Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA04486 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:07:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745F1B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: sexual selection and memes Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:14:44 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for the strident response Chris,
<Yep. I'd say forget about genetics when discussing culture because
> the rather disparate time scales just don't work at all,>
Miller had a response to this point, but I left the book at home, so
can't tell you what it was.
< and (b) anything which was transmitted genetically can be
transmitted much more
> efficiently in culture, so genetic drift would 'rot away' any genetic
This is an interesting idea, since I'm not sure it's right. It
seems to me that one of the problems with memetics is the fidelity question.
Like games of chinese whispers, cultural transmission can become
extraordinarily distorted over time, so I don't know about efficiency. One
of the paradoxical things about religions, it seems to me, is that one the
one hand they arguably have clear memetic components, but on the other the
complexities of their rituals would tend against their successful
transmission. As I'm sure has been remarked before, would Jesus on his
return recognise those people who call themselves 'Christians' to be related
to his teachings?
Otherwise, again Miller said something countering this notion of
genetic drift weeding out genetic components of cultural behaviour, but I
can't remember what it was he said.
<Thirdly, I'd also say that the unit of selection is *not the
> individual* but the meme - otherwise we would be saying something a bit
> like "one field is 'favoured' over another, by selection, because of the
> species which grow in it". Conventional Darwinian evolution is
> occurring, but not in the host. What that author has asserted amounts to
> the worst kind of group selectionist argument.>
Hmm... thinking about it, there may indeed be a group selectionist
undercurrent to Miller's argument. He does talk about microniches, minor
variations in environment leading to significant differences in sexual
selection. It does seem there's evidence for this kind of thing. Someone
not long ago posted details to the list about a study of a species of bird,
where birds at slightly different altitudes sing different songs, and don't
breed with the birds who sign the other song despite them all belonging to
the same species.
< (because, frankly, you can make any old shit up and
> find examples to back you).>
Too right... that's what I do for a living :-)
<Blokes do more stuff because they are (currently) the dominant
> and therefore are more likely to have the self-confidence to assert
> stuff. They tend to do this after they have grown up a bit, but before
> they are distracted by the tedium of later adult life (when they tend to
> rely on postdocs to do the stuff, while they wonder how the hell they
> ended up as a manager, or run out of new ideas because they have
> rehashed their life experience too much, without enough novel input).
> Does this strike you as more parsimonious than an explanation invoking
> all sorts of unproven stuff about massively epigenetic 'behaviour'
Well Miller does mention the patriarchy explanation for the data he
refers to. I wouldn't know how to genuinely judge this. My own social
science instincts, do indeed incline me to think that this is a product of
patriarchy, not sexual selection per se, but that may be as much to do with
me siding with what's familiar and understandable to me.
What about the notion that a lot of cultural behaviours that don't
make much sense in terms of survival utility (hence something else must be
going on hence memes) may be explainable in terms of sexual selection? I
assume you don't buy that either?
> Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
> http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
> 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
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
===============================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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 14:15:42 BST