Re: A DECLARATION OF MEANING

From: Malcolm (malcolm_at_55bank.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 08/05/04 

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 00:15:15 +0000 (UTC)

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> This is also wrong. At least as Hamilton defined inclusive fitness in
> 1964. He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), where K would be
> the fitness that an organism would have if all social interactions were
> excluded (and the costs of those interactions).
>
The problem is that the formula works fine if only one interaction is
possible, but it gets more complex when the recipient recycles some of the
resources back to other relatives, some of whom may be more closely related
to the donor than to him.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A DECLARATION OF MEANING
    ... > the fitness that an organism would have if all social interactions were ... described as the "inclusive fitness consequences" of an action. ... > Hamilton defined it maximize together only if there are no pleiotropic ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: free-will
    ... It's all decided through social interactions. ... There's nothing in Symbolic Interactionism that would reject science, or provable truths. ...
    (misc.writing)