RE: JASSS Critical Review of Thought Contagion

Gatherer, D. (D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl)
Tue, 04 May 1999 08:46:39 +0200

Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:46:39 +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:

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.

Derek:

Okay, I'll go back to the original. Perhaps capriciousness momentarily
overcame me.

Aaron:

Second, I think that the emotions have become too intense for productive
conversation.

Derek:

I suppose we have had some heated exchanges in the past, but those were
mostly about what we might call the philosophical aspects of memetics - what
is a meme, what are the implications of the theory etc, but this current
matter is about straight evolutionary theory. I'm not actually presenting
my own ideas, so I don't feel any sort of paternal affection for them.

Aaron:

I saw what I consider to be a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of my
hypothesis and pointed it out.

Derek:

That was my fault for leaping straight to 'Muller's ratchet'-style equations
without first explaining the Hardy-Weinberg. My intention was to show that
you _need_ mutation pressure (because selection won't work under the
circumstances), but that it is also too slow to produce the desired effect
(ie. increase in homosexuality alleles).

Aaron:

That lead to a revised "proof" that my
hypothesis must be wrong.

Derek:

No, it was the proof I should have started with.

Aaron:

Now I see a major fallacy in the revised proof.

Derek:

Really, now that is interesting. You've seen a major fallacy in the
Hardy-Weinberg-Fisher model of selection against a recessive deleterious
allele? Ay caramba (as Bart Simpson would say) - that's a major
contribution to evolutionary theory Aaron! You can't possibly keep that to
yourself.

Aaron:

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.

Derek:

Fine, I won't argue. But I need to finish presenting the equations.

===============================================================
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