Re: Reviews of Unto Others

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:50:33 +0000 (UTC)

"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:ce8ibf$301d$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > JE:-
> > > Altruism within Hamilton's rule is
> > > defined as any positive c. Do you
> > > agree or disagree?
>
> > JM:-
> > Disagree. Altruism is positive c and positive b.
> > Spite is positive c and negative b. So, positive
> > c could be either altruism or spite. It depends
> > on the sign of b.
>
> JE:-
> Spite is just a red herring that has
> no bearing on Hamiltonian altruism.
> UNLESS you (unlike Hamilton!)
> are arguing that spite can evolve,
> altruism is any positive c within
> the rule. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. Again. Altruism is any positive c and negative b.

Your claim that spite is a red herring indicates that you
understand nothing about philosophy, epistemology, or
Hamilton.

"rb>c" is not just about what can evolve. It is also
about what cannot evolve. If rb is actually greater than
c, then it evolves (ie. increases toward fixation). If
rb is actually less than c, then it "does not evolve" - it
decreases in frequency until it disappears from the
population entirely.

Hamilton's rule deals with all four possibilities - altruism,
spite, selfishness, and mutualism. Nothing but confusion
can result from your claim that altruism is any positive c.
Nothing but confusion can result from your claim that mutualism
is any negative c. Nothing but confusion can result from your
claim that mutualism and altruism are opposites. They are not.
The opposite of altruism is selfishness. The opposite of
mutualism is spite.

Furthermore, you are amazingly poorly informed if you
believe that Hamilton never suggested that spite could
evolve. His 1970 paper suggested that it actually could
evolve in certain weird situations - those in which the
organism could actually interact in such a way so that
"r" could be negative. There has been discussion of this
possibility within sbe just a few months ago. The situation
is that few, if any, examples of evolved spite have been
encountered in nature.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reviews of Unto Others
    ... >> Spite is just a red herring that has ... >> no bearing on Hamiltonian altruism. ... > about what cannot evolve. ... when measured in absolute fitness ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Reviews of Unto Others
    ... >> Altruism within Hamilton's rule is ... Spite is a Neo Darwinistic Red Herring. ... Hamilton never argued that spite could evolve, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Is there a religion gene?
    ... level of investment was factored in to the equation, ... tested using societies distorted by parasites - where parasitic ... But the equations don't just explain altruism - they also explain its ... and spite is bad; and that the theory doesn't do. ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Reviews of Unto Others
    ... > Altruism within Hamilton's rule is ... value of "b" is called SPITE. ... of "b" is called MUTUALISM. ... of "b" is called SELFISHNESS. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Entropy sources under WinXP
    ... You always evolve in spite of persistent scottish mines. ... might after Oliver investigates the lazy radio's slice? ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast