I think I’ve got a handle—maybe totally off the mark—on individual and group selection in human behavioural evolution. Here’s my take:
What is it? Human behaviour is a deeply complex phenomenon, shaped by two intertwined evolutionary processes: Biological evolution (based in our genes), where the unit of selection is the individual human. Cultural evolution (based in memes), where the unit of selection is defined at the group level—though “group” can mean different things in different contexts. That’s it, in my simple words. Why do I say so? I asked George to take a deep dive into the topic and produce a report, which you can view here: https://g.co/gemini/share/b046bfad5cc8 . I buy into its main argument—not claiming it’s “correct” in the absolute sense, but in my view it’s the best current explanation for the roots of human behaviour. It draws on the latest research and, in the conclusion, puts it like this (paraphrased from the report): The multilevel selection (MLS) framework, championed by David Sloan Wilson, integrates individual selection into a broader system of competing evolutionary forces within a nested hierarchy of genes, individuals, and groups. Extending this to cultural evolution, MLS offers a two-track model—genetic and cultural—that better explains human nature. By explicitly modelling the tension between within-group selfishness and between-group cooperation, it provides a richer explanation for complex social behaviours than alternatives like kin selection. The framework has implications beyond biology—touching religion, politics, and economics—and offers a unified, evolutionarily grounded lens on human sociality. That’s why, for now, I’m hitching my wagon to this model. References Works cited 1. Why Won't the Group Selection Controversy Go Away?, accessed August 11, 2025, https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS575/%CE%86%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/Okasha_Why%20won%27t%20group%20selection%20go%20away.pdf 2. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection - PNAS, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602530103 3. Evolution "for the Good of the Group" | American Scientist, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.americanscientist.org/article/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group 4. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.uvm.edu/~jfarley/EEseminar/readings/wilson-wilson.Rethinking20Sociobiology.inpress.pdf 5. Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy? - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4850877/ 6. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3110649/#:~:text=The%20verdict%20was%20that%20group,%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20exist%E2%80%9D. 7. (PDF) Adaptation and Natural Selection revisited - ResearchGate, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49747596_Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection_revisited 8. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology | The Quarterly Review of Biology: Vol 82, No 4, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/522809 9. Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences - Cambridge University Press, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/reintroducing-group-selection-to-the-human-behavioral-sciences/634687DF831997525E21E5899B23CC8D 10. Group selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection 11. David Sloan Wilson's Group Selection Theory of Religion: Analysis and Possible Christian Responses, accessed August 11, 2025, https://christianscholars.com/david-sloan-wilsons-group-selection-theory-of-religion-analysis-and-possible-christian-responses/ 12. Eight Criticisms Not to Make About Group Selection - ResearchGate, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51195160_Eight_Criticisms_Not_to_Make_About_Group_Selection 13. Multilevel selection on individual and group social behaviour in the wild - Journals, accessed August 11, 2025, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2024.3061 14. Multilevel selection on individual and group social behaviour in the wild - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919500/ 15. 3 MEMETIC EVOLUTION - Jack M. Balkin - Yale University, accessed August 11, 2025, https://jackbalkin.yale.edu/3-memetic-evolution 16. Memetics - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics 17. Memetics - Principia Cybernetica Web, accessed August 11, 2025, http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html 18. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2607340/#:~:text=Genes%20and%20culture%20are%20two,acting%20back%20on%20the%20genome. 19. Library: Susan Blackmore: Memetic Evolution - PBS, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/l_072_05.html 20. The Meme Machine — by Susan Blackmore - Mimetic Theory, accessed August 11, 2025, https://mimetictheory.com/the-meme-machine-by-susan-blackmore/ 21. Memetics: A dangerous idea - ResearchGate, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292001401_Memetics_A_dangerous_idea 22. Dual inheritance theory - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory 23. (PDF) Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40886135_Not_By_Genes_Alone_How_Culture_Transformed_Human_Evolution 24. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3279745/ 25. The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axu047 26. Okasha, S. (2016). The Relation between Kin and Multi-level Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs. British Journal for the - University of Bristol Research Portal, accessed August 11, 2025, https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/34712898/Equivalence_MLS_and_IF_BJPS.pdf 27. The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/bjps/axu047 28. Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical applications - PNAS, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2218222120 29. Evolution of parochial altruism by multilevel selection - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, accessed August 11, 2025, http://web.evolbio.mpg.de/~garcia/preprints/07.pdf 30. The multilevel economic paradigm | INET Oxford, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/projects/the-multilevel-paradigm 31. Why Multilevel Selection Matters, accessed August 11, 2025, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/context/econ/article/1104/viewcontent/Field_Why_Multilevel_Selection_Matters.pdf 32. Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3048999/ On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 09:41, Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick (aka ChatNJT), > > Are you still my George in this grand quest to truly “get” group selection? > > A bit of backstory > When I get into a debate, my natural instinct is… well, to stay in my own > head and not listen much at all. I first got called out on it nearly 50 > years ago, back when I was a young engineer in management training. We did > simulated negotiations, the instructor took notes, and the verdict was: > “You didn’t hear a word they said.” > > That kicked off my slow, sometimes painful, self-improvement journey. My > instincts haven’t really changed (old habits die hard), but now I can force > myself to switch gears — to really listen and understand the other person’s > point before I jump in swinging. > > I’ll admit, I lean toward believing in individual selection in human > evolution. But I’m genuinely open to being convinced otherwise — and I want > to really understand group selection before I form my final view. > > I said I’d be spending some time learning with ChatGPT, and you kindly > offered to be my “George” through ChatNJT. I’ve seen you active in this > thread, but I’m not sure if our little backchannel on this is still alive > or quietly drifting into the great beyond. > > And hey, in the spirit of “why have a mind if we can’t change it?” — if > you want to step back from this role, no hard feelings at all. > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 at 06:49, Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Nick, thanks for the document, I have downloaded it and will read it. >> >> Next point, you do ask a lot of questions, Nick — and not the easy kind >> either. But fine, let’s dance. >> >> "What is your hankering?" >> I’m a simple creature. I just want to get a grip on what “group >> selection” really means for humans — simple enough to explain without a >> headache, but not so simple that it’s wrong. And, ideally, I’d like a >> reason to actually believe it exists. >> >> "Where do you hope this will all come out?" >> Same answer, really. I trust my brain enough to think I can untangle >> complicated stuff… eventually. My hope is just to reach that magical “ohhh, >> that’s what it means” moment. >> >> "What would group selection look like in human beings?" >> Now you’re hitting the nerve. I can’t answer that — which is exactly why >> I’m here poking at the question. >> Right now, it feels at odds with the simple elegance of evolution, which >> (as ChatGPT put it) goes like this: >> >> Evolution is the gradual change of replicators — things that make copies >> of themselves — over time. Sometimes the replicator exists inside a >> temporary form (like an organism, idea, or machine) that competes with >> others. Variations that help it succeed in making more copies become more >> common, shaping the system over time. >> >> And here’s my snag: I see humans as one big messy group, not a bunch of >> smaller competing groups. So where’s the competition? Clearly I’m missing a >> big chunk of the story — and I want to find it. >> >> "Would you approve or disapprove?" >> I’m not here to pass moral verdicts. I just want to figure it out before >> deciding whether to even have an opinion. >> >> "What is a group? Is a species a group? Is a race a group? Is a village a >> group?" >> And there’s the heart of my confusion. Right now, my brain says: “Well, >> all humans are one group, right?” — which doesn’t fit neatly with my >> current picture of evolution. So the plan is simple: swap ignorance for >> understanding, and hopefully keep the coffee hot while I do it. >> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 23:52, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Great Peiter, >>> >>> >>> >>> But you didnpt answer my question. I know it’s the hardest kind of >>> question to answer, but give it a go. What is your hankering? Where do >>> you hope this will all come out? What would group selection look like in >>> human beings? Would you approve of it or disapprove of it? What is a >>> group, after all? Is a species a group? Is a race a group? Is a village a >>> group? Etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> DS Wilson I think lost interest in the question that most interested me >>> (what are the elemental forces that led to the evolution of complex >>> organisms) and became more interested in in the forces that lead to human >>> groupish behavior. To me human groupishness seems wildly overdetermined. >>> Its like asking why is the pope a Christian. But that’s a wildly >>> unsatisfying answer to some one who is genuinely surprized to find that the >>> pope is indeed a Christian. >>> >>> >>> >>> Lets go back and forth like this for a few more exchanges. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meantime, I enclose a short article in BBS that reprises a much larger >>> article by W and S. I have a pdf of the larger article on my hard drive >>> and will send it to you when I figure out how to bypass friam’s >>> restrictions on large files. >>> >>> >>> >>> But please don’t let that get in the way of you taking a shot at answers >>> to the questions I posed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >>> Steenekamp >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, >>> especially the human variety. >>> >>> What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group >>> selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than >>> individual selection alone. >>> >>> Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave >>> paintings, whatever you think works. >>> >>> And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to >>> read it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Pieter, >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to >>> respond off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I >>> think this whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and >>> historically. The literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so >>> precisely from post war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the >>> revanchist academic Reaganism (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's >>> really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one begins to >>> understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by which >>> parents do and dont resemble their children. One of the tools to thinking >>> straight is to own up to one's hankerings before one dives into the >>> literature. What are you hoping to find? Post war peace-nikery was >>> covertly deistic, hoping to find that there was some sort of over >>> arching regulatory agency that would keep the species and the planet safe. >>> Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! Success is virtue. And then >>> evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that whole argument. I recommend >>> reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not the physicist), Endless forms >>> most beautiful, and The making of the fittest. It's really hard to take >>> the whole argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and >>> multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble >>> their children. That there is any resemblance at all begins to seem like >>> some sort of miracle. Or perhaps just momentum. One hankering that >>> misleads us is naturalism, the idea that we can find some sort of MORAL >>> guidance in the way things are. Is the opposite hankering, >>> existentialism? The belief that what makes humans special is their power >>> to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a philosopher and am, in >>> fact, an amateur in all things. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. >>> Would you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick >>> Thompson? " >>> >>> >>> >>> signed, >>> >>> >>> >>> ChatNST >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, >>> I’m battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful >>> mechanism of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand >>> individual human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects >>> where only the queen has babies. >>> >>> I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help >>> guide me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check >>> in with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. >>> >>> The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, >>> so I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but >>> I’ll try to keep it going. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Pieter, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a >>> journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not >>> committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” >>> perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been of >>> that sort. >>> >>> >>> >>> If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in >>> Dawkins The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of >>> selection. But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made >>> that decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when >>> one looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly the >>> gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the thing >>> that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever level you >>> care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential group success >>> that is driving selection or it is not group selection. And if it is >>> differential group success that is driving selection, then it is group >>> selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a >>> whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing >>> Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful >>> metaphor in there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article >>> that broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the >>> preceding 20 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV >>> >>> >>> >>> Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to >>> the human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), >>> 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 >>> en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 >>> <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >>> Steenekamp >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth >>> trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. >>> >>> So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my >>> 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The gap >>> between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that wide. >>> >>> That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection >>> argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay >>> with that. >>> >>> Here's the question I’m grappling with: >>> >>> Is the following valid? >>> Genes as the Unit of Selection: >>> Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of >>> selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an >>> individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. >>> Group Selection as a Modifier: >>> Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression >>> of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) >>> is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, >>> even if those genes also have individual-level costs. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> >>> >>> I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you >>> are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your >>> paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well >>> written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. >>> >>> >>> >>> However; two points: >>> >>> >>> >>> First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the >>> term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal >>> definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of >>> which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other thing >>> might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a 'model', one >>> that suggests particular points and particular relations that, if my >>> suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the unknown thing. I >>> check them out individually and in combinations and, if substantiated, >>> confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. >>> >>> >>> >>> This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more >>> abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make >>> your ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated >>> differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I >>> would propose the Mormons as a test case. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over >>> District" of western New York. The only one still extant. >>> >>> >>> >>> Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their >>> neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while >>> down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. >>> >>> >>> >>> A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely >>> evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism >>> and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) >>> >>> >>> >>> In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by >>> sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with four >>> or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as well as >>> "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah someone is >>> from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was >>> alive blacks were included in the community and held the >>> priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. >>> Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the >>> suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black >>> priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the >>> Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. >>> >>> >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, >>> >>> Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore >>> Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. It >>> always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me some >>> enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to keep focus >>> on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or cut bait on >>> entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost immediately you-guys >>> started not one but two conversations close to my heart: on the centrality >>> of metaphor to science and on the group selection controversy. >>> >>> A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a >>> paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. >>> There are two things about this paper that make it salient for me. The >>> first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The second is >>> that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach when I wrote it, >>> D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to >>> show that the problem with metaphors is not with their use in scientific >>> thinking: on the contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors >>> need to be worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of >>> poetic exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural >>> selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated >>> seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might >>> have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but >>> meta-arrogant. >>> >>> Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do anything >>> to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply am such a >>> person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope that it will >>> have some value to you within the context of your two discussions. >>> >>> Mumble, >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Attachments:* >>> >>> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
