EGI vs. GST

A comparison.

Salter’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI) - I have been discussing this for more than twenty years so my readers should not need me to spell it out more than I already have.

Rushton’s genetic similarity theory (GST):

Genetic similarity theory, an extension of the kin-selection theory of altruism, postulates that people detect genetic similarity in others ("nonkin" as well as "kin") in order to provide mutually supportive environments, such as marriage, friendship, and social groups. In line with prediction, studies using blood antigens and heritabilities reveal that sexually interacting couples and samesex friendships are based partly on genetic similarity. As such, a new theory of attraction and friendship is constituted, and the conditions for the evolution of human altruism are enhanced. Genetically biased preferences are not limited to social partners but extend to adopting other cultural practices maximally compatible with genotypes. Ethnocentrism and patriotism may be fitness-enhancing mechanisms that enable group selection to occur.

Some correspondence I had with someone about the seeming greater acceptance by Europeans of Ukrainian refugees vs. those form non-White nations, and whether this supports what is in Salter’s On Genetic Interests (OGI):

One needs to distinguish descriptive and prescriptive. OGI says that Europeans should welcome Ukrainian refugees more than Colored (prescriptive). That they seem to do so - at least in some cases - is good but not essential for Salter's EGI. It does support it in the sense that the more theory is aligned with human behavior the better. But even if the actual behavior was different it would still be the right thing to do.

So, EGI tells us that the West SHOULD have "warmer acceptance of Ukrainian refugees throughout the West than of MENA/African ones." That they actually do so is good, but and supportive, but not essential. I would say the behavior in this case is evidence for Rushton's genetic similarity theory (GST), which is associated with EGI, but not the same.

EGI tells us what people SHOULD do. Rushton's GST tries to explain what people actually do.

In summary:

EGI is (mostly) prescriptive – it describes genetic realities and neo-Darwinian theory and then tells people what they SHOULD do. It is not really dependent upon “the evolution of altruism,” “genes for altruism,” the “evolution of ethnic nepotism” (or of anything else).  It can be achieved, if required, by rational thought mechanisms.

GST is (mostly) descriptive – it describes genetic realities and then tells us what people do and why they do it.  It in fact does depend on the evolution of various cognitive/behavioral traits, and is mediated, for the most part, by innate, unconscious mechanisms.