There is a reason why evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics provide the most illuminating understanding of human behavior compared to any other field of study which also attempts to explain the human mind, such as behavioral economics or sociology. A deeply embedded assumption of evolutionary psychology is the notion that behavior is heritable, is selected for (naturally and sexually), and is thus subject to evolution. As such, evolutionary psychology offers a genocentric perspective on the human psyche. Why is genocentrism more informative and why is it the future?

The Deficit of Sociocentrism

First, we begin with an example.

Economic explanations of human behavior, such as predictions of human action based on incentives, often elicit a familiar response meant to address the numerous cases where humans seemingly act contrary to their interests: “but humans are often irrational”. Many economists use the irrationality argument as a god-of-the-gaps explanation for why economics sometimes fails to be accurately predictive or explanatory. All fields which offer purely social explanations for human behavior (sociocentrism) suffer from this explanatory deficit. I refer to this deficit as the “Sociocentric Pitfall”. Genocentrism is immune to the Sociocentric Pitfall by virtue of what it is.

Genocentrism entails that behavior is an output of a brain is an output of genes which are subject to selective pressures. At all times, replication is the gene’s only interest and it knows nothing of sociocentric variables. Yet, genocentrism explains socioeconomic phenomena better than sociocentrism. For example, mainstream (sociocentric) economics often predicts decisions made by an agent based on incentives; the term “profit motive” is often used in the case of firms. Invariably, human irrationality is invoked to protect a sociocentric theory in the face of contrary empirical evidence that sociocentrism cannot explain: “oh, that doesn’t count, the agent is just not rational, the theory is still valid!”

To contrast, a genocentric perspective of economics entails that genetic interests always supercede socioeconomic ones, such that humans evolve to respond to socioeconomic incentives so long as those incentives are in line with their genetic interests. In the case where an action is in a human’s socioeconomic interest but contrary to his genetic interests, such a case represents a selective pressure which I refer to as a “Sociocentric Trap”. Genocentrism predicts that acting in one’s socioeconomic interest in that case, i.e. falling into the Sociocentric Trap, would negatively affect gene replication and, as a result, genes which create brains which respond to such incentives will be weeded out of the gene pool.

When a Sociocentric Trap is first introduced, it represents an evolutionary mismatch which imposes a selection event upon a genetic cluster; genes which create brains which are immune to the Sociocentric Trap are the only ones which will populate the next generations. In a population who has been thoroughly exposed to Sociocentric Traps, genocentric economics would accurately predict the outcome of non-responsiveness in that population group. Therefore, we can immediately establish that genocentrism eliminates the need for god-of-the-gaps explanations by solving the Sociocentric Pitfall. All sociocentric fields stand to better their understandings from the application of genocentrism into their existing theories.

The Knowledge Hierarchy

The hierarchical property of genocentrism is not unique. Any perspective which is founded on another is best understood from the lens of the parent perspective. Such is the case with genocentrism and socioeconomic phenomena; behaviors are phenotypes, and thus, the study of behavior must be rooted in biological reality. Similarly, biology must be rooted in chemistry must be rooted in physics must be rooted in mathematics. Explanatory deficits occur when the knowledge hierarchy is violated and subsequent god-of-the-gaps occur as a self-preservation mechanism of the scientist.

As I will explicate, philosophy deals with knowledge, values, and (perceptions of) reality and all of these are the the output of a brain made by genes which are subject to selective pressures. As such, philosophy has, unbeknownst to philosophers, always been the study of extended phenotypes. Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to develop and understand philosophy without it being rooted in biological reality. Failing which, one can expect to see the various biological absurdities of Platonism and Enlightenment ideologies, such as the claim of everyone being born as a blank slate. Moreover, genocentrism has the potential to refine some concepts and to reconcile conflicting concepts. For example, dialectical geneticism solves the Sociocentric Pitfalls of Hegelian and Marxist dialectics by understanding both ideas and material conditions as phenotypes. Therefore, all dialectics are genetic and Hegelians and Marxists are unwittingly accepting of the genetic dialectic. Gene war is the nature of any conflict of extended phenotypes.

Note: I am working on another article whose purpose is precisely to provide the genocentric perspective of Nietzsche’s overman. There, I argue that the overman is an evolutionary concept and unwittingly proto-genocentric. More to come!

On a related note, it is incredibly disappointing to see that the study of human biodiversity is mostly preoccupied with providing evidence for claims most people already know to be true, even if at a subconscious level. To contrast, genopolemology fundamentally answers the questions that actually matter. There, extended phenotypes are understood as the primary weaponry of genetic warfare between genetic clusters, be they classes, ethnicities, or subspecies. In response to group competition, the extended phenotypes of genetic clusters evolve to become better genetic weaponry over time. Just as the invention of the trebuchet gave the French a military and, therefore, evolutionary advantage, the development of religion, culture, and art evolve into more effective mating calls over time thereby conferring upon the genetic cluster which develops them a sexual and, therefore, evolutionary advantage, as well.

However, genocentrism poses a problem. Anytime a different perspective is applied to a subject, the meanings of the words used adopt a slightly but meaningfully different definition. Below, I explain why genocentric definitions must supercede sociocentric ones.

Evolution of Semantics

Linguistic history demonstrates an increase in communicational efficiency over time. Language, over time, has become more informative as measured by memes per word or memes per symbol. The sociocentric explanation attributes the cause partly to the introduction of new words and partly to the evolution of word definitions to convey richer, more complex meaning.

Hardly any anthropologist would dispute that archaic languages are more primitive than modern ones. Similar observations can be made with non-spoken languages. To elaborate, we know that all genetic clusters have a common ancestor and all spoken languages (when unaffected by exogenous interference) find common ancestry in the language spoken by the the genetic clusters’ common ancestor. For example, Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is an ancestor language to modern Indo-European languages, just as PIE is also an ancestral genetic cluster to modern Indo-Europeans.

However, inheritance is not unique to spoken languages. Humans and various animals can be further compared as genetic clusters with inherited sign languages and body languages which also share common ancestry, as with spoken languages. As a consequence of the brain’s evolutionary trajectory, it follows that the ancestral sign language (among early hominids, for e.g.) could not have possibly been more complex than modern sign language. The same can be said of body language and how modern humans understand it.

Sidenote, what follows is neither here nor there: Can the presence of semaglottic (the symbolic language) in both Semitic and Indo-European civilizations be explained by the inheritance of an ancestral, more primitive proto-semaglottic language originating in the ancestor group of Semites and Indo-Europeans? I call this the Proto-Semaglottic Hypothesis (PSH). It would certainly explain how two uncoordinated and hostile groups came to mutually agree on the esoteric meanings of the same symbols.

Genocentrism offers a richer, more complex understanding of linguistic evolution and, again, solves a Sociocentric Pitfall of linguistics. Language is not only an extended phenotype, but it is specifically one that serves as a medium of religious transmission. Therefore, language is one medium by which sexual signaling and competition takes place. The more efficient the use of language, the more effective the mating call.

As such, genes which produce brains which use language most efficiently are the ones which proliferate the most. Conversely, genes which produce brains which use language the least efficiently will be weeded out of the gene pool. Since language is passed from parent to child, every new generation will necessarily speak a more informative version of the same language.

Of course, this is only true if we control for mutational load. Verbal ability is a component of intelligence and the complexity of the common vernacular positively correlates with a population group’s average IQ. Today, the use of language has unsurprisingly declined in complexity along with the general decline in intelligence. Nevertheless, we can expect the common vernacular to resume its historical trend with the return of Darwinian conditions.

In other words, the inefficient use of language is a dead-end phenotype. Genes which express such a phenotype evidence mutation and are subject to pruning, under Darwinian conditions. As I have demonstrated, genocentrism is a more efficient, more informative means of communicating socioeconomic phenomena. In turn, intellectuals who explain socioeconomic phenomena from a genocentric perspective will sexually outcompete those who do not and the exact mechanism for this is quite clear.

Female preference selects for the most physically and socially formidable males, regardless of physical attractiveness. In short, muscles and memes are not like a peacock’s tale. Instead, they are like antlers. Their evolutionary purpose is not to look good, but to outcompete other males. The more socially valuable the memetic footprint, the more socially formidable its originator (due to the ability to ostracize detractors). Therefore, it is the more socially valuable memetic footprints which comprise the next generation’s version of the culture and their detractors will be weeded out of the gene pool entirely as a result of female choice.

Consistent with this mechanism is the difference between the true Darwinian evolution of genes and the pseudo-Darwinian evolution of memes. With the exception of replicator tangos, genes evolve in their own interests. To contrast, memes can only evolve in their own interest, so long as they do not conflict with the interests of the genes from which they originate (because if they do, the genes will cease to exist along with the memes they made). Sociocentrism conflicts with the genetic interests of any intellectual who adheres to it, as it is the “lesser weapon”.

In short, genocentrism is, for evolutionary reasons, the future.

The Elite

There is a socioeconomic definition of the elite and there is a genocentric one. As seen in the Genes & Mating Systems Simulator, genopolemology uses the genocentric definition of the elite which is simply that of a genetic cluster. Culture and religion is understood as a collection of memes made by brains made by genes. Thus, the genetic cluster of an elite is easily defined by the genes which develop the worldview of a particular hierarchy.

Under genocentrism, one does not become elite. Instead, the elite is born. Just because an elite cannot evidence eliteness with socioeconomic conditions does not make the elite a commoner. For example, Hitler was once homeless. Yet, Nazi ideology was his extended phenotype which necessarily makes him an elite of the Nazi hierarchy. Just because Hitler could not, at the time of his homelessness, evidence his eliteness with socioeconomic conditions was not evidence of him being a commoner.

As such, genopolemology understands the phenomenon of regime change as one elite supplanting another, rather than the genesis of a new elite (which it considers a biological impossibility). Genocentrism correctly identifies the beneficiaries of various “upward mobility programs” (e.g. racial quotas) as imposters. In other words, they are commoners LARPing as elites. This perfectly explains the rise of academic pseudo-science as a form of cargo-culting.

Genocentrism also has implications for the word hypergamy. The genocentric definition of hypergamy is marrying upward in eliteness. The most physically and socially formidable males, as evidenced by their memetic footprint, are the most elite. With this definition, a less wealthy intellectual is higher in the sexual hierarchy than a lottery winner. Indeed, this definition of hypergamy is consistent with how female preference is expressed in the real world. Here, I further evidence the explanatory power of genocentrism.

On the other hand, the sociocentric definition of elite reveals its absurdities in the face of Sociocentric Pitfalls. There are intellectuals who would mock the idea that one can become Italian: “They are deconstructing ethnicity!” Already, we can see the deference given to the genocentric definition of ethnicity, namely that of a genetic cluster. Yet, they describe the purpose of academia as creating a new elite. If socioeconomic conditions determine eliteness, then a wealthy but uneducated Kim Kardashian is an elite. The same can be said for educated but unaffluent middle class professionals. The absurdity is self-evident.

To return to the topic of hypergamy, its sociocentric definition absurdly paints women as gold-diggers. Interestingly, intellectuals who speak on this topic correctly refer to the sociocentric definition of hypergamy as “manosphere” jargon, and instead advocate for the genocentric definition of hypergamy.

Evidently, intellectuals who operate outside the realm of genocentrism are, to some degree, cognizant of Sociocentric Pitfalls. In order to bridge the explanatory gaps of sociocentrism, they cherry-pick when to flip-flop between sociocentric explanations and genocentric ones. It is impossible to be consistent with one’s use of sociocentricsm whereas the same cannot be said of genocentrism whose explanatory power is universal. As I argue, it is time to rip the band-aid off. Sociocentrism is simply incoherent.

I will conclude with an observation of Apolloism. The Familia and Gens refer to 2 genetic clusters, the latter of which is inclusive of the former; they are 2 of Apolloism’s highest ideals. Moreover, the Apollonian Nobility had a heritable understanding of itself in that a Noble is born and not made. Further to this point, Apollonian ceremonies consisting of the expulsion of ugly, criminal, and deformed men evidences a preoccupation with eugenics. In light of this, I think it is evident that the Ancient Apollonians had a proto-genocentric worldview. If we accept that to be the case, then would they not have developed Apolloism to be fully genocentric, once a modern understanding of biology was acquired? And would they not have viewed sociocentrism as an attempt to deconstruct the Gens and Nobility? Would they not have viewed a genocentric Apolloism as the more socially formidable Apolloism?