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

Tim Rhodes (
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:56:45 -0700

From: "Tim Rhodes" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Defection Rates and Classes (was Parody of Science)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:56:45 -0700

Derek wrote:

>But, what if we introduce D-down? Say, at only 0.1%


>Almost indistinguishable in terms of the overall class proportions and
>distribution. It is however, very different in terms of the genetic
>prospects of a single individual in the professional class. That
>has an average of 1.6 children. However, some of those 1.6 children may
>slip down into the worker class, and have a raised reproductive rate. So
>that individual may have a larger average number of grandchildren than the
>2.56 which he/she would have without any D-down permitted.
>So, off the top of my head....
>the average number of descendents of a person in prof. class at gen.1, at
>cycle 2 is
>[2*Rp]squared + (2*Rp * D-down * Rw) = 2.5696
>ie. the number of descendents expected by reproduction in the professional
>class plus the number of descendents in the workers.
>Subsequently it may not be so simple, as some of the descendents who
>downwards will themselves have descendents who migrate back up, and who
>may have descendents who migrate back down etc..., so it may be recursive.

That's kind of what I expected. With just a small amount of movement up and
down the gene pools can become so muddied that it becomes hard to talk about
one group or the other as a part of a specific genetic class.

And this result might be seen by some as case of the memes' selfishness
overcoming -- or at least displacing -- that of the genes.


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)