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.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:25 | #

Yeah, I agree.

Whoosh
  V
  V
  V
My head.

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.

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.

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
Full siblings 1/2
Half siblings 1/4
Uncle/Aunt - Nephew/Niece 1/4
Grandparent - Grandchild 1/4
First cousins 1/8

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?

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Dr. Salter does not consider patterns/combinations
of gene frequencies as a genetic interest, even though such patterns
are in fact a genetic interest.
What this does, of course, is increase the importance of genetic
interests, and adds to the refutation of David’s critique.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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:

the introductory essay (written in the 1990s) to his 1971 ‘Spite’ paper, which appears in Chapter 6 of “Narrow Roads of Geneland”.  In it, Hamilton clarifies that the use of the Price equations to justify group selection doesn’t really work in the real world.  The point has been made more mathematically by Queller, Grafen, Taylor,
Frank, and others.

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?

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:

The idea that you seem to be promoting - the evolutionary and biological importance of human racial groups, with populations in the millions and histories of coherent existence for thousands of years, and with a kind of Spenserian duty for these groups to engage in a conflict for group survival - well, I consider these views to be better suited for a political newsgroup than a scientific one.

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. 

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”?

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:

LeBlanc, S. and Register, K. E. Constant battles: the myth of the peaceful, noble savage: St. Martin’s Press (2003).
Chagnon, N. A. Chronic problems in understanding tribal violence and warfare. Ciba Foundation Symposium 194:202-236 (1996).
Martin, D. L. and Frayer, D. W. (eds.). Troubled times: violence and warfare in the past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach (1997).

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.

Posted by Miscegenation: an objective view on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:35 | #

Atavistic Intelligentsia, ‘Miscegenation an Objective View’,  6 Jan 2016:

In regards to the phenomena of miscegenation it must first be defined. The definition of which I will be operating on is the genetic intermingling through sexual reproduction of two populations both genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other. The classical definition of miscegenation would of course be the “interbreeding between races” but seeing as the term race always brings up accusations of “folk taxonomy” or pseudo-science I prefer to use the term continental population or sub species. A population is a group of individuals of one species inhabiting one location and interbreeding and the biological definition of a subspecies being the only valid taxonomic classification below the species level. A species in turn is a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

.

To understand what a subspecies is it is useful to visualize the 90% rule which says “If 90% of population A differs from 90% of population B” than you have a subspecies. (Mayr, Ernst 1969) To think of it in layman’s terms if you took 100 individuals from one group and 100 from another group mixed them together and were than able to resort them into their original groups by appearance or traits than you have two distinct subspecies. (Whitman 2014) Using this 90% rule it becomes evident that miscegenation is nothing more than the interbreeding between two subspecies. Something which when applied to wolves or wild horses is abhorred by conservationists as it reduces ecological and biological diversity. As the old Green Peace saying goes “extinction is forever.” Though with modern day gene sequencing and reproductive technologies we may need to adjust this adage.

[...]

This tendency of genes to separate along lines of genetic similarity does not stop at mixed populations. Studies of sexually active couples and marriage partners among homogeneous populations show that when their genetics are analyzed they are more similar than the average individuals in that population. (Rushton, 1989) For most of human history the tendency outside of conquest was for people to marry somewhat distant relatives. In more traditional areas of the world like the Middles East and South Asia as many as 53% of people still marry first or second cousins as is the case with Iraq. (HBD Chick, FDB Cousin Marriage and clans and tribes in Iraq) In Pakistan the world leader in cousin marriage it reaches 70%. If all of human history was tallied it’s estimated that 80% of all marriages have been to first or second cousins. (BrighterBrains.org Cousin Marriage in Pakistan)

.
This innate often extreme desire to seek common genes is the very basis for ethnic group and sub species formation. Given enough time and isolation a group will continue to intermingle until all individuals in the population are interrelated. Most people alive today are heavily interrelated with their co-ethnics if you consider the size and scope of family trees. Going back 8 generations you have 1024 openings in your family tree, thirty generations ago it reaches a billion and forty generations ago it reaches a trillion! Of course there were not a trillion people alive in 1000 A.D. so you are descended from multiple pathways from the same ancestors. This explains why ethnic groups act altruistic towards their co ethnics more so than out group members as these individuals are in fact their distant relatives who share common genes. By helping these relatives you ensure the survival of your genes.

This endogamy among a population is also how specific traits like eye color, hair color, resistance to disease, body build, cognitive and personality traits become common or even fixed in a population as a favored trait or set of traits is spread within it. The longer two populations have been separated or the greater the selective pressure on the group the more extreme these differences will become.

.
After such divergent evolution if two populations or subspecies come into contact together and reproduce the offspring are often confronted with unforeseen consequences affecting health. In spite of the pop culture belief in “hybrid vigor” or the inheritance of the most desirable traits from both parents the offspring are just as likely to inherit the least desirable traits. Although desirable is a subjective term and can mean different things under different ecological circumstances. Here in lies the biggest hindrance to miscegenation as a desirable phenomenon. If two parents evolved to fit very different ecological niches interbreed they often pass on genes to their offspring that do not function well together. As genes do not evolve independently but rather as a package of interworking traits to ensure the survival of their carrier, combining such genetic packages often interferes with their fitness and the ability to form functioning cellular and organ systems. Is it really little wonder than that mixed race children suffer from higher rates of mental illness, allergies, autism, still births and birth defects when compared to mono racial children in the United States? (J. Richard Udry, 1995)

[...]

Simplified this means although a male may pass on his genes with a genetically dissimilar female he increases the amount of his genes that survive into the next generation if he reproduces with a woman with those same genes. Other out group males in turn will attempt to impregnate women of his in group to decrease his fitness and in turn the fitness of his population

Posted by gene editing and epigenetics on Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:33 | #

TRS, “Gene Editing and Epigenetics: Our Race and Future in the Modern Age”, 16 June 2016:

Wilsonian perspectives of genetic and biological study consider the other side of this puzzle and it’s only when you synthesize both views that you get the genetic/epigenetic distinction – the latter of which has recently been resurrected from the dead in discussions of inheritance now known as ‘transgenerational inheritance’ where it once was pejoratively referred to as soft-evolution. Wilson did not come up with the term. Instead, epigenetics was first coined by an English scientist in 1942 named Conrad Waddington. Epigenetics is a pet-passion of mine and it is an important area of research that I feel can weigh heavily in support of our own positions within the alt right and I will discuss some of these later in this article.

Epigenetics essentially refers to phenomena and factors which modify the genome but do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. In layman’s terms external non-genetic events within our environments can and do have a direct impact on our own genetic make-up and the future genetic composition and gene expression of our descendants. That last bit is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. The technical process of how this works deals with DNA methylation impacting gene expression which produces what’s called a gene product (proteins are one type of gene product RNA being the other) which in turn allow for cell signaling – or a response to stimuli (among other things). The actual technical stuff underlying these terms isn’t important unless you’re an autist like me but essentially your DNA produces chemicals which tell your genes to express themselves which in turn creates a protein that allows for cell signaling or the ability to ‘communicate’ and respond to their surrounding microenvironment. The ultimate result of this process is numerous but one of them is going on right now – you’re reading this sentence and your body’s cells are doing a whole bunch of things on a very small level.

[...]

Social epigenetics offers the alt right and future White nationalists a scientific basis for putting forward our positions, one which doesn’t rely on purely phenomenological positions deriving from philosophy that lack any convincing material evidence. CRISPR forces a society that wants to adopt it as a tool for genetic change to recognize the legitimacy of inherent genetic traits in peoples and over time this will erode the cultural and social brainwashing which has claimed the contrary is true. Unless we and our children are to be slaves to someone else, and their ideology, then we ought to be able to choose the society, culture, and people we wish to live amongst otherwise we are being forcibly genetically modified by those who would seek to deny us this freedom. Fighting against an ideology or system of belief isn’t just about fighting against those specific beliefs anymore – not if you take into consideration the research on epigenetics. It also means considering the culture created by that ideology and the downstream effects it will have on your children and even their grandchildren.

Gene editing and epigenetics offer White nationalists a solid basis for reasserting topics of eugenics and a desire for specific genetic traits because these are implicitly affirmed and brought to the forefront as legitimate and desirable by technologies like CRISPR, the companies seeking to profit from them, and increasing research into the epigenetic effects on the human genome by our external environments (assuming a society adopts them which all evidence points to this becoming more likely). Keeping ourselves abreast of these advances and the current state of scientific research so as to be capable of crafting a message to our own as well as others will go a long way to maintaining the coherence of our movement among so many incoherent ideologies and will reflect a solid grasp on the future as a major incentive for those seeking stability and security in an increasing chaotic and unstable society.

Posted by JB responds to epigenetics on Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:42 | #

James Bowery

October 7, 2017 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

Before people resort to epigenetics, they need to understand extended phenotypics, which are as pervasive in nature as are parasites. And, this isn’t even controversial. Ironically, Dawkins laid into E. O. Wilson recently about the scientific paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak et al (including Wilson) because it supposedly supports “group selection”. What it really supports (and Wilson isn’t clear enough about this in his popular writings about it) is that the sterile castes are victims of extended phenotypics — in particular parasitic castration. The queen parasitically castrates her offspring to turn them into virtual body parts. Wilson’s failure to adequately describe this as extended phenotypics and Dawkins’s failure to see what Nowak et al are really saying is a kind of farce.

Those concerned about human ethology should seriously consider Dawkins’s notion of memetics in combination with extended phenotypics — but in a borderland Dawkins fears to tread: Memes as extended phenotypes of genes.

Dawkins says that memetic evolution is divorced from genetic evolution except insofar as psychological appeal selects for memes. Well, whence psychological appeal, Dick? Are we to assume that there can be no genetic component to psychological appeal that produces memes advantageous to the “selfish genes”?

But both Dawkins and Wilson fail to grasp the potential for parasites that utilize memes to in effect castrate competing populations, the way, say, a coevolved pathogen might serve as an biological weapon of conquest.

Such thoughts are, apparently beyond their powers of intellect. How strange.

But, as Dawkins says, in “The Extended Phenotype”:

“Do not expect to see animals always behaving in such a way as to maximize their own inclusive fitness. Losers in an arms race may behave in some very odd ways indeed. If they appear disoriented and unsure of their footing, this may be only the beginning.”

  Edmund Connelly
  October 8, 2017 - 5:44 am | Permalink

James, I’ve been reading you long enough to believe that when you write about the “extended phenotype,” you are thinking partially or primarily about Jews. And except for Rehmat’s mention of Jews in feminism, this critical factor regarding human civilization is ignored in Rosit’s article and most comments thus far.

We at TOO, however, generally do focus on the roles Jews play, and this discussion of epigenetics, I believe, desperately deserves a serious inclusion of consideration about Jewish behavior. The first question, to my mind, is “Are Jews are REACTION to other factors at play in the ups and downs of a specific civilization?” Or “Are Jews more properly understood as active agents significantly influencing the rise or fall of civilizations?”

Given my long acquaintance with TOO, I would say yes to the latter question, in which case Rosit and others should consider taking this Jewish factor into direct consideration, as it could result in many new insights indeed.

And Mr. Bowery, I know you have the intellect to entertain this issue as well, so I hope you will greatly expand on this topic, possibly as a stand-alone TOO essay.

James Bowery

October 8, 2017 - 11:19 am | Permalink

I am increasingly ill-disposed to invest much in “epigenetics” due to increasing signs of it becoming yet another intellectual movement akin to the 20th century movements that set human self-knowledge back a century or more. To wit: When various people — I know to have interest in avoiding the importance of genetics, let alone extended phenotypics — originally brought it to my attention, there was at least some semblance of intellectual rigor in relatively accessible places, not the least of which was the usually cultural Marxist Wikpedia. This was in evidence as the first thing I searched for was “meiosis” and it came right up in that article in passages that pointed out the meiotic epigenetic mechanism and the key points of controversy. The evidence didn’t look good for expansive implications then, but the resulting research questions were well enough defined that I expected progress in the form of fairly rapid invalidation or validation of those implications.

As time has gone on, the focus on meiotic mechanisms have been submerged in the multiplying accessible sources — becoming more and more reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould’s popular science writings. The Wikipedia article has expanded to 130k with “meiosis” (or its related words) occurring in only one place — a quote about the how term “epigenetic” is rigorously defined. That’s it. The rest of the article is basically the foggy, anti-Occam banter one will find in the Wikipedia article on “race”. Other easily accessible sources are about the same even as they multiply in number.

This stinks of a cover-up of the real results of research into the meiotic mechanisms of epigenetics and made me suspect it didn’t pan out except as squid ink response to the explosion of bioinformatics.

I’ll take another look, though.

In the mean time, the two big areas of heritability that I’ve point out the need for more attention — with direct application to the controversy over Hamilton’s inequality and human eusociality — remain utterly ignored by not only mainstream science but by the precious few courageous intellects in the beleaguered invisible college of human ethology:

1) Extended phenotypics, as I described above, and 2) Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy from Hamilton’s Rule:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/removing_lewontins_fallacy_from_hamiltons_rule

The latter, I believe, would shed light on the inclusive fitness vs parasitic castration controversy ignited by “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak et al. Henry Harpending, with whom I became acquainted when Salter, out of desperation, asked me to review Harpending’s math, kindly posted a public response to it at my invitation on my Feral Observations blog. However, as years went by and I became even more of a pariah, I felt obligated not to abuse his kindness by tainting his “normie” reputation, what little there remained of it after Salter’s book came out, and deleted any sign of his presence from my blog. IIRC, he seemed to think the proper approach would be something of a Monte Carlo simulation of the evolutionary dynamics (not that he used those terms). I, of course, regret that over the intervening years, I’ve lost track of my backup of his response

.

Posted by Hamilton's rule on Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:08 | #

Hamilton’s rule