauceirize the combatants.

Nazi Euthanasia and Jewish Holocaus Victims Compared

The graphic shows that by the German Nazis about 30-times more Jewish than disabled people were killed.

First, we start characterizing the participants in respect to their goals.

  1. The lowest level fauceir are the human individuals as biological beings. I imagine—and there is plenty evidence for that—that parents and mothers in particular cling to their offspring no matter how intelligent. The biological reflexes drive a mother to breast feed her child even if malformed. Among other mechanisms, oxytocin excretion s stimulated by the baby sucking on her nipples, and that alone provides satisfaction.
  2. The next level is a social one. It is the lowest social level at all. The family. A family has to make decisions on other grounds. They have to feed more children and the resources have to be distributed among them wisely. From a family’s perspective, it would be stupid to waist resources on children that have only a poor chance to survive. Here a first fauceir conflict arises between family interest and a mother’s emotional interest. Some mothers tend to cling to her helpless and disabled children even more than to her healthy ones, which puts the family under stress and not seldom such families break apart.
  3. At the next level up the social hierarchy the controversies become fiercer. That is where the real battleground unfolds, and nothing is so as it seems to be. The interest of the state—or to put it more general, the local security provider—is again in favor of helpless, disabled, unintelligent children. Some reader might argue this is bold assertion against all evidence, as euthanasia was introduced by governments—the Nazi German fascist government being a prominent example. But is that really true. I will give two arguments in support of my claim one is logical reasoning the other is empirical data.
    1. First the logical argument. All government act as local security provider, and all security providers tend to monopolize their ‘service’. Still it is a service. People have to pay for it. People receive security service in exchange for a salary that is generally called taxes. As the government holds the monopoly of violence it would suppress other potential security providers and they would even use their power to enforce salary payments and they would increase their honorarium arbitrarily. This monopolized security business goes the better the more unassuming and stupid the customers. Intelligent slaves are a perpetual source of trouble. Either they want to become security providers themselves or they press to negotiate better conditions. Conclusively each government in history has been interested to reduce people’s intelligence.
    2. There is enough empirical evidence in support. Throughout history intelligent people were eliminated on a regular basis. The first documented historical evidence I’m aware of is Jesus who was killed not because he was stupid but because he was superior. Thousands of people followed him killed throughout Europe by inquisition. Many of them we would call natural scientists today, so the inquisition was after the bright ones.While intelligent people were openly attacked before, in the 20th century, governments became hypocritical. The German Nazis declared to eradicate unworthy human life, and in fact, some people with severe mental disabilities were killed by the fascist euthanasia program, as the graphic shows that number was rather negligible compared to the huge number of Jews killed thru the holocaust. And Jewish people on average were more intelligent, than average Germans. For that reason the IQ test in Nazi Germany was forbidden and discredited as a Jew test. Besides it is worth mentioning that not only Jews but also intelligent German people died in concentration camps, as they were most likely to oppose the regime. The extent of that Nazi policy to eradicate human intelligence becomes even more obvious if considering that intelligent Jews and Germans were killed in their prime reproductive age (see second picture) while the people killed by the euthanasia program were not likely to propagate, at all.Governmental hypocrisy was elevated to a next level by post-war governments in the Western and in socialist countries alike. They declared not to follow the Nazi policy of euthanasia but to press in the opposite direction. They vowed to support all human life forms as disabled they may be. By that, however, they followed the Nazi policy of eradicating the most intelligent people even on a greater, a population based, scale. Not only did the governments drained a lot of resources to support mentally disabled people, a developed society can cope with that, but much more damaging from the point of population genetics was the fact that resources were drained from intelligent people to such an extend that it became more and more unattractive for them to raise children. Statistics throughout developed countries show that the more qualifies the less children per mother. That problem is growing for decades and known to everybody, but politicians meet it with neglect pointing out that disabled and socially lower classes need their attention most. The intelligent can help themselves though they obviously cannot as the data demonstrate.
  4. The forth level of fauceir hierarchy is international competition. Here again as at the family level higher intelligence is more desirable as it puts a nation at a more advantageous position.
Jews waiting for extermination by the Nazi regime

This picture from Wikipedia shows Jews in a line waiting for their extermination. At that time Jews were more intelligent than average German folks. Their killing was an reduction of the g factor of the overall German population.

Second, from these considerations, what can be predicted in behalf of future eugenics.

  1. The country that first employs eugenics of intelligence will have an advantage in international competition (follows from point 4).
  2. As we have seen with the Arab spring the augmentation of a peoples intelligence would destabilize a countries ruling structure (follows from point 3).
  3. Families will be the first that secretly in some places will press forward eugenics of intelligence (follows from point 2).
  4. Local security providers will abuse the fate of desperate mothers who love their disabled children to push forward ideologies that oppose eugenetics of intelligence (follows from points 1 and 3).
  5. Local security providers will press for scientific research that allows to augment a population’s intelligence and submissiveness at the same rate.
  6. If not a global security provider develops, eugenics of intelligence will become feasible and popular.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Ideologically Challenged Research: X-chromosome and Intelligence

There are many research topics that an academic, state or governmental employed scientist, better doesn’t touch. Most of these topics lay in the field of social science, but there are a few biological issues too. Sex difference of intelligence is among them.

The table below shows the The trials to publish such data and the prompt and vigorous comments.

Year Authors Comments Replies
1972 Lehrke 1 Anastasi2,Nance3 Lehrke4
1991 Turner5 Morton6
1992 Feingold7 Katzman8,Shaffer9 Feingold10
1993 Feingold11 Hedges12,Hedges13 Weinberg14
1996 Turner15 Hook16 Turner17
2008 Johnson18,Johnson19 Craig20,Turkheimer21 Johnson22

The next publication-comment-reply chain stands out a little bit as the first publication is not supporting sex differences. It rather states the opposite.

2005 Blinkhorn23 Irwing24 Blinkhorn25

The question is why someone bothers with commenting such a publication at all. The answer can be found in the text, which is actually a comment printed in a prestigious journal on a 2004 published metaanalysis26. The Blinkhorn article somehow reminds me of Pravda articles in Soviet times, the official voice of the communist party, that law-like determined how things have to be interpreted to comply political correctness.


1. Lehrke R. Theory of X-Linkage of Major Intellectual Traits. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1972;76(6):611–419.

2. Anastasi A. 4 Hypotheses with a Dearth of Data – Response to Lehrkes a Theory of X-Linage of Major Intellectual Traits. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1972;76(6):620–622.

3. Nance W, Engel E. One X and 4 Hypotheses – Response to Lehrkes a Theory of X-Linkage of Major Intellectual Traits. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1972;76(6):623–625.

4. Lehrke R. Response to Dr Anastasi and to Dr Nance and Dr Engel. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1972;76(6):626–631.

5. Turner G, Partington MW. Genes for intelligence on the X chromosome. J Med Genet. 1991;28(6):429.

6. Morton NE. Genes for intelligence on the X chromosome. J Med Genet. 1992;29(1):71.

7. Feingold A. Sex Differences in Variability in Intellectual Abilities: A New Look at an Old Controversy. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1992;62(1):61–84.

8. Katzman S, Alliger GM. Averaging Untransformed Variance Ratios Can Be Misleading: A Comment on Feingold. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1992;62(4):427–428.

9. Shaffer JP. Caution on the Use of Variance Ratios: A Comment. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1992;62(4):429–432.

10. Feingold A. Cumulation of Variance Ratios. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1992;62(4):433–434.

11. Feingold A. Joint Effects of Gender Differences in Central Tendency and Gender Differences in Variability. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1993;63(1):106–109.

12. Hedges LV, Friedman L. Computing Gender Difference Effects in Tails of Distributions: The Consequences of Differences in Tail Size, Effect Size, and Variance Ratio. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1993;63(1):110–112.

13. Hedges LV, Friedman L. Gender Differences in Variability in Intellectual Abilities: A Reanalysis of Feingold’s Results. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1993;63(1):94–105.

14. Weinberg SL. The Hedges and Friedman Index: Two-Tailed Significance. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. 1993;63(4):527–529.

15. Turner G. Intelligence and the X chromosome. The Lancet. 1996;347(9018):1814–1815.

16. Hook EB. Intelligence and the X chromosome. The Lancet. 1996;348(9030):826.

17. Turner G. Intelligence and the X chromosome. The Lancet. 1996;348(9030):826.

18. Johnson W, Carothers A, Deary IJ. Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence: A New Look at the Old Question. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008;3(6):518–531.

19. Johnson W, Carothers A, Deary IJ. A Role for the X Chromosome in Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence? Perspectives on Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell). 2009;4(6):598–611.

20. Craig IW, Haworth CMA, Plomin R. Commentary on “A Role for the X Chromosome in Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence?” (Johnson et al., 2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;4(6):615–621.

21. Turkheimer E, Halpern DF. Sex Differences in Variability for Cognitive Measures Do the Ends Justify the Genes? (Commentary on Johnson et al., 2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;4(6):612–614.

22. Johnson W, Carothers A, Deary IJ. Speculation to Inform and Speculation to Explore Response to Craig et al. (2009) and Turkheimer & Halpern (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;4(6):622–623.

23. Blinkhorn S. Intelligence: A gender bender. Nature. 2005;438(7064):31–32.

24. Irwing P, Lynn R. Intelligence: Is there a sex difference in IQ scores? Nature. 2006;442(7098):E1–E1.

25. Blinkhorn S. Intelligence: Is there a sex difference in IQ scores? (Reply). Nature. 2006;442(7098):E1–E2.

26. Lynn R, Irwing P. Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence. 2004;32(5):481–498.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at