I have started reading Steven Jay Gould recently, and he had an interesting perspective on the history and status of Evolutionary Theory. He wrote in his 2002 book the Structure of Evolutionary Theory (http://nomorebiggov.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gould-sj-the-structure-of-evolutionnary-theory.pdf) the following from page 32 (emphasis mine):
Quote
As the most striking general contrast that might be illuminated by reference to the different Zeitgeists of Darwin's time and our own, modern revisions for each essential postulate of Darwinian logic substitute mechanics based on interaction for Darwin's single locus of causality and directional flow of effects. Thus, for Darwin's near exclusivity of organismic selection, we now propose a hierarchical theory with selection acting simultaneously on a rising set of levels, each characterized by distinctive, but equally well-defined, Darwinian individuals within a genealogical hierarchy of gene, cell-lineage, organism, deme, species, and clade. The results of evolution then emerge from complex, but eminently knowable, interactions among these potent levels, and do not simply flow out and up from a unique causal locus of organismal selection.
This Holarchic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy) vision of genetic evolution has its parallel in Sociocultural Evolution; the histories of Biology and Economics seem to be eternally intertwined, and Hayek held his support for Group Selection in Sociocultural Evolution. I was googling and found this paper by Todd J. Zywicki: "Was Hayek Right About Group Selection After All?" Review Essay of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior by Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson (http://www.gmu.edu/depts/rae/archives/VOL13_1_2000/zywicki.pdf). The Abstract reads:
QuoteOne of the most controversial aspects of Hayek's social theory was his acceptance of the concept of cultural group selection. The publication of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior provides an opportunity to revisit this much-maligned component of Hayek's thought. Sober and Wilson are concerned with biological group selection, but much of their argument is equally applicable to cultural group selection. This essay revisits Hayek's views on cultural group selection in light of the model proposed by Sober and Wilson. Comparing their model to Hayek's model suggests that group selection theories are more plausible than traditionally thought and that their viability in any given situation is an empirical, not an a priori, question. So long as there are benefits to a group from greater levels of altruism and cooperation, and so long as free rider problems can be mitigated, group selection models are plausible.
Now - while I do believe that such hierarchical selection plays a significant role on sociocultural evolution, I will allow that we must still collect a lot of empirical evidence to elaborate on the details. But we do not need to know these details, in order to implement them! The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX (http://www.fluxcraft.net/images/d/d8/EHNIX-flyer1.png): the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely. But what if these in turn established a network and allow them to evolve? But suppose they consider some or all of the following strategies:
- Free determination and Subsidiarity: The Syndicates collects Resources, Tools, People and Skills suiting the Goals it chooses for itself, and decides on the appropriate actions. Free association and a spirit of subsidiarity would encourage regulatory structures decentralized as much as possible.
- Organizational Holarchy: Syndicates might forge Unions, Guilds and Schools with other Syndicates, to cooperate in many ways. These in turn might be combined to form even higher level coops.
- Third Party Contractual Enforcement and Skin in the Game: a trustworthy and impartial third party should be employed to handle contractual disputes between parties on any level of the hierarchy. The appropriate choice depends on context of course. This will provide an ad hoc anarchic judicial network to help maintain cooperation and this group selection. Skin in the Game means every individual and syndicate is responsible for the risks and chances they take, and those responsible should bear the consequences (whether positive or negative).
- Replication by Crowdfunding: If the Syndicate or Union has Resources to spare, it can consider micro or macro investments in other Syndicates in the network - with or without interest.
- Innovation: Using Bimodal Strategies the Syndicates might combine the bread-and-butter work with some R&D trial and error tinkering.
- Imitation: Syndicates keep a communication network to culture is continuously exchanged - Syndicates might adopt each others Ideas, Skills, Tools and Traditions.
- Critical and Natural Selection: by the pressures of Ecological and Economic competition, and by the democratic consensus within Syndicates, the traits better promoting the interests of a syndicate would spread.
- Internal Currencies, Trade and Specialization: by use of internal currencies, different syndicates or unions could encourage trade between their members, and localize capital. Specialization will allow for a great diversity in the abilities and products of the network.
- Emergency Funds and Resources - Frugality and Redundancy: Taxes could be voluntarily agreed upon, and a the funds can be used to create an Emergency Funds and Resources. Budget will never be allowed to go into deficit, and over-leveraging will be avoiding. The extra resources be used to help accommodate individuals in distress and take advantage of opportunities but will not bail out failed projects unless there was no other choice, and will certainly ensure those responsible pay a price.
- Antifragile Heuristics, Evolving Evolvability and the Bar Bell: The above Heuristics are intended to make the evolving structure Adaptive, Antifragile - to minimize exposure to negative Black Swans and maximize exposure to Positive Black Swans. A Bimodal Strategy is implemented, maintaining redundant critical resources as well and tools while tinkering with experiments on all levels. This is intended to keep Options diverse and Evolvability high. Sometimes what begins as a joke might end up a serious project - and this strategy aims to permit little things to grow while keeping a safety net for people.
I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven). But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right. I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to. Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.
Personally I hope to find people with whom to implement such ideas, specifically a Permaculture / Hunting / Fishing based Syndicate operating in Central Europe, that dabbles in Nonsense, Scientific Research, Artistic Articulation, Philosophical Inquiry and Cunning Craft - a plan I codenamed Project Hydra (http://www.fluxcraft.net/index.php/Project_Hydra). The wiki this article is on is called Fluxcraft (http://www.fluxcraft.net/index.php/Main_Page) and I opened it with the intent of discussing ideas in this direction, as well as others.
Open Questions:
- Does this seem feasible?
- Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
- What kind of problems would you foresee?
- Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
- Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?
I think it's important not to assume that group selection exists. Because the more I study these phenomonena, the more I am inclined to believe it doesn't. You've undoubtedly read Gould's stuff on Multi-Level Selection (MLS) theory. With a careful rereading of The Selfish Gene, I've found that such things are unnecessary. You have selection on individuals, or on alleles within a population, and there is a constant fluctuation as the number of cheaters gain and loose ground around a stable ratio. It's not the actions of a group, but the actions of individuals, that keeps the number of cheaters at that level, because the non cheater individuals will only tolerate so much cheating. All of these apparent MLS systems, from populations up to ecosystems, are actually just complicated balancing acts. When it works out, you get dynamically stable systems. When it doesn't, the systems go extinct. So, no, don't apply MLS theory or group selection to sociocultural evolution, not only because MLS is false, but because biological and sociocultural evolution aren't homologous.
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
The big conceptual here is dependence. For me the biotic top down force is one of frequency dependent selection - ecological pressure. The environment steers the function by natural selection. The joint distribution of genes is not the same as the sum of the marginals. The who is greater than the sum of its parts. I concede I lack erudition on the empirical evidence in this regard. My understanding comes from a relative theoretical position, even though I do try and preoccupy myself with data too. However - I do feel that punctuated equilibrium and the prevalence of power law distributions, as well a variety of other clearly emergent phenomenon - are quite loud and clear. The argument for higher order models is one for modeling how dynamics on one level emerge from the one below, and conversely how the fitness landscape of the level below is steered by the one above.
I would note that I posted that not to argue that hierarchy is necessarily a correct model of nature - but that it would be a useful organizational principle. Whether or not this occurs in Biology - it certainly occurs in Economics and Sociocultural Evolution at large.
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual.
No, they don't. Species is not a "Darwinian individual" (have I mentioned yet how much I hate the use of "Darwinian?), nor are clades. If you want to pose such a thing you are going to actually point to a species. And I don't mean a vague concept of meta populations, I mean an actual physical thing. Given that my primary work is taxonomy and systematics, and given one of the long term major questions of those fields is "what is a species?", I am unwilling to let you stand on that statement because my experience tells me it doesn't have legs.
Edit: nor frankly are the rest of those things except "Organisms".
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2013, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual.
No, they don't. Species is not a "Darwinian individual" (have I mentioned yet how much I hate the use of "Darwinian?), nor are clades. If you want to pose such a thing you are going to actually point to a species. And I don't mean a vague concept of meta populations, I mean an actual physical thing. Given that my primary work is taxonomy and systematics, and given one of the long term major questions of those fields is "what is a species?", I am unwilling to let you stand on that statement because my experience tells me it doesn't have legs.
Edit: nor frankly are the rest of those things except "Organisms".
Like any model is "the real thing" xD never mind, I will do more reading and prove you wrong one day ^^ or not, who cares.
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2013, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual.
No, they don't. Species is not a "Darwinian individual" (have I mentioned yet how much I hate the use of "Darwinian?), nor are clades. If you want to pose such a thing you are going to actually point to a species. And I don't mean a vague concept of meta populations, I mean an actual physical thing. Given that my primary work is taxonomy and systematics, and given one of the long term major questions of those fields is "what is a species?", I am unwilling to let you stand on that statement because my experience tells me it doesn't have legs.
Edit: nor frankly are the rest of those things except "Organisms".
Like any model is "the real thing" xD never mind, I will do more reading and prove you wrong one day ^^ or not, who cares.
I care. Otherwise I would have ignored it. The point is, creating these "higher level models" may help you understand something by simplifying the total number of calculations, but selection is still on individuals. Just like we talk about biology and chemistry with the full understanding that everything in the universe is amplitudes in configuration. There isn't a "higher level dynamic", but pretending there is might help model the system. This is an important contrast to make, between the models and the actual metaphysics. And that's where MLS theory slips away from reality, because it not only uses those higher level models, but posits higher level causes. There aren't any. All the organisms that are around today are the function of all the selective pressures on individual organisms in the past. It's not a very satisfying answer because you can't model all that mess. It's also not satisfying because there's no plan to it, no "whole greater than sum of parts", no emergence. But no one said it had to be satisfying.
Another thing: It's best not to read too much into power law distributions, especially in taxonomy and systematics. The distribution of species across genera or families, for example. I've found, in my own calculations, that it's usually a log normal distribution, and seldom if ever a power law.
From what I have seen in even very simple models - ignoring emergence and top-down effects like this is folly. At the very least, top-down pressures are theoretically possible. Of course this might be empirically invalid, but I doubt that too. You can reformulate such things back to lower level processes, but it doesn't change the fact that the joint fitness distribution is fundamentally different than the marginals. One could attempt to reduce the object of selection to a lowest level, but the intensity will always depend on higher order structures. When you construct the mean field equations for the frequency of a low level network structure, it always depends directly on higher order moments (just as they depend on lower level structures).
You seem to contend that apparent higher order process is a phantom that emerges from 'real' lower level process. It seems to me that this position is mostly a byproduct of a long tradition of reductionism and mechanism. I would agree that bottom-up process seems to dominates but contend that in a similar way lower level effects can be considered as phantoms emerging from higher order process. All the levels are always modeling a process so complex and opaque I would hardly call any of these simplifications 'real', let alone dare to point to a seeming dynamic on any particular level and say that this and this level alone is the causal source. I remain skeptical about the realism of any model of evolutionary process. However - I much prefer making the null hypothesis co-causal and asymmetric - for it seems that most of the time bottom up process predominates but once in a while top down dynamics are critical.
I was referring to power law distributions in other contexts. I don't know much about taxonomy and systemics to be honest. It just seems to me at the moment that hierarchical selection theory - which could be conceived as thing else but a separation of temporal and phylogenetic scales for the purpose of theoretical analysis - provides a far more lucid perspective. I admittedly lack experience and erudition here, so consider this my naive theoretical position for the moment. I will hopefully learn more - especially on the empirical domain - and be able to reevaluate this position with either empirical support or refutation.
Ixxie, I gladly encourage you to continue your line of thought, but I must caution you: Kai KNOWS HIS SHIT. You had best do your research and have a SOLID ground to speak from. But I kind of want you to half-ass it, because it's been a long time since I've seen Kai go off on someone, and I kind of miss it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 02, 2013, 03:31:26 AM
Ixxie, I gladly encourage you to continue your line of thought, but I must caution you: Kai KNOWS HIS SHIT. You had best do your research and have a SOLID ground to speak from. But I kind of want you to half-ass it, because it's been a long time since I've seen Kai go off on someone, and I kind of miss it.
To be honest, I don't really understand most of the posts. It's all theoretical evolutionary biology. I work with "experimental" evolutionary biology (in so far as historical sciences can be considered experimental; some people call them "natural experiments". I prefer the terms "observational", "historical", or just plain "natural history"). So I could only really address the points that I was familiar with, the parts about MLS and metaphysics of species. The rest, I'm really stretching, or completely lost. On the other hand, if I hadn't posted Ixxie might have gotten no replies. If I can barely follow some of it, and it's nearly up my alley, then I doubt anyone else reading it can either.
I do have a hard time with throwing the word "emergence" around like a noun. Might as well say "phlogiston". And that's /after/ a semester of chaos/complexity theory.
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2013, 04:03:43 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 02, 2013, 03:31:26 AM
Ixxie, I gladly encourage you to continue your line of thought, but I must caution you: Kai KNOWS HIS SHIT. You had best do your research and have a SOLID ground to speak from. But I kind of want you to half-ass it, because it's been a long time since I've seen Kai go off on someone, and I kind of miss it.
To be honest, I don't really understand most of the posts. It's all theoretical evolutionary biology. I work with "experimental" evolutionary biology (in so far as historical sciences can be considered experimental; some people call them "natural experiments". I prefer the terms "observational", "historical", or just plain "natural history"). So I could only really address the points that I was familiar with, the parts about MLS and metaphysics of species. The rest, I'm really stretching, or completely lost. On the other hand, if I hadn't posted Ixxie might have gotten no replies. If I can barely follow some of it, and it's nearly up my alley, then I doubt anyone else reading it can either.
I do have a hard time with throwing the word "emergence" around like a noun. Might as well say "phlogiston". And that's /after/ a semester of chaos/complexity theory.
Questioning the validity of these entities as valid units in evolutionary models is critical, so I completely understand where you are coming from. Some units are far more potent than others in describing the process. However - I would point out that all biological entities are equally theoretical constructs. How 'real' these constructs are depends not only on empirical data - but also on your particular philosophy of science.
I can only speak for my position - and I am skeptical of our ability to know the reality of even the simplest of systems, let alone complex systems (especially those which such a ancient and opaque history). However, from my perspective, this makes the discussion of emergence all the more important. The concept is vague and broad - but this in itself doesn't invalidate its value in research. I use the term
Emergence to describe
a class of processes describing how local microscopic processes spontaneously produce global macroscopic phenomena. I agree that any theories regarding emergence (and indeed any complex process) would always be crude approximations of the reality. Moreover - its a statistical nightmare, and there are great methodological issues with the empirical study of these processes. But can you deny that even the most conservative theories of evolution stipulate emergence in this sense? I think the history of science points to great success from thinking in these terms. If you know of a solid critique of emergence - I would love to read it; the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) does not even seem to have a 'criticisms' section.
Now the distinction you seem to make between using the term as noun or verb seems moot; we can very well assume there is no such thing as a noun at all and translate all nouns into verbs. In fact there are even languages that seem to have no distinction of noun and verb (http://www.economist.com/node/2329718). Comparing emergence to "phlogiston" seems to me misguided, even backwards. A phlogiston is a hypothetical unobserved microscopic object which was proposed as a cause of a macroscopic process. Emergence is a theory of how observable microscopic phenomenon aggregate to observable macroscopic phenomenon.
I have a hard time throwing the word emergence out of my scientific vocabulary. Might as well embrace it. And that's /after/ 4-5 years of biomathematics.
I look forward to more discussion Kai - I definitely have a lot to learn from you. I am shamefully lacking in my knowledge of actual empirical work, I was only permitted a couple of courses in this direction in my master. It's good at least somebody replied; I am increasingly realizing how incomprehensible I have become, even after trying very hard to make my point clearly. I guess I'm one of *those* guys now. :horrormirth:
I just wanted to say: I had a lecture today.
Actually, I had two lectures, but one of them was an exhaustively thorough approach to basic vector and matrix work in R programming language. This isn't about that.
This lecture today, taught by a professor in toxicology. She's one of the 10 or so invited lectures for the class, as it's an integrative PhD level course with lectures and journal article discussions. She was talking about the cellular and molecular biology of a particular aromatic hydrocarbon, intended as an introduction to one area of environmental biology. It was a rather technical talk, lots of acronyms, special terms, very little background on the nitty gritty of methods. She also hasn't taught in a while.
All of this would have been fine if we were a class primarily composed of biology PhD students. But, given that this is an integrative program, it was a broad mix of physics, chemistry, earth science, and biology students. Mostly all the former. She would come to a slide and have these figures of a Western blot and ask "what does this indicate about so and so receptor?" I was pretty much the only person answering.
In other words, she was talking way over the heads and knowledge levels of the students in the class. And because of this, they were neither engaged nor understanding the material. And these aren't slack off freshman undergrads, mind you, these are PhD level students, most of which have a master's degree long since under their belts. These are people who will be doctors within the next 5 years.
Though I was /getting it/ (mostly), it wasn't really enjoyable because I knew all the terms and abbreviations and lack of explanations were failing to engage my colleagues and it wasn't because the material was too hard to handle.
Something to keep in mind before your next science post.
Well I am trying to figure out a way to communicate this better. My usual approach is to speak without parsing my language because I generally don't like it when people do it to me; when there is a term I am unfamiliar with I ask for an explanation. However - I guess there is a point where you get so deep into this shit to a degree blind to the incomprehensible jargon in your logorrhea.
I guess maybe I should post a more chronological sequence and develop the ideas more slowly instead of using my usual retroactive explanations. This and other experiences make me start to seriously doubt my abilities to explain these issues clearly, so maybe I should do it to improve my communication skills.
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
Yeah
I also want to say, I've read Gould and Dawkins, I'm a biology student, but I scanned the posts in this thread and stopped reading because they didn't make sense, which means that either it's over my head or it's bullshit and either way it's not for me.
My impression, and I say this admitting that I haven't even tried to read most of his posts, is that he's throwing around a lot of jargon and not really saying anything much.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.
Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.
Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.
I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.
This is one side effect from the demands of "I want a twenty-page paper on this due Wednesday" teaching styles.
One of my annoying habits in college was deliberately parsing down my points. I'd get a lot of "well, yes, but..." and then I'd turn in a paper with a healthy amount of purple prose.
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.
Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.
I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.
If you were a theoretical biologist, and all your friends were theoretical biologists, and everyone you interacted with on a regular basis did theoretical biology, then you might think paragraphs like the above made sense. Maybe not. I admit he has a really obtuse, stilted, jargon laden writing style. So do MBAs. So, frankly, did SJ Gould (who made up for it with masterful stories). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that this is a problem of poor communication rather than his posts being devoid of content. I don't understand Hirley most of the time, but I accept he is saying something that he finds important and not generating characters at random.
He was also directly addressing me, and probably assumed I could easily wade through that dense mess. I can't, his mistake. I gave a recommendation, he can take it or leave it. If he doesn't, I probably won't try next time around.
The basic summary of that paragraph, from what I understand, is that he doesn't agree with my assertion. He finds a gene/organismal level selection only process to be naive, that there are "top-down" (i.e. group selection, MLS selection) effects, and is arguing for group selection in social "evolution" with an example. He thinks that modeling these things as the same would be like modeling gene flow within and between populations as the same, which he finds absurd. Of course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.
So in other words, the reward for putting in the effort to parse it is as minimal as I suspected.
Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.
Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.
I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.
You know, fair enough. I can understand your position. I am just trying to express and develop my understanding, and I often do this by trying to start dialogue. I was just responding to the posts to my best understanding. It might not be much, but its all I have. And I don't need you telling me its bullshit - I know it is. Its all about polishing turds.
Say too little and you are vague and unscientific, say too much and you are writing with 'obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius'. I come from a different discipline - my way of communicating might be different than yours. I am trying to learn how to improve it, and I appreciate Kai's constructive feedback, and I will try my best to take it to heart.
QuoteOf course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.
I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.
As for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.
I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
The big conceptual here is dependence. For me the biotic top down force is one of frequency dependent selection - ecological pressure. The environment steers the function by natural selection. The joint distribution of genes is not the same as the sum of the marginals. The who is greater than the sum of its parts. I concede I lack erudition on the empirical evidence in this regard. My understanding comes from a relative theoretical position, even though I do try and preoccupy myself with data too. However - I do feel that punctuated equilibrium and the prevalence of power law distributions, as well a variety of other clearly emergent phenomenon - are quite loud and clear. The argument for higher order models is one for modeling how dynamics on one level emerge from the one below, and conversely how the fitness landscape of the level below is steered by the one above.
I would note that I posted that not to argue that hierarchy is necessarily a correct model of nature - but that it would be a useful organizational principle. Whether or not this occurs in Biology - it certainly occurs in Economics and Sociocultural Evolution at large.
LMNO: You have a challenger.
MORTAL
COMBAT
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 03:39:20 PM
Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.
Well, metaphysics in the sense of, "Are species an actual physical thing or a human concept? And if they are a physical thing, are they a collection of individuals or can they be treated like an individual themselves?" People are /still/ arguing about this after hundreds of years. I say, you point at a species in reality, and I'll pay you a hundred bucks for that solution. Of course you can't. You can show me pictures of an individual or individuals. You can't show me a species. You can't even show me the /signature/ of a species (like you can with quanta). And I'm supposed to believe that such a thing can be selected upon?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2013, 03:59:13 PM
LMNO: You have a challenger.
MORTAL
COMBAT
I exist in a state of mournful displeasure, as my verbiage currently trends toward forward-facing business models, which invariably leads to a falling-off of science-esque syntax more appropriate for dissertions.
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 02:21:21 PM
I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?
He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.
Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.
I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.
Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.
You know, fair enough. I can understand your position. I am just trying to express and develop my understanding, and I often do this by trying to start dialogue. I was just responding to the posts to my best understanding. It might not be much, but its all I have. And I don't need you telling me its bullshit - I know it is. Its all about polishing turds.
Say too little and you are vague and unscientific, say too much and you are writing with 'obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius'. I come from a different discipline - my way of communicating might be different than yours. I am trying to learn how to improve it, and I appreciate Kai's constructive feedback, and I will try my best to take it to heart.
QuoteOf course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.
I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.
As for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.
I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.
Yes, of course, your failure to communicate is everybody else's problem, dick measuring, etc. just like the others warned you and you aren't getting the
attention you deserve. Got it.
If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. I'm an individual. And this morning, as of this post in fact I, personally, have grown to dislike you, personally. But feel free to blame everybody else on the board for this, as it's clearly their fault that I should be allowed to speak so insolently to you.
I was planning on just going about the business of ignoring you because there's nothing here for me, but never mind. :lol:
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:05:24 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 03:39:20 PM
Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.
Well, metaphysics in the sense of, "Are species an actual physical thing or a human concept? And if they are a physical thing, are they a collection of individuals or can they be treated like an individual themselves?" People are /still/ arguing about this after hundreds of years. I say, you point at a species in reality, and I'll pay you a hundred bucks for that solution. Of course you can't. You can show me pictures of an individual or individuals. You can't show me a species. You can't even show me the /signature/ of a species (like you can with quanta). And I'm supposed to believe that such a thing can be selected upon?
That is very important issue. I agree this is a very tricky methodological issue. However - this difficulty does not in and of itself exclude higher order selection. There are equally great difficulties in defining individuals in many cases (for example in eusocial insects and organisms which spend part of their life cycle as a colony). If it makes you feel more comfortable - you can rename it frequency dependent selection. I suspect however that the methodological issues with that approach will be greater.
On a more general note, I will do my best to clarify and simplify future posts and drop the jargon out of them as much as possible. I am still adjusting to the climate.
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:16:58 PM
Yes, of course, your failure to communicate is everybody else's problem, dick measuring, etc. just like the others warned you and you aren't getting the attention you deserve. Got it.
If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. I'm an individual. And this morning, as of this post in fact I, personally, have grown to dislike you, personally. But feel free to blame everybody else on the board for this, as it's clearly their fault that I should be allowed to speak so insolently to you.
I was planning on just going about the business of ignoring you because there's nothing here for me, but never mind. :lol:
I am trying to learn how to communicate better, and I am not trying to shift the blame for my communication failure to others (although passions tend to spill this kind of thing over, so apologies if I did). Some replies have been constructive, others not. That is all xD
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.
Selection on organisms is real whereas on species is not because I can point at an organism as a physical thing in reality that failed to survive long enough to reproduce itself. Natural selection is elimination.
QuoteAs for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.
It could be. But you have to change the way you communicate first. And we can't talk about sociocultural theory until we get all the background /terms/ in place and are on the same ground in terms of evolutionary theory. Unless we are operating under the same premise, bugger all discussion about sociocultural evolution is going to happen. You came in here assuming we were all on the same page. We /aren't/. You want to work from the position of group selection in sociocultural context? Fine. You have to provide evidence that using that in a biological evolutionary context is even valid, because that's the premise you're working from, that one is valid, therefore, why not adapt it to the other?
QuoteI should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.
IRRC, I was one of the "#discord peeps", and I said nothing of the sort. I have continued to try to engage you, and if I had said nothing I suspect this thread would have been ignored completely. I was primed to enjoy discussions on things I am interested in, if you didn't get that.
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.
You mean this?
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 03:53:17 AM
The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX (http://www.fluxcraft.net/images/d/d8/EHNIX-flyer1.png): the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely.
- Snip -
I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven).
But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right.
I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to.
Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.
- Snip –
Open Questions:
- Does this seem feasible?
- Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
- What kind of problems would you foresee?
- Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
- Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?
1. No.
2. Somalia.
3. Humans being involved.
4. How to obtain food, shelter and water while remaining a free collective off the grid.
5. Not really.
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:29:25 PM
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
I am offended that you made me google that shit.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:34:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:29:25 PM
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
I am offended that you made me google that shit.
:lulz: It was to make a point. Sorry. (not really sorry) :lulz:
That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.
Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.
I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to post anything productive on this forum ever again. Certainly not on a level a mere layperson could understand or enjoy.
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:38:48 PM
That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.
Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.
I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to do anything productive on this forum ever again.
I AM SO OFFENDED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. :argh!:
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:34:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:29:25 PM
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
I am offended that you made me google that shit.
:lulz: It was to make a point. Sorry. (not really sorry) :lulz:
Next time just post pics like a nice person :fap:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 04, 2013, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.
You mean this?
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 03:53:17 AM
The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX (http://www.fluxcraft.net/images/d/d8/EHNIX-flyer1.png): the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely.
- Snip -
I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven).
But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right.
I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to.
Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.
- Snip –
Open Questions:
- Does this seem feasible?
- Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
- What kind of problems would you foresee?
- Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
- Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?
1. No.
2. Somalia.
3. Humans being involved.
4. How to obtain food, shelter and water while remaining a free collective off the grid.
5. Not really.
Oh yeah, that. I didn't respond to that because it looks like yet another iteration of utopianism, which is neither new nor interesting.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:34:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:29:25 PM
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
I am offended that you made me google that shit.
:lulz: It was to make a point. Sorry. (not really sorry) :lulz:
Next time just post pics like a nice person :fap:
(http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/005/121/i02/100108-fly-genitals-02.jpg?1296083957)
Happy now? (Picture is from this story (http://www.livescience.com/6015-spikes-genitals-flies-hook.html) BTW).
Also, the main reason no one responded to his Great Idea™ was that Kai took issue with the very premise the Idea was built upon; and until that can be resolved, there's no need to discuss it.
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:38:48 PM
That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.
Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.
I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to do anything productive on this forum ever again.
I AM SO OFFENDED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. :argh!:
:lulz:
I am currently reading Robert Sapolsky, who I have the biggest science crush on, and will find a related article presently and post it in a new thread. WARNING: I WILL PROBABLY GUSH EMBARRASSINGLY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM SO SO SO MUCH.
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 04, 2013, 04:34:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:29:25 PM
But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.
I am offended that you made me google that shit.
:lulz: It was to make a point. Sorry. (not really sorry) :lulz:
Next time just post pics like a nice person :fap:
(http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/005/121/i02/100108-fly-genitals-02.jpg?1296083957)
Happy now? (Picture is from this story (http://www.livescience.com/6015-spikes-genitals-flies-hook.html) BTW).
:aaa::1fap:
Is that one of the ones where they lasered the spikes off insect dicks to see if the spikes themselves improved fertilization rates or were just highly correlated with other traits that resulted in higher fertilization?
Oh, wait, you totally linked to that story as the source and I was too excited that I knew something to notice it.
Wait, no, this one's fruit flies and the one I read was the bed bugs. How much insect dick spine removal surgery do you guys get into, anyway?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 04, 2013, 04:45:23 PM
Also, the main reason no one responded to his Great Idea™ was that Kai took issue with the very premise the Idea was built upon; and until that can be resolved, there's no need to discuss it.
Are we getting close yet?
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:38:48 PM
That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.
Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.
I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to do anything productive on this forum ever again.
I AM SO OFFENDED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. :argh!:
:lulz:
I am currently reading Robert Sapolsky, who I have the biggest science crush on, and will find a related article presently and post it in a new thread. WARNING: I WILL PROBABLY GUSH EMBARRASSINGLY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM SO SO SO MUCH.
It will undoubtedly be interesting because you're /practiced at communicating/.
Kai - it was never my intention to start a scientific discussion. Frankly - this clusterfuck on my part is the product of an isolated summer and lack of familiarity with the forum. I should have made the OP short and clear and there was actually no need for the evolutionary stuff. I was just following my line of thought, but I just realize how cruel it is to subject other people that mess. My sincere apologies.
LMNO - I appreciate your response. I did not intend this as a hippie-anarchist commune that is completely self sustaining, but as a decentralized and replicating business model in the world as it is today. I will try and -snip- my future posts similarly.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 04, 2013, 04:45:23 PM
Also, the main reason no one responded to his Great Idea™ was that Kai took issue with the very premise the Idea was built upon; and until that can be resolved, there's no need to discuss it.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ALTRUISM! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 04, 2013, 04:45:23 PM
Also, the main reason no one responded to his Great Idea™ was that Kai took issue with the very premise the Idea was built upon; and until that can be resolved, there's no need to discuss it.
Are we getting close yet?
Maybe. It was more inspired by the idea, not using it as a premise. On the other hand, I can understand why you would ignore it for that.
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Kai - it was never my intention to start a scientific discussion. Frankly - this clusterfuck on my part is the product of an isolated summer and lack of familiarity with the forum. I should have made the OP short and clear and there was actually no need for the evolutionary stuff. I was just following my line of thought, but I just realize how cruel it is to subject other people that mess. My sincere apologies.
It's not that it's cruel. It's that it's obtuse.
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:49:19 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 04, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: Surprise Happy Endings Whether You Want Them Or Not on September 04, 2013, 04:38:48 PM
That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.
Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.
I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to do anything productive on this forum ever again.
I AM SO OFFENDED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. :argh!:
:lulz:
I am currently reading Robert Sapolsky, who I have the biggest science crush on, and will find a related article presently and post it in a new thread. WARNING: I WILL PROBABLY GUSH EMBARRASSINGLY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM SO SO SO MUCH.
It will undoubtedly be interesting because you're /practiced at communicating/.
Aw. :)
Posted this elsewhere, but it's highly relevant to the discussion in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA
Your new screename:
:spittake:
Quote from: Ixxie on August 31, 2013, 03:53:17 AM
I have started reading Steven Jay Gould recently, and he had an interesting perspective on the history and status of Evolutionary Theory. He wrote in his 2002 book the Structure of Evolutionary Theory (http://nomorebiggov.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gould-sj-the-structure-of-evolutionnary-theory.pdf) the following from page 32 (emphasis mine):
Quote
As the most striking general contrast that might be illuminated by reference to the different Zeitgeists of Darwin's time and our own, modern revisions for each essential postulate of Darwinian logic substitute mechanics based on interaction for Darwin's single locus of causality and directional flow of effects. Thus, for Darwin's near exclusivity of organismic selection, we now propose a hierarchical theory with selection acting simultaneously on a rising set of levels, each characterized by distinctive, but equally well-defined, Darwinian individuals within a genealogical hierarchy of gene, cell-lineage, organism, deme, species, and clade. The results of evolution then emerge from complex, but eminently knowable, interactions among these potent levels, and do not simply flow out and up from a unique causal locus of organismal selection.
This Holarchic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy) vision of genetic evolution has its parallel in Sociocultural Evolution; the histories of Biology and Economics seem to be eternally intertwined, and Hayek held his support for Group Selection in Sociocultural Evolution. I was googling and found this paper by Todd J. Zywicki: "Was Hayek Right About Group Selection After All?" Review Essay of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior by Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson (http://www.gmu.edu/depts/rae/archives/VOL13_1_2000/zywicki.pdf). The Abstract reads:
QuoteOne of the most controversial aspects of Hayek's social theory was his acceptance of the concept of cultural group selection. The publication of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior provides an opportunity to revisit this much-maligned component of Hayek's thought. Sober and Wilson are concerned with biological group selection, but much of their argument is equally applicable to cultural group selection. This essay revisits Hayek's views on cultural group selection in light of the model proposed by Sober and Wilson. Comparing their model to Hayek's model suggests that group selection theories are more plausible than traditionally thought and that their viability in any given situation is an empirical, not an a priori, question. So long as there are benefits to a group from greater levels of altruism and cooperation, and so long as free rider problems can be mitigated, group selection models are plausible.
Now - while I do believe that such hierarchical selection plays a significant role on sociocultural evolution, I will allow that we must still collect a lot of empirical evidence to elaborate on the details. But we do not need to know these details, in order to implement them! The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX (http://www.fluxcraft.net/images/d/d8/EHNIX-flyer1.png): the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely. But what if these in turn established a network and allow them to evolve? But suppose they consider some or all of the following strategies:
- Free determination and Subsidiarity: The Syndicates collects Resources, Tools, People and Skills suiting the Goals it chooses for itself, and decides on the appropriate actions. Free association and a spirit of subsidiarity would encourage regulatory structures decentralized as much as possible.
- Organizational Holarchy: Syndicates might forge Unions, Guilds and Schools with other Syndicates, to cooperate in many ways. These in turn might be combined to form even higher level coops.
- Third Party Contractual Enforcement and Skin in the Game: a trustworthy and impartial third party should be employed to handle contractual disputes between parties on any level of the hierarchy. The appropriate choice depends on context of course. This will provide an ad hoc anarchic judicial network to help maintain cooperation and this group selection. Skin in the Game means every individual and syndicate is responsible for the risks and chances they take, and those responsible should bear the consequences (whether positive or negative).
- Replication by Crowdfunding: If the Syndicate or Union has Resources to spare, it can consider micro or macro investments in other Syndicates in the network - with or without interest.
- Innovation: Using Bimodal Strategies the Syndicates might combine the bread-and-butter work with some R&D trial and error tinkering.
- Imitation: Syndicates keep a communication network to culture is continuously exchanged - Syndicates might adopt each others Ideas, Skills, Tools and Traditions.
- Critical and Natural Selection: by the pressures of Ecological and Economic competition, and by the democratic consensus within Syndicates, the traits better promoting the interests of a syndicate would spread.
- Internal Currencies, Trade and Specialization: by use of internal currencies, different syndicates or unions could encourage trade between their members, and localize capital. Specialization will allow for a great diversity in the abilities and products of the network.
- Emergency Funds and Resources - Frugality and Redundancy: Taxes could be voluntarily agreed upon, and a the funds can be used to create an Emergency Funds and Resources. Budget will never be allowed to go into deficit, and over-leveraging will be avoiding. The extra resources be used to help accommodate individuals in distress and take advantage of opportunities but will not bail out failed projects unless there was no other choice, and will certainly ensure those responsible pay a price.
- Antifragile Heuristics, Evolving Evolvability and the Bar Bell: The above Heuristics are intended to make the evolving structure Adaptive, Antifragile - to minimize exposure to negative Black Swans and maximize exposure to Positive Black Swans. A Bimodal Strategy is implemented, maintaining redundant critical resources as well and tools while tinkering with experiments on all levels. This is intended to keep Options diverse and Evolvability high. Sometimes what begins as a joke might end up a serious project - and this strategy aims to permit little things to grow while keeping a safety net for people.
I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven). But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right. I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to. Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.
Personally I hope to find people with whom to implement such ideas, specifically a Permaculture / Hunting / Fishing based Syndicate operating in Central Europe, that dabbles in Nonsense, Scientific Research, Artistic Articulation, Philosophical Inquiry and Cunning Craft - a plan I codenamed Project Hydra (http://www.fluxcraft.net/index.php/Project_Hydra). The wiki this article is on is called Fluxcraft (http://www.fluxcraft.net/index.php/Main_Page) and I opened it with the intent of discussing ideas in this direction, as well as others.
Open Questions:
- Does this seem feasible?
- Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
- What kind of problems would you foresee?
- Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
- Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?
Is it accurate to classify this as a utopian arcology (or at least, arcology-as-social-experiment)?
There are a shitload of arcology projects. Most of them had a social aspect (some founded upon the intellectual children of the Situationist movement's Unitary Urbanism, seemingly, and others upon more mainstream urban planning fandoms). Some of the arcologies have actually been completed, at least in terms of the architecture and plants and some animals, but I don't think any of them have gotten enough humans to join. That seems to be the big issue.
There's a lot of existing literature both on arcologies and on utopian communes. Some of the arcology literature gives fairly specific technical advice for things like sustainable passive air heating and cooling, the use of hydroponics and aeroponics, and how to build large underground structures out of concrete without having them leak endlessly. Most of the utopian stuff is a history of failure, and that's pretty valuable because most people make the same mistakes. The wikipedia page on arcologies has links to just about every related subject, and if you feel like getting lost for a few weeks reading about similar projects this would be the place to begin.
I don't really have the evolutionary-biology background to analyze your thought process leading to the heuristics. I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).
My one suggestion would probably be to avoid excessive theorizing. Your suggestion is complex enough to make it difficult to explain, and implementation of a social structure involves explaining it to a very large number of people and ensuring that they all interpreted it the same way. I suspect that it's also complex enough to be quite difficult to model (even in a fairly coarse way as a two-actor game). Furthermore, the model in your head, while I'm sure it seems functional, is very likely relying upon incorrect assumptions that you will neither know about nor question until implementation-time. I know from experience in writing fairly large program suites (something far less complicated than this) that if you can't hold it in your head in 100% detail, something will break in a completely unexpected way -- so start smaller. I suspect that founding myths are actually more influential in the long run than initial rulesets anyhow, since rules get changed and founding myths aren't thought of in the same context.
Oh god.
I'm not gonna even. Let me know when these people learn to communicate. I'm out.
Quote from: Task on September 05, 2013, 02:09:14 AM
I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).
Hmm...
After the bold I pretty much think that's way off. I may have written 1 rant since I first showed up and NEVER experienced any of that alpha rant driven nonsense. There may be power politics--as in any group dynamic--but it's hardly this, imo.
I spoke to Ixxie privately about this topic and it basically boiled down to follow Orwell's six rules. (http://www.writingclasses.com/InformationPages/index.php/PageID/300) I tend to think of posting on forums as, posting emails. That to reach the greatest amount of readers, throw down a short and sweet synopsis and include the lengthy academia for the people who really want to engage on certain points.
As for this thread being a reflection on Ixxie's character -- after speaking to him on numerous occasions, I've found him to be sincere and open to new ideas and not in the least bit arrogant about wanting attention.
I've seen some real crap come and go in this place and, to my mind, Ixxie doesn't fit that bill and it'd be a shame if he got thrown in to the rest of the lump heap.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this. I'm not trying to fight anybody's battle and I guess I just see things differently.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 05, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
Quote from: Task on September 05, 2013, 02:09:14 AM
I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).
Hmm...
After the bold I pretty much think that's way off. I may have written 1 rant since I first showed up and NEVER experienced any of that alpha rant driven nonsense. There may be power politics--as in any group dynamic--but it's hardly this, imo.
I spoke to Ixxie privately about this topic and it basically boiled down to follow Orwell's six rules. (http://www.writingclasses.com/InformationPages/index.php/PageID/300) I tend to think of posting on forums as, posting emails. That to reach the greatest amount of readers, throw down a short and sweet synopsis and include the lengthy academia for the people who really want to engage on certain points.
As for this thread being a reflection on Ixxie's character -- after speaking to him on numerous occasions, I've found him to be sincere and open to new ideas and not in the least bit arrogant about wanting attention.
I've seen some real crap come and go in this place and, to my mind, Ixxie doesn't fit that bill and it'd be a shame if he got thrown in to the rest of the lump heap.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this. I'm not trying to fight anybody's battle and I guess I just see things differently.
If he's a cool guy then time will show it. Several people have given him solid things to respond to regarding his OP, if he wishes, particularly Kai and LMNO, and even to a lesser degree Enki. I'm not writing him off but I do hope that if he stays he gets past his notion that nobody else here is up to his standards.
I don't even understand the thread title.
I'm off to drag my knuckles on the ground for a bit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 05, 2013, 04:10:28 AM
I don't even understand the thread title.
I'm off to drag my knuckles on the ground for a bit.
Yeah my impression is that was the intent.
I could be wrong. I would be happy to be wrong.
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PMI made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.
For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.
From what I can make out of the OP, it won't work and here's why. Coincidentally - it's the same reason normal society doesn't and could never work, after all the world we live in is the ultimate anarcho-syndicate-whatever the fuck you want to call it - experiment, on a massive global scale. Whaddya know, when a couple of billion hairless apes find themselves in a situation where there are no rules and no one to enforce them, what happens? They make rules and ways to enforce them. This is anarchy (any flavour you fancy) take away all the rules and all the rulers and, almost immediately, there will be rules and rulers.
So back to the reason non of this could even conceivably work. Simple, say you have 1 person working solo, in their own self interests. There is a 0% chance that this person is not pulling his/her weight. Add a person, thus creating a team. There is now a chance of 1 person not pulling their weight. For each person added to the group the chance increases until there are enough people (for example sake let's say it's 100 - although it may well be much less or many more) in the group to guarantee a "bad apple" with 100% certainty. At this point the group is destined to slowly rot, unless the "pathogen" is rooted out. Fine, there's a good chance that this will happen and it'll be business as usual but how about we double the group size?
Now we have two rotten eggs in our barrel. Two threats to the survival of the group but now another factor emerges - every time we double the group size and add another villain, the chance increases of two or more of these ones forming an alliance. At this point forget your community, you are completely and utterly fucked. These wankers, working in concert will take over. They will lie, cheat, steal, frame, govern, enslave, kill and all the other bullshit that prevents society from functioning as one cohesive utopia.
Here's the rub - these bastards are actually saving you from something much worse :evil:
Bruce Schneier wrote a book about free-riders and cheating from a game-theoretic perspective. I've read about half of it, because it's fairly dry, but it makes a good case for optimism based entirely upon self-serving individuals. It's called Liars and Outliers, because someone pointed out that the working title The Dishonest Minority could be misinterpreted. I'd recommend his work on the subject, if you want to read the ideas of an expert who gets paid to think about cheating all day.
He has a couple lectures that summarize his ideas.
My main problem with the plan is not that it depends upon teamwork; teamwork has plenty of failure modes, but it works unreasonably well. My main problem with it is that it's complicated, and thus difficult to implement and test.
Quote from: Pæs on September 05, 2013, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PMI made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.
For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.
Yep.
Also, the guy uses a lot of jargon language while also using a lot of language wrong, which is a distressingly unreadable combination. I assume it is largely because English is a second language for him, but it is exhausting to parse nonetheless and when you add the attitude (which I could be interpreting mistakenly, but which appears to be fairly well-communicated in the above quote) that he is believes that our difficulty parsing his writing is due to his academic and intellectual superiority, I definitely start to get a "fuck this" feeling.
I also am not sold on the argument that what he says makes perfect sense to a PhD level theoretical biologist. The problems I have noticed with language persist regardless of the educational level of the reader.
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.
Go on, then. Let them wipe your tears.
This is why I take so long to get attached to noobs. They're flimsy, these days, and go all to pieces at the slightest excuse.
Trip and Cram say he's a good guy. I don't doubt that for a moment.
But he's not a rock n roller. He isn't
ready for the coming weird times, in this glorious mess we call "the 21st Century".
Quote from: Facemeat on September 05, 2013, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: Pæs on September 05, 2013, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PMI made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.
For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.
Yep.
Also, the guy uses a lot of jargon language while also using a lot of language wrong, which is a distressingly unreadable combination. I assume it is largely because English is a second language for him, but it is exhausting to parse nonetheless and when you add the attitude (which I could be interpreting mistakenly, but which appears to be fairly well-communicated in the above quote) that he is believes that our difficulty parsing his writing is due to his academic and intellectual superiority, I definitely start to get a "fuck this" feeling.
I also am not sold on the argument that what he says makes perfect sense to a PhD level theoretical biologist. The problems I have noticed with language persist regardless of the educational level of the reader.
"Theoretical Biologist" is a thing?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 05, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 05, 2013, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: Pæs on September 05, 2013, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: Ixxie on September 04, 2013, 03:57:47 PMI made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.
For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.
Yep.
Also, the guy uses a lot of jargon language while also using a lot of language wrong, which is a distressingly unreadable combination. I assume it is largely because English is a second language for him, but it is exhausting to parse nonetheless and when you add the attitude (which I could be interpreting mistakenly, but which appears to be fairly well-communicated in the above quote) that he is believes that our difficulty parsing his writing is due to his academic and intellectual superiority, I definitely start to get a "fuck this" feeling.
I also am not sold on the argument that what he says makes perfect sense to a PhD level theoretical biologist. The problems I have noticed with language persist regardless of the educational level of the reader.
"Theoretical Biologist" is a thing?
Totally. As you might expect, they never look at the organisms. Everything is done with computer models. A large part is modeling epidemics these days.
Epidemics are interesting.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 05, 2013, 04:35:01 PM
Epidemics are interesting.
In about 4 different ways that I can think of, and I'm not even an expert or anything.
1. The mathematical progression, from "patient zero" to burn out.
2. The public reaction to the perceived threat level, as compared to the actual threat level.
3. The reaction to the CDC by congress and the president when the disease is perceived as only targeting minority groups (AIDS, etc).
4. The expectation of zombies.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 05, 2013, 04:39:26 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 05, 2013, 04:35:01 PM
Epidemics are interesting.
In about 4 different ways that I can think of, and I'm not even an expert or anything.
1. The mathematical progression, from "patient zero" to burn out.
2. The public reaction to the perceived threat level, as compared to the actual threat level.
3. The reaction to the CDC by congress and the president when the disease is perceived as only targeting minority groups (AIDS, etc).
4. The expectation of zombies.
5. The increase in probability of outbreak associated with anti-vaccer communities.
Quote from: Kai on September 05, 2013, 05:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 05, 2013, 04:39:26 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 05, 2013, 04:35:01 PM
Epidemics are interesting.
In about 4 different ways that I can think of, and I'm not even an expert or anything.
1. The mathematical progression, from "patient zero" to burn out.
2. The public reaction to the perceived threat level, as compared to the actual threat level.
3. The reaction to the CDC by congress and the president when the disease is perceived as only targeting minority groups (AIDS, etc).
4. The expectation of zombies.
5. The increase in probability of outbreak associated with anti-vaccer communities.
Now THAT stuff is fascinating, because it's such an incredibly effective illustration of how individual actions affect the group. We all tend to think "I am only one person, how can I make a difference?"
It turns out that you can refuse to vaccinate your kid, and cause preventable disease outbreaks!
We have a small measles outbreak here.
DARWIN, DO YOUR THING.
I've read some interesting general-audience stuff on the interaction between graph theory and epidemiology. I'm not surprised that theoretical biology seems to be very mathy (and specifically heavily dependent upon statistics).
QuoteDARWIN, DO YOUR THING.
I'd be more OK with this were it not for herd immunity fucking everything up. Not vaccinating your kid is unlikely to directly effect you or your kid, and is more likely instead to fuck over someone only tangentially related.
This thread embarrassingly reminds me of how I tended to write only a few years ago. I was so enamored of my ability to make lots of words that I would go completely fucking overboard. When I wasn't being verbose, I was usually being obtuse. It was an ugly time.