Re: New Scientist this week

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 13:26:37 BST

  • Next message: Phil Jonkers: "Test"

    Received: by id NAA15548 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 18 May 2002 13:35:02 +0100
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
    Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:26:37 +0100
    Subject: Re: New Scientist this week
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
    Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
    Precedence: bulk

    > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:39:00 -0400
    > From: "Alan Patrick" <>
    > Subject: Re: New Scientist this week
    >> I bought the issue specifically for those articles, and the Evo Psych in
    >> particular. I do think Evo Psych has a place in the study of human
    >> behaviour, but if you go too far you end up with people as robots.
    > I wonder if its more like complexity theory - very small behaviour sets
    > create complex effects, ie certainly no robots :-)
    > <snip SIT theory>
    > Don't disagree with you, but what I like is "hard science", so the genetic
    > argument for altruistic suicide bombers resonates with me.

    I don't buy the altruistic tack in Evo Psych. I can accept the argument that
    males will do very silly and or dangerous things to mate, thatıs no problem...
    Where I have trouble with this argument is that people can knowingly plan
    their own deaths. You don't produce many kids if your dead. Secondly, the
    argument only concerns itself with males, despite the increasing incidence
    of female suicide bombers. Unless of course you stretch the argument to
    suggest they are reacting in some way to a threat to their future children!
    :-) It's hard science when the theory fits the facts.

    > What is very
    > clear is that the transmission of the current memes is very bedded down on
    > both sides and will take a huge amount of meme-washing to change.
    >> The Alpha article was interesting as well.
    > How about the one on whether high maintenance girls are atttracted to big
    > cities, or whether the big city turns girls high maintenance?

    Like many 'soft scientists' I would suggest a bit of both. :-)
    > Alan



    ===============================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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 18 2002 - 13:59:21 BST