Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990503115650.00bbc8f4@popmail.mcs.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 11:56:50 -0500
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
Subject: RE: JASSS Critical Review of Thought Contagion
In-Reply-To: <2CDFE2C8F598D21197C800C04F911B20224BC5@DELTA.newhouse.akzo
At 08:53 AM 5/3/99 +0200, Gatherer, D. (Derek) wrote:
>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.
Derek,
I still do not think we are having a productive discussion. First, I do not
agree with the slant that you gave to the new thread subject heading.
Second, I think that the emotions have become too intense for productive
conversation.
I saw what I consider to be a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of my
hypothesis and pointed it out. That lead to a revised "proof" that my
hypothesis must be wrong. Now I see a major fallacy in the revised proof.
If I point it out now while the emotions still seem too intense, then all I
can expect to see is still another "proof" that my hypothesis is wrong. Yet
we both have serious work to do, so I will exercise restraint and refrain
from commenting.
It takes two or more to have an argument, and I do not wish to have another
argument with you right now.
--Aaron Lynch
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
===============================================================
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