Re: Underestimating 'r'

"Perplexed in Peoria" (jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> Actually, criticisms of Hamilton's thinking are very rare. What is
> common is criticism of strawmen - criticisms of false notions as to
> what Hamilton's thinking was.

Can you point me to a good introductory article
or newsgroup post on Hamilton's thinking?

> If we are looking at, for example, social behaviors which take place
> between siblings - two cheetah cubs from the same litter, say, there is
> no point in not truncating the tree. The right r to use is 1/2, even
> if the population is somewhat inbred. The cub is competing within that
> inbred population. It will have no particular good will toward a
> third cousin if every other cheetah is a third cousin. And its good
> will toward its sibling is not increased because its sibling is also
> another third cousin.

I generally agree. This is an important point.

> You seem to be agreeing with McGinn here that the absolute degree of
> similarity between donor and recipient is important in the justification
> for altruism. It is not. What is important is the degree to which
> the recipient is more closely related to the donor than is a member
> of the general breeding and competing population.

I don't see it that way; and can you define what you
mean by "more closely related"?

It might happen (in theory at least) in an inbred population
that both siblings and pairs of random members of the population
almost always have completely identical genes. Yet genes
favouring altruism towards siblings could still thrive.

What's important is the degree to which an individual
with an altruism gene
can estimate that another individual likely also has
that particular altruism gene.
Or something like that.

The altruistic behaviour towards siblings will
still continue even when all members of the population
have that same gene. At that time, the altruistic
behaviour is not actually causing an increase in the
occurrence of that gene. Only when an occasional
mutation causes some other variations to be
present will the altruistic gene have a competetive
advantage of some sort. The usual situation may
still be favouring siblings who have the gene over
third cousins who also have that same gene.

Altruism towards third cousins is less common
not only because third cousins are less related,
but also because an individual is less likely to
know that someone is their third cousin (or to
have behaviour, specified in the genes, that will
somehow benefit third cousins in particular).
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hollowness of Hamiltons Rule
    ... > carries the gene for altruism, ... > to its fitness, which means that it will pass on fewer copies of the ... selection event has ever been documented ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Holowness of SBE
    ... > can be characterized as a kind of altruism to individuals with an ... only additive gene by gene information is heritable, ... of selection, as Hamilton was. ... gene level of selection forcing organism fitness ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Perpetually Perplexed
    ... Hamilton's incomplete fitness total rb it ... Once again no Darwinian altruism ... gene level of selection within the bodies ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Nonsense
    ... What are the preadaptations for altruism? ... is parental nurturing. ... nurturing behaviors/morphologies. ... "What we are interested in is under what circumstances a "gene for" ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • ISRAELI RESEARCHERS FIND ALTRUISM GENE
    ... Israeli researchers find 'altruism gene' ... The first gene linked to altruistic behavior has been ... Ebstein, a psychologist, and colleagues at the Hebrew ...
    (sci.med)
Quantcast