RE: Class defections etc

Gatherer, D. (
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:11:57 +0200

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:11:57 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <>
Subject: RE: Class defections etc
To: "''" <>

I don't understand these terms:

>$proportion = $P/($P+$W);

So $proportion is the proportion the population the professional class
comprises, correct?


Yes. I'm assuming it's fairly constant (because we can't all be rich!!)

> $P_old_money = ($P * $Rp); # this is the rate the upper class

You mean, this is the _number of children_ rather than the rate, right?
(The rate is Rp, after all.)

Yes, my sloppy terminology, sorry.

> $W = $W * $Rw; # this is the rate the workers reproduce
> $total = $P_old_money + $W; # this is the total size of the next

This is not the size of the next generation though, Derek. Where are the
new money kids? Which class did you lump them into and from which
reproductive rate?


This is the total number of babies once both the workers and the
professionals have reproduced. There are no 'new money kids', only new
money adults who were worker kids.

> $P_new_money = ($proportion * $total) - $P_old_money; # the
>vacancies in the upper class

Now what exactly is this term?

The (proportion * total) is the 'carrying capacity' for professionals in the
society. Take away those spaces that are already occupied by old money and
what you have left are the vacancies. This figure is then subtracted from
the workers.

You've taken the class split in the previous
generation ($proportion) and multiplied it by the new generation's total
(according to you) population. Why? All you're doing is applying the old
split to the next generation. Why would you do that and what does that gain

I think it's a realistic assumption. Class size proportions are relatively
constant (except under changing economic conditions).

I think where we part ways is that you implicitly assume that the size of
the niche in the professional class is somehow magically set by the last
generation. Why do you make such an assumption? It's that assumption
that's leading you astray.


I agree it's an assumption, but I don't think it's so serious as you seem to

You're interpretation feeds the previous ratio back into the current
generation rather than creating a new ratio based on the new population and
the rate at which people are moving up and/or down through the class
structure. If you think these equations are correct, I suspect you've
entirely missed my point.


I think I grasp your point. I just don't understand your use of D and 1-D
in _both_ professional and _worker_ 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)