
Evidence That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism (2013) - illiilliiililil
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641067/
======
eth0up
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22583594](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22583594)

Dupe: 17 days ago

------
conjectures
This is junk. Possibly even a case study exemplar of spurious correlations.
Take a small set of units (high false positive rate, inter alia). Take some
vaguely relevant sounding metrics (entry point for p-hacking). Does a bunch of
regressions.

Here's the next paper from the group:

Distance from equator is predictive of authoritarianism. The more constant
daily cycle causes a yearning for rigid routines, predisposing populations to
authoritarian rule.

If you think I'm merely taking the piss, is it more or less plausible than the
proposed causal mechanism here:

"Because many disease-causing parasites are invisible, and their actions
mysterious, disease control has historically depended substantially on
adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk [9]."

Or maybe it's because we've already seen the data our whole lives, know which
countries are authoritarian and can select any variable which separates
democracies from authoritarian countries and bang, you've got p < 0.05.

~~~
thedudeabides5
Yup, or maybe it's the same "Global North" vs "Global South" thing where the
rich countries of the world are predominantly in the temperate north. There's
just not that much land in the temperate south.

In the middle you have the Caribbean/Northern Latin America, Central Africa
and then like Indonesia out in Asia. A lot of warm, wet places with lots of
history of malaria, other parasites, and terrible economic development.

What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence that
warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to see a
good reason 'why' that's the case here, but it would be the first time you
kinda want to be near the equator in order to avoid an infectious disease.

~~~
kingbirdy
> What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence
> that warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to
> see a good reason 'why' that's the case here

My understanding is that coronaviruses such as the SARS-CoV family or
influenza die more quickly in warmer, more humid conditions. Some sources:

[http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-
se...](http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-season-why-
flu-strikes-in-winter/)

[https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/)

------
asdfman123
I believe it's not just parasites -- it's also things like diseases and famine
as well.

The reason it's called "parasite-stress theory" is not because parasites are
so important for the selection of government, but because it's a reference to
parasite-stress theory in biology.

It makes sense. If you don't even have basic healthcare or security, a
strongman willing to swoop in and take decisive action does sound appealing.
Unfortunately, though, they usually just make things worse.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite-
stress_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite-stress_theory)

~~~
S_A_P
It would seem to me that if you are sick or your health is suffering, several
things can result: 1) you dont have the time or energy to consider what the
(authoritarian) leader is doing as carefully (cognitive) 2) you may just be
too tired/sick to do anything about it (physical)

~~~
asdfman123
You're lower on the hierarchy of needs. If you're afraid you're going to get
killed or starve you don't care about abstract things like freedom of artistic
expression.

~~~
anovikov
Whole history of the Soviet Union is a living proof that theory of hierarchy
of needs is bs.

~~~
jshevek
Like so many ideas that persist, the "strong" form is wrong, and the "weak"
form is useful. The parent's point stands.

------
golf3
I don't think psychology is trustworthy in this area after the "authoritarian
parenting" fiasco.

~~~
golemotron
Can you say more about this? Google isn't helping me.

------
buboard
does it also show that authoritarianism predicts parasite prevalence?

~~~
DenisM
How about hidden variables?

    
    
      var allFactor = @[poverty, authoritarianism, bad_health];
      foreach(var factor in allFactor)
      {
         var otherFactors = allFactor.arrayByRemoving(theFactor);
         print($"{factor} predicts {otherFactors}");
        }
      }

------
GLGirty
I read the title and assumed they were talking about the existence of a
parasitic socio-economic class. Seems plausible...

I stopped reading when I realized they meant microbiology.

------
lukifer
I find it curious that in our current political climate / party system,
liberals seem to be more okay with mandatory lockdown procedures, whereas
conservatives are pushing back. The latter may be partially due to prior
ideological commitments [0], but it's also somewhat counter-intuitive
considering the known correlation between authoritarianism and germaphobia.

It may be that our two-party dynamic, being focused primarily around left vs.
right, largely ignores the authoritarian/libertarian axis of the political
compass [1], meaning both parties have authoritarian wings internally. In
times of stress/shock, real and/or perceived, it seems that each political
tribe is willing to cede power to its authoritarians, based on its values:
currently, the left does so for health and the environment, and the right for
border security and violence from the "other". And of course, these values can
shift based on political winds and alliances of convenience; I'm watching
HBO's "The Plot Against America", and from a modern perspective, it's strange
to see the FDR economic progressives be the hawks, while the (original)
America First-ers are the doves.

(While I lean libertarian on the political compass, I'm not a-priori judging
all authoritarianism to be evil; there are arguably times such as a pandemic
or a world war where some amount may be necessary.)

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/opinion/coronavirus-
trump...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/opinion/coronavirus-trump-
response.html)

[1] [https://www.politicalcompass.org/](https://www.politicalcompass.org/)

~~~
clairity
restating a prior sentiment: such dichotomies--left/right,
authoritarian/libertarian--and their cross-products are cognitive traps. they
inhibit understanding and obscure solution pathways.

so don't worry about the axis affiliations and critique the ideas themselves
(as you imply you already do by not judging _a priori_ ).

fear-driven decision environments (as with the current pandemic) are ripe for
power seizures (even if just incrementally). we should remain vigilant against
that.

afaict, most US residents are following governmental requests (like physical
distancing, washing hands, and self-quarantining when sick) because it's a
reasonable and prudent response to a virus that's still relatively unknown but
has the potential to be bad, not because we're coerced by said government.
those admonitions provide (sometimes sparse) evidence, information, and
rationale for doing so, rather than mainly relying on force.

that force is held back by governmental units because of the threat of
backlash by residents. this keeps their power in check. don't give that up.

~~~
krapp
>that force is held back by governmental units because of the threat of
backlash by residents. this keeps their power in check. don't give that up.

You seem to be implying that, absent such a threat, the government would be
employing force against citizens regardless of their compliance, simply
because they could get away with it. If so, is it not more likely that
restraint is due to the purpose of the state's monopoly on force being to
coerce compliance, and as such is simply not necessary when the public is
already compliant?

In other words, that the government is holding itself in check far more than
the public is?

~~~
clairity
for sure, it's the dynamic that matters to keep coercion in check, which is
broader than any one constituency. but that constituency is important to the
dynamic too.

------
didsomeonesay
(2013)

------
new2628
Missing quotes around evidence.

------
jariel
While this is all very interesting, there's a pretty deeply embedded bias on
display here.

"authoritarian governance is defined by highly concentrated power structures
that repress dissent and emphasize submission to authority, social conformity,
and hostility towards outgroups"

... is a very problematic way of articulating this - to the point of promoting
ignorance, because it's frankly how someone with a Liberal Democratic mindset
would describe the system, but not others. I would argue that it's not
objective because it may not capture the essence of such systems, rather, it
just highlights the 'downsides' as seen from the other side.

Others might describe systems as possibly more collective or communitarian
wherein legitimate central authorities have considerably better ability to
manage affairs, particularly wherein such controls can have a material effect,
i.e. 'pandemic', 'war' and maybe even things like infrastructure or other
national challenges.

What people in 'liberal democracy' might see as 'individual choice', others
might see as 'selfish, self-interested' possibly 'greedy' behaviour, actions
that show little regard for others, only the self. The natural result of such
behaviours might be 'inability to respond in a coherent manner to collective
problems'.

Of course, where there is centralised power, there's an opportunity for it to
be corrupt wherein you might have arbitrary and bad acting here and there, but
I don't think to describe a system by its downsides is right.

This is especially important because the correlation may not be with
authoritarianism as described, but possibly with group unity, collectivism or
something else.

Edit: I should add, systems with strong 'central control' that some might
describe as 'authoritarian' like Singapore, South Korea etc., have tamed and
controlled Coronavirus and have exemplary responses. Their economies are not
collapsing, they are in school, they are not dying en masse.

Meanwhile, 'Liberal Democracies' economies are collapsing, facing massive
casualties, dying in hordes.

Imagine how stupid we must look to them? They literally showed us 'how to do
it' but we're either too self-focused or possibly 'don't understand' how they
are organized.

~~~
ccleve
I think it's beyond reasonable dispute that freedom and democracy work better
than authoritarianism on pretty much every dimension. If there's one thing
that both right and left agree on, it's this.

~~~
asfarley
Yeah slam that overton window shut, you never know what dangerous ideas are
floating around these days

