Re: Defection Rates and Classes (was Parody of Science)

Tim Rhodes (
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 04:51:41 -0700

From: "Tim Rhodes" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Defection Rates and Classes (was Parody of Science)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 04:51:41 -0700


You're not going to let me go to bed are you?

You wrote:

>Yes, but why then:
>>P' = ( ( P * (1-D) ) * Rp ) + ( ( W * D ) * Rw )
>I'm not sure why 1-D appears as part of the calculation for the propagation
>of the professional class.
>P' = (P * Rp) + (W * D) would be simpler??????

Only if you assume _none_ of the upper class children will grow up to be in
the working class. You and I both know that that assumption is incorrect.

>but doesn't this conflate 2 variables into 1? D cannot be the same for the
>2 classes.

I think I explained that. I'm not a student, this isn't my life. I'm glad
it made you think, but I'm not offering you a thesis paper here. Yes, you
would need two different terms if you wanted to do it up right.

>(( P * (1-D) ) * Rp) = the number of children from professional class
>parents that will themselves enter the professional class in the next
>generation (old money)
>Let's just call that P * Rp, since the movement downwards will be

Prove that assumption before employing it please. I think you're dead wrong
about that. (And have the relatives to prove 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)