Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:40:41 +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>
I know that you don't want to argue any more, Aaron, but just a few
technical points:
Aaron:
Regardless of how you might re-do your premises in future posts, I still
expect you to assert the foregone conclusion that "Aaron MUST be wrong!",
perhaps along with a hint of "He must be STOPPED!" When I announced that I
had seen a major fallacy in one of your earlier posts, you did not need to
know what that fallacy was in order to assert that I was claiming "a major
fallacy in the Hardy-Weinberg-Fisher model of selection against a recessive
deleterious allele" rather than in your application of it.
Derek:
There is no fallacy in my application of the model.
Aaron:
The premises in my book that led to
the possibility of the taboo increasing the rates of "gay genes" were that
there is negative inclusive fitness for phenotypically expressed
homosexuality (e.g., for a homozygous recessive gene) and that the genes
had nevertheless achieved a non-zero *equilibrium* prevalence. There are
various scenarios that could give rise to this situation, but as I said
before, the topic requires a full-length paper. One of those scenarios,
however, is that the gene is a recessive one that confers advantage in the
heterozygous state, perhaps by improving abilities at same-sex
bonding/cooperation, perhaps by numerous other mechanisms.
Derek:
As I showed on Tuesday, the problem with the heterozygote advantage
hypothesis is the extreme degree of disadvantage to the non-homosexual
homozygote that would be required to sustain the present equilibrium level.
Even if you posit q as being as low as 0.2, instead of the more standard
0.32, then you still by q = s/(s+t) need to have a selection coefficient
against homozygous heterosexuals of about 0.25. This would certainly be a
noticeable phenomenon, if some 64% of the population (at p = 0.8 for
heterosexuality) were 25% subfertile. Taboos are not relevant in any case
to this model.
Aaron:
Regardless of
mechanism, there certainly could have been thousands of generations for the
gene or genes to reach approximate equilibrium by the time the taboo came
along. I do not, however, assume that that pre-taboo equilibrium level
would have been equal to rates estimated for the modern populations that
show the proposed genetic effects of thousands of years of the taboo. Nor
do buy into what Laumann et. al. (1994) and Michael et. al. (1994) call
"the myth of 10 percent," but consider a more likely value of q to be 0.2.
Now, one version of your premises do not assume that homosexuality genes
without the taboo are at an equilibrium prevalence, but deal with a
declining prevalence being halted by the taboo.
Derek:
But the taboo, crucially, will never, under any circumstanceas at all, act
to increase the frequency of the hypothesised homosexuality allele. Whether
we assume homsexuality to be declining or at equilibrium, that fact is
unchanged.
Aaron:
(Someone writing privately also gave the
impression that "MemeLabbers" were in fact running coordinated attacks on
my work as a territorial offensive.)
Derek:
Well, what can I say? Of all the ridiculous conspiracy theories you have
peddled over the last couple of years Aaron, that one is just the best of
all! If anyone criticises, or even fails to wholeheartedly agree with you,
then they must be:
a) religiously motivated (you referred to me)
b) attempting to reduce your book sales (to Paul)
c) trying to decry memetics so that sociobiology may flourish in its stead
(to Dawkins)
d) desperately intimidated by your mathematical prowess (Paul and Sue)
e) engaged in a territorial offensive (to MemeLabbers in general)
The 'my critics have ulterior motives' defense is beginning to wear a bit
thin. Maybe the real reason we criticise you is because we are enthusiastic
pursuers of the truth (ie. scientists) and pouncing on bad ideas is what the
dear British taxpayer pays us for.
===============================================================
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