Hi, everybody, Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the FRIAM archive. So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Thanks for writing, John. You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of greed. They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. Genes are all about type, not token. Comments on your specific points below: JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" genes. (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes about. Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not operate to benefit the group". [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. The author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the current version - sorry.] (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. [NST ==>] Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined to take history and development into account. But I am on board with using evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Hi Nick, I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not operate to benefit the group". (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? --John ________________________________________ From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Dear Frank I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a mentalist. Oh was that ugly. Nick From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren't actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects were closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> [mailto:[email protected]]< <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." Nick <mailto:[cid:[email protected]]> [cid:[email protected]] From: <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> [mailto:[email protected]]< <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> [mailto:[email protected]]< <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert, 'n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
