Much of what passes for science today will need to be erased. It will be necessary to either revise 100 years of mysticism dressed up as science, or excise it completely and start from scratch. Either way, there are a lot of corrections to make.
As an example of modern day pseudoscience, I place into evidence this wiki article on ingroups and outgroups. Let us now imagine that we are in a tribal region in the Middle East. There are multiple tribes which are tightly genetically related, as societies that practice cousin marriage are wont to produce.
For an enlightening discussion of the political ramifications of consanguinity, I place into evidence Steve Sailer’s Cousin Marriage Conundrum. In that 2003 article, Steve Sailer points out that American foreign policy with regards to nation building in Iraq, and the region in general, is completely ignorant of the facts on the ground with regard to the tribalism that consanguinity produces. He points out that tribalism precludes large corporate institutions (governments) from functioning. He points out that democracy cannot take root in such a tribal society. Fast forward to the end of the Iraq war and the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Steve Sailer’s predictions have been born out to be true. While the mystical belief in democracy has been shown to be patently false. The mystical belief was that if the American government simply gave the Arabs a constitutional form of government, that it would take root and flourish, because all humans are equal and there is nothing special about the European peoples themselves which make Western forms of government possible. While American foreign policy appears to be scientific, it is nothing of the sort, because it is refuses to recognize the role that genetics plays in various populations, and that due to genetic drift, different populations are, well, different.
Let’s look a little closer at the summarizing paragraph at the top of the wiki article:
In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age, or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.[…] The significance of ingroup and outgroup categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing ingroups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of seemingly trivial characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings.
Oh, so ingroups are psychological identifications, and ingroups form even on trivial characteristics. Does it seem that this wiki article is forgetting something? It neglects that ingroups form primarily on genetic relatedness. It clearly states that ingroups are merely a psychological identification, often based on trivial characteristics. This is a pseudoscientific view, one that attempts to push the enlightenment narrative.
A scientific view of the situation would be like Steve Sailer’s. It would take into account that close genetic distance creates bonds between groups of humans, and that it simultaneously has a polarizing effect on groups of humans which do not share the close genetic distance. In short, it would take into account that there are ingroups and outgroups. The ingroups trust themselves only, and they mistrust anyone in the outgroup. The reason why is perfectly clear: because groups of genes which are different are competing in a world of limited resources to be able to propagate themselves. This is the default throughout much of the world. The Northwest European peoples are different, they are outbred. The Arab peoples are inbred. Outbreeding spreads ingroup trust to everyone. Inbreeding creates tribes. Outbred polities can create high-trust systems and create common institutions, like markets and governments. Inbred polities (tribes) do not trust each other enough to do business with the neighboring tribes, and they definitely do not trust the neighboring tribes to run their common government. The failure of democracy in Arabia is explained very via genetics and the evolutionary psychology of trust.
At the bottom, a grudging nod to reality appears in the Postulated role in human evolution section. Postulated, mind you.
In evolutionary psychology, ingroup favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems. However, there is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. One study in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and essentialist systems.
In summary, the nation-building exercise in Iraq was a spectacular failure. The post WWII order of nation states created by the Europeans in the Middle East is falling apart. The strong men supported by the West that were keeping disparate tribes organized into functional economic units have lost that support and were subsequently deposed or executed. Democracy has not taken root, instead tribal sectarianism has returned to the region without the a Western imperial power holding it together. The failure of democracy in the Middle East was predicted by Steve Sailer in 2003 based on his assessment of the effects of ingroup and outgroup behavior created by consanguineous marriage.
Yet, evolutionary psychology continues to be marginalized. How many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been wasted in the Iraq war alone, due to this persistent mystical belief in democracy and human equality? How much longer do we have to live in this age of mysticism, where the importance of genetics on our thinking, preferences, and norms are ignored?