Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 08:53:36 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
Subject: RE: JASSS Critical Review of Thought Contagion
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Aaron:
No, I will not assume a rate of mutations to homosexuality, as this is not
the basis of my argument in _Thought Contagion_.
Derek:
I appreciate that you do not talk explicitly about the mutation rate to
homsexuality, but since you are positing what is generally categorised as a
'gene-meme co-evolutionary model' (a la
Cavalli-Sforza/Durham/Lumsden/Feldman; taboos and genes evolving in the same
population), it is necessary to talk about mutation rates, as this is
(please excuse capitals, I'm not 'shouting' just using them for emphasis)
the ONLY MECHANISM BY WHICH 'HOMOSEXUALITY GENES' (assuming there are such
things) CAN INCREASE UNDER THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE. I'll elaborate on
this later.
Aaron:
My hypothesis is not based
on mutation rates,
Derek:
Fine, if I gave that impression I'll point out it was unintended. However,
you should have made room for them in your model since the selective
mechanism you propose is a non-starter(as I'll explain).
Aaron:
but rather, on the taboo's ability to dramatically
increase reproduction rates for those with predominantly homosexual
phenotypes.
Derek:
Yes, fine so far. This we can agree on.
Aaron:
Take some genetic population segment that has a low
reproduction rate, give them a taboo that raises their reproduction rate to
perhaps mainstream levels, and their genes should start proliferating at a
rate much higher than that dictated by mutation alone.
Derek:
No, this is where you are wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. You have
violated the Hardy-Weinberg Law and thereby produced the so-called
'eugenicist's fallacy' (I know you are not a eugenicist, that's just the
fallacy's name). I assumed in my last post I assumed that you would have
been aware of the Hardy-Weinberg, but obviously it can't have been in any of
the maths courses you took (perhaps it is a little restricted to
evolutionary theory and therefore might not appear in general or physicist's
maths).
Aaron:
The fact that you
are trying to impute a mutation-based argument to me does not suggest that
we are yet ready to have a productive discussion.
Derek:
No imputations from me. If my posts have an imputatory tone, then I'll try
to moderate it in future. But you have made a major quantitiative error
here Aaron, so it's important that we get it straightened out.
Aaron:
Besides, further
development and testing of my hypothesis is better suited to treatment in a
full-lenth paper.
Derek:
I'll start a fresh thread.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit