|
|
|
Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy From Hamilton’s Rule As my first MR blog entry I think it appropriate to put down some thoughts on how to shore-up a shortcoming of sociobiology theory that results in a significant under-estimation of ethnic nepotism. I’m doing this here because I ran across some similar thoughts by JW Holliday which he published here some months ago. Ben Tillman presented the seed of the idea a few months earlier. It is a credit to MR that these views were first presented here. In my way of stating it: Lewotin’s Fallacy has weakened the foundation of sociobiology by ignoring genetic correlation structures that allow us to accurately discern phylogenetic groups such as subspecies or races. It is my hope that providing a definition of “particle”, as correlation structures of nucleotides, will clarify the application of Price’s equations in W. D. Hamilton’s paper Innate Social Aptitudes of Man and a bioinformatic direction will emerge for sociobiology. As this direction emerges many critiques of ethnic nepotism theory will be exposed as semantic confusion arising from the historic definitions of heritable particles—such as genes or alleles—definitions that lack sufficient bioinformatic rigor. This will be hard work. For the usual reasons, we cannot expect government-funded scientists to be very cooperative. To restate the key point: Sociobiology, by focusing on sums of differences in individual genes rather than focusing on the differences in phylogenetic correlation structure of genes, seems to be suffering from a kind of “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, as described by Edwards in his paper. The question is, how can we generalize sociobiology’s equations to look at the correlation structures so that Hamilton’s equations fall out as a special case? Another way of asking this might be: How can we generalize the definition of “gene”, or more accurately “allele”, so that what we now think of as alleles are a degenerate correlation structure? In “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man” Hamilton introduces us to his concept of group selection he writes:
So what are the most fundamental particles of all—from which all other groups of particles are composed? The answer seems to be nucleotides rather than genes for not even genes are “atomic”. So here’s an approach to our new bioinformatic sociobiology: First, look at populations of genomes as sets of (nucleotide,locus) pairs. This is a standard way of viewing sequenced genomes within bioinformatics. Next, find all the correlation structures that are nearly perfect across the population. Those are “alleles” in the current molecular biological sense. From this perspective it should be obvious that there is no fundamental distinction between alleles and other correlation structures. We can’t ignore the other structures just because they have an r <1 -- particularly where we can impute them as being due to phylogeny. Rewriting Hamilton's Rule, as represented in Innate Social Aptitudes of Man, in terms of these correlation structure "particles" will yield identical predictions to current theory if we restrict ourselves to r=1 but very different predictions if we allow ourselves access to the lesser bioinformatic correlation structures described by Edwards. * An original link no longer functions: Lewontin’s Fallacy http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf” Comments:3
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:33 | # Hamilton’s Rule is the basis for J.B.S. Haldane’s, “I would give my life for two brothers or eight cousins.” Hamilton’s Rule states that altruistic behavior is not expected to evolve by natural selection unless br > c, where b is the fitness benefit to the recipient, c is the fitness cost to the actor, and r is the appropriate measure of relationship between them. 4
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:38 | # Martin, I’m aware my audience was rather small in the way I presented it. I’m hoping to hook a young ambitious academic researcher into doing some of the work here—so I wrote it for such an audience. We aren’t going to be getting funded to do this research so its necessary to recruit the right talent. Here is a brief description that may get the feel of the idea across to others: We’ve heard a lot of talk about how there is no “European gene”, no “African gene”, no “Asian gene” and no “New World gene”. This is true under the definition of “gene” we’ve all been taught. Even if there were some single gene that all “Europeans” possessed that no member of any other racial group possessed, it still wouldn’t be correct to call it “the European gene”. Lewontin made a popular name for himself by hammering home the politically comforting fact that for any given single genetic locus there is more frequency variation between subpopulations of geographic races than there is between geographic races. The mid-atlantic elites ate it up and made him a star. This then resulted in liberal arts colleges teaching this idea as part of a catechism which was supposed to prove that race doesn’t matter. What Edwards pointed out in “Lewontin’s Fallacy” was that if you don’t restrict yourself to a single genetic locus, but look at how genes at different locations on a person’s DNA correlate with each other, you can start to see more variation between racial groups than within them and at some point the geographic racial groups become stark. So let’s go back to our fantasy idea of a “European gene”, “African gene”, etc. and imagine that “genes” consisted of huge stretches of DNA spanning multiple chromosomes. From generation to generation these “genes” don’t recombine—they are cloned and passed down from generation to generation. No one would have trouble predicting ethnic nepotism within such a scenario. There would be essentially no relationship between the races and within the races there would be complete relatedness (ie: clones). But the question I’m asking here is simply this: Why can’t we look at Edwards’ “correlation structures” as proxies for the “European gene”, the “African gene”, etc. and simply assign those correlation structures weights, admittedly lower than 1, corresponding to the correlation coefficients of those correlation structures? The answer is, we can, by looking at how genes can be thought of as correlation structures of nucleotides (the smallest indivisible components of genes) having perfect internal correlation between the nucleotides making up a particular allele (variant) of a gene. 5
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:44 | # http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci011/sb2/sb2.htm The gist of Hamilton’s theory is that to understand the evolution of behavior one must consider the effect of that behavior on the inclusive fitness of the individual organism: Inclusive fitness of individual organism = own reproductive success + reproductive success of kin multiplied by degree of relatedness Altruistic behavior is behavior that is beneficial to others at a cost in fitness (reduced reproductive success) for the organism engaging in the behavior, such as the call of a bird warning of the presence of a predator. Altruistic behavior can evolve by natural selection if it increases inclusive fitness of the individual by increasing the survival and reproduction of relatives who share a proportion of genes by common descent. Hamilton stated mathematically that an altruistic gene is selected (i.e., will spread in the gene pool) if c < rb where: c = cost of the behavior in terms of individual fitness b = fitness benefit to relative r = coefficient of relatedness ( = probability that relative also carries the altruistic gene by common descent) Coefficients of relatedness r ( = fraction of genes identical by descent) for various relatives in a random-mating diploid population: Parent-offspring 1/2 6
Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:47 | # Mightn’t haplotype blocks be used for this objective; that is, as units of selection in themselves? As described in Technology Review, 6-03, pp.41-50, they would seem to have an even stronger correlation than what you suggest. Do such structures have to be specific to races, and what if some of them are that specific, or nearly so? 7
Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:50 | # A genetic unit of selection doesn’t have to be atomic, does it? 8
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:02 | # James, I have been using the term “genetic structures” to encompass everything from subgenetic particles through alleles to correlations and combinations of genes, including “individuals” and “groups”. 9
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:02 | # That was very helpful, thank you. To use a biblical phrase, I am now at least “seeing through a glass darkly.” Can I suggest through the mist that you may find the mathematics of fuzzy logic very helpful in determining correlations, whether a particular genetic pattern is a member of a particular race, etc. Fuzzy logic allows for partial set membership (so a Romanian would be say a 70% member of the Indo-European set). It also is more correct than Bayes for calculating multiple correlations of things that are not random, but unknown (the Bayesian assumption of multiplying probabilities is wrong if they’re not really probabilities.) I think you may find that assuming Cartesian set dividers between races won’t work, and will distort the analysis to such an extent that the results may be wrong. Here I’m speaking as a mathematician maybe, but NOT as a geneticist. Using fuzzy logic may also get you drummed out of many but not all conventional mathematical/economic academic instiutions—but you expected that, didn’t you! If in doubt, remind yourself that the Japanese use it to build robot vacuum cleaners. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:05 | # John, If you look at recent research correlating self-identified race with population genetic structure you’ll notice the program “STRUCTURE” they use derives these hierarchies of correlation structures without classifying them as “haplotype blocks”, “races” or any other specific grouping. They are merely phylogenetic clusters that most parsimoniously describe populations. The fact that we can then recognize these structures as “haplotype blocks”, “races” etc. is secondary. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:18 | # John wrote: <i>A genetic unit of selection doesn’t have to be atomic, does it?> Here is Dawkins’ definition of “gene” from “The Extended Phenotype”: ‘that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency’ and as ‘any hereditary information for which there is favorable or unfavorable selection bias equal to several or many times its rate of endogenous change’ What he’s doing here with the phrases “appreciable frequency” and “several or many times” is talking around the fact that the sort of reformulation I’m talking about hasn’t been done. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:39 | # Here is JW Holliday’s insight which was published on MR some months ago:
13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:19 | # “assuming Cartesian set dividers between races won’t work,” (—Martin) No one assumes “Cartesian set dividers between races,” Martin, though it’s a childish strawman commonly resorted to by race-deniers to ... well, to deny race. The degree to which it’s widespread is astounding considering it has less-than-zero merit as an argument. You see it all over the place—it’s more or less the basis on which David B. at GnXp tries to deny race. Two semi-regular commenters over at Dienekes’s site, one signing as “Ren,” the other “NuSapiens” (both with their own sites; Steve Sailer links NuSapiens, by the way) also use it as a basis for essentially denying race though they’d limply try to deny they deny it, if called on it. Do we “assume Cartesian set dividers between” colors of the spectrum? No, but using the race-deniers’ arguments we might as well try to deny the existence of the colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. It’s a race-denier’s strawman so infantile and idiotic it’s astonishing so many use it and actually think they get away with it. Moratorium-plus-Repatriation! 14
Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:24 | # In terms of regarding population proportions of genetic characters as an EGI, wouldn’t removal of some part of the totality be a reduction of such interests? Would those who support EGI’s want to say that America has an interest in a specific percentage of black ancestry in the white, or the total, population? Haplotype blocks sound like a proper object of EGI’s. That is, not all of them, but those which are more or less specific to a race, and one that is defined in terms of a number of these. The article which discusses some controversies over them, is online at gnxp.com 7-25-03, the one I mentioned above. A population distribution of genetic factors can be invaded; haplotype blocks can’t be. 15
Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:43 | # The conditions could be very narrow, in which a specific set of proportions of genetic factors is a significant EGI as proposed. One would be climate adaptation, as say where malaria and TB coexist, and in such a manner that there is a long term optimal proportion of those adapted best to one or the other. Suppose a small race has a very superior mix of genetic factors for a large zone; won’t it either expand into the territory of other groups, and/or receive immigrants therefrom? In the first case, and the second, some admixture is likely, and to the extent of altering the proportions which were posited to constitute the high superiority, and to be an EGI. It would seem that for that sort of EGI to be important, all groups in the world would have to be best for their environment, or nearly so. With haplotype blocks there is no great diffculty in their being an EGI. Does Salter’s theory include them as such, and if it doesn’t, what effect would it have if these achieved general acceptance in biology? 16
Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:20 | # Suppose that within a race thus defined, there are six haplotype blocks which are utterly optimal in terms of complementing one another in outbreeding within that race. All other blocks present initially are common to all the species and thus do not figure in an EGI comparison. The original configuration in its purity now could be said to be an EGI, in that invasion by noncomplementary blocks specific to other races will cause outbreeding depression. To maintain that the above conditions are most unlikely, would require some backup, or what exactly would the default assumption on this point have to be? 17
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:21 | # I’ve posted a shorted version of this idea to the sci.bio.evolution usenet newsgroup and of course I was attacked for posting a “political” message to a science group by someone quoting Trivers as calling Hamilton’s “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man” “fascist”. But he did make one interesting assertion, which, given his behavior may be a misrepresentation. Quoting his post:
I’ve seen no reference by either Salter or Rushton to Hamilton’s “clarification”, nor to Queller, Grafen, Taylor, Frank, and others’ formalization of this “clarification”. Does anyone know what he’s referring to and if there is any merit to it at all? 18
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:50 | # James Bowery, Welcome aboard! I recommend that you use the term “behavioral ecology” instead of sociobiology. These terms refer to the same branch of study but sociobiology has been viewed negatively in leftist circles ever since E.O. Wilson coined this term, prompting a number of sociobiologists to refer to their field as behavioral ecology. Besides, nothing in the name “behavioral ecology” suggests that it addresses the biological bases of social behavior. The math you are looking for is going to be difficult to come up with. The problem is that many ancestry-informative markers are selection-neutral and unrelated to phenotype or at least the phenotype relevant to intelligence and culture. Your critic does have a point about possible incorrect use of the price equation. See a paper by van Veelen in the latest edition of the Journal of Theoretical Biology below. On the other hand, your critic is an ignoramus when he writes:
Coherent existence in the past? Damn! Besides, we are trying to prevent bloody conflict by attempting to keep as much of Third World people as possible where they belong—in the Third World. Download the images below to your computer if you can’t see them in full.
19
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:15 | # J Richards, thanks for that paper. Not being the academic type, doing grunt work for a living (with other civic duties) I will require some time to digest it properly. What I can say is that when I talk about a bioinformatic reformulation of Price’s equations as presented by Hamilton, I mean that the mathematics used to derive phylogenetic structure from genomic data needs to be the formal basis rather than the simple two-level formalism that Price used to call out the distinction between kin and group selection. If this is a possible misuse of then I’ll read the paper with added priority. As for terminology, part of the reason I liked using “sociobiology” here is that it was Lewontin who led the highly politicized charge at Harvard against the very word—and I’m addressing Lewontin’s fallacy as manifest within sociobiology aka behavioral ecology. However your point is well taken. The use of “evolutionary psychology” is clearly meant to create a new discipline purged of group dynamics and human biodiversity, “human ecology” is limited to humans and not limited to behavior and although behavioral ecology isn’t limited to biology, the ecological effects of meme-gene interaction cannot be ignored for humans. This is true even though memes are very frequently extended phenotypes of humans genes. I’ll use it. But I’m curious about your calling out the detractor’s “coherent existence” quote. His comment wasn’t clear to me. Is he saying that there are no such groups or is he saying that even if there were such groups they couldn’t develop ethnic nepotism due to the critique of Price’s equations by Hamilton showing they don’t, “really work in the real world”? 20
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:36 | # James, Take your time to read the paper. Your critic is addressing an issue that you are not attempting to investigate using the price equation, namely the classic group selection vs. individual selection issue or whether an allele that benefits a group overall but not an individual within a group can spread through the group. You are aiming for a mathematically rigorous formulation of ethnic genetic interests taking into account the allelic correlation structures characterizing inbreeding populations. This formulation is going to be difficult to achieve, but is likely not impossible to come up with. As a practical example of some issues that you may encounter regarding the classic group selection vs. individual selection issue that the price equation can possibly shed light on, consider the case of freedom of speech. For a person to respect freedom of speech, he has to agree to allow speech that he finds emotionally painful, upsetting or disturbing, such as criticism or mockery of his cherished beliefs. Therefore, respecting freedom of speech is not directly in the best interests of an individual. However, if there is widespread respect for freedom of speech in a population, some bright individuals will be able to morally and scientifically advance society by being able to critique orthodox ideas, and the resulting benefits will benefit individuals within the group, i.e., the individual benefits are secondary to group benefits in this case. Now, suppose that the stronger support for freedom of speech among Northern Europeans results from a higher prevalence of some alleles among them. Do Northern Europeans have anything to gain or lose, as a group, by accommodating among themselves a large numbers of non-Europeans [with a lower prevalence of alleles associated with respect for freedom of speech]? The answer is a loss at the level of the group for Northern Europeans and thereby secondarily at the level of individual Northern Europeans even though there is no direct loss at the level of the individual for most Northern Europeans and even some direct gain at the level of the individual for many Northern Europeans given that in an environment with less respect for freedom of speech, modal beliefs are less likely to be criticized or made fun of. One can think of other similar scenarios, and it would be surely nice to describe them using mathematical rigor. Regarding your critic’s comment on coherent existence, your critic appears to be alluding to the myth of the noble savage, i.e., primitive tribes that allegedly co-existed peacefully with neighboring tribes until “evils” such as the white man or capitalism came along. There are a number of excellent references documenting widespread murderous conflicts between pre-historic hunter-gatherer tribes; the evidence being meticulously collected from fossilized remains resulting from butchery and savagery:
Heck, most hominid races and species that existed in the past undoubtedly went extinct thanks to the murderous hominid ancestors that evolved to modern humans. None of this is supposed to imply that our ancestors had a basically violent nature or that people such as myself are interested in promoting interracial conflict (the opposite being true), but it should be pointed out that to pretend—in social policy—that racial genetic interests do not matter is to invite conflict. 21
Posted by Miscegenation: an objective view on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:35 | #
22
Posted by gene editing and epigenetics on Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:33 | #
23
Posted by JB responds to epigenetics on Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:42 | #
. Post a comment:
Next entry: Taylor’s fine words
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:51 | #
As Phil has said, I am too old to understand new ideas. I can however see that this would be fascinating if I did understand it, and it sure beats discussing the Holocaust. Could you or someone who understands it post a 1-paragraph description of what you think you’re proving, with a vocabulary suited to us 5 year olds (or imagine you’re trying to explain it to the Younger Pitt, with his knowledge of modern scientific terminology.)
I know what a “gene” is, but that’s about it.