Re: Heritability of fitness


"Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dpkvt3$11gu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article dpjm4i$bgi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert J. Kolker at
> nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 1/5/06 9:48 AM:
>
>> Guy Hoelzer wrote:
>>>
>>> The relationship between the degree of population substructure and Ne is
>>> a
>>> source of widespread confusion. I have often commented on this
>>> relationship
>>> in sbe threads, but my comments don't seem to penetrate very far.
>>
>> I am not an expert in matters genetics. Could you tell me what Ne is?
>> He'p me, he'p me. Thank you.
>
> Ne stands for "effective population size." We have extensive and clear
> theory on the strength of genetic drift (random fluctuation in allele
> frequencies) in finite populations with an idealized population structure
> (well mixed, random mating, etc.), but real populations always differ from
> this ideal structure in idiosyncratic ways. Ne is a number representing
> the
> size of an ideal population that drifts to the same extent as some real
> population, thus the effective size of a real population need not be an
> integer. For example, the gene pool of a real population might drift as
> if
> it were an ideal population of size 11.3, which would be the Ne of the
> real
> population.
>
>> This stuff is fascinating. I have the math but not the genetics. Can you
>> suggest a good book I can read to catch on this? Thanks again.
>
> I'm not sure about a book to recommend specifically as an introduction to
> the Ne concept. There are several good reviews in the literature. You
> might look for review papers by Caballero (1994) or Len Nunney.
>
> I am currently working my way through an outstanding (IMHO) new book on
> mathematical theory in evolution. If that is what you are looking for, I
> highly recommend "Fitness landscapes and the origin of species" by
> Gavrilets
> (2004).
>
> Guy

Guy,

I may be one of those who would appreciate your stances (or current state of
your tentative and still forming views) on Ne. But, also, I may be typical
of many who would appreciate the value you have added except for the fact
that some of your best points in its regard have been made where you leapt
off too quickly (for us who have not focused in on it) into jargon and
mathematical models we were not ready for.

In my own case, I have seen in sbe and in many other formats far too many
statements well within my vocabulary and specialized focus, and which
portending blatant flaws -- to have a desire to do the work of deciphering
something expressed in language esoteric among specialists only, and
expressed in mathematical syntaxes that require some rigor to follow.

Alas, I not only have suspected that some grossly unrealistic assumptions
have been treated as "facts... I not only have suspected that some grossly
inept syntaxes have been utilized to express ideas they do not
work well with... I also have on more than one occasion UNDERTAKEN the labor
of teasing out from some such thing its underlying presumptions and
calculations and found their underpinnings to be shot full of holes.

This is not to say I immediately assume that some esoteric jargon and
mathematical syntaxes conceal
feet of clay; but to say that they require a lot of effort which in at least
SOME instances is not worth the effort.

Whether anybody likes it or not, I believe one of the truest tests of
whether someone with "advanced and complex ideas" should be able to
articulate those ideas at levels of understanding by someone of above
average intelligence who has not become familiar with a special realm of
research. Furthermore I am inclined to look back now at things I took as
being very erudite at some prior time, say, twenty years ago, which I now
have reached a level of understanding to see the fallacies in... and now
have reached a sufficient level of being able to articulate to the
understanding of another layman exactly what is concealed by fancy words and
rigorous syntaxes that do not -- by virtue of sounding impressive -- impress
when laid bare.

What puzzles me is how often someone would impress me, or others, with an
opinion in which he summons quotes of great men out of proper context, or
jumps into math unfamiliar to those whom he would impress.

I may have told you this before, but the best example I can give of what is
wrong with a stilted picture is a professor I once knew who, when among
people who did not know French, spoke French. And the moment someone
objected to something he said in French, he was off into speaking German,
until someone responded in German, he resorted to Latin, and if someone
objected to the Latin he launched into mathematics... Or, if he quoted one
philosopher, and someone knew more about that philosopher than he did, he
jumped immediately into quoting another.

Several professors one day, knowing he would appear at a particular social
gathering, set him up to teach him a lesson. They put their heads together
and arranged to have on hand someone specializing in each and every one of
the specializations any of them had heard him broach.

The day came, and the shock of it was more than the poor man could stand.
He literally was reduced to a shaken semblance of his former self and left
the gathering quite secretively.

I wish I knew the rest of the story. I hope it resulted in that professor's
deciding to learn to use his many non-expert, jack-of-many-subjects talents
in a manner designed to BETTER communicate what he was thinking to any given
audience as opposed to playing a heady game of "impress by a game of
veritable keep away." Since the kind of behavior resulting in such games of
"keep away" might tend to be associated with over-compensations deriving
from feelings of INADEQUACY, I tend to believe the "lesson" taught him might
not have been taught him, because what he MIGHT have needed, instead of
being utterly brought down, was to have been befriended and encouraged to
communicate his ideas with a view of being understood, rather than
concealed.

A friend of mine who is a licensed marriage and family counselor has
informed me that he has a client who unconsciously appears to work at being
rejected, so that he can feel himself to be a veritable martyr, and fault
those who do not appreciate his high intelligence. Yes, the man is
intelligent. But he is a victim of his own game of self-martyrdom (not, of
course, in the sense of dying, but of having his ego killed again and again,
only to resurrect itself like a Phoenix, from the ashes of his enimization
of others, and I avoid the spelling enema-zation quite deliberately, even
though it might figuratively be apropos.
(Incidentally my counselor friend, having no success in getting the
not-so-gentleman to admit to his game, has referred him to a shrink, who
might take the client down to a level of addressing feelings below the level
of his conscious motives, and try to bring about a catharsis from there.)

The point here is NOT to insinuate that the motives of anyone contributing
sbe are similarly sick. The point is merely to say that there are
individuals such as I who are ready, willing, able and EAGER to be
communicated with about such things as Ne at a level which might first take
us through some fundamental definitions and assumptions of those whose work
relies upon their application, and THEN, assuming what can be communicated
from that, we might become quite interested in your take on it, and from
there become sufficiently interested to pursue familiarity with the fancy
nomenclature and mathematical modeling.

I make no presumption here that you, or any other person in your specialty,
particularly gives a hang whether anyone outside your professional inner
circle becomes familiar, or interested, in what is important to you. You
are a nice guy (as well as a nice Guy) and a gentleman and a scholar; so I
am merely assuming that your lamentation of no one's having responded
enthusiastically to your revelations (jargonally or mathematically) might
extend to someone such as I.

I like you regardless, and am happy to say that, of what you DO say that is
not outside my areas of interest and familiarity (such as they may be) is
very sensible to me, and very interesting.

I would like nothing more than to be told, in layman's language, of your (or
your specialty's) stances on the matter of Ne, and how you derive, or
appreciate someone else's derival, that got you there.

If you do not have the time nor the inclination to bring it to a less
esoteric level, that is nothing I would fault. On the other hand, if you DO
have the time and the inclination, and do undertake to bring it to the level
of some of us outside your special field of focus, then I would be grateful
for it.

In either case, let me wish you much respect and happy results to your
research,

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Monte Carlo computer go methods
    ... As for "historical" character in mathematics ... Sophie Germain was one of the great mathematicians ... history of mathematics. ... a brief introduction to "Sylver Coinage" in his game theory ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Wittgenstein and the philosophy of mathematics
    ... apart from most other philosophies of mathematics. ... truth or falsity to axioms, in mathematics, that our agreeing to work ... matter of convention, but rather something determined as a matter of ... played have no meaning outside the context of the game. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: the Mathematics of Chess
    ... Anything that has patterns is mathematics. ... Just cause you don't understand math ... The best way I can what your brain is doing in a game is it trying to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
    ... Earlier in the game, it merely found ways to continue ... win was not supported by any evidence. ... more complex than chess? ... draw with perfect play is precisely a statement of mathematics and, ...
    (rec.games.chess.analysis)
  • Re: Are you guys really such a bunch of wimps .....
    ... mathematics IS just a senseless game with symbols. ... L.E.J. Brouwer, according to: ... discarded the formalist view that mathematics is a meaningless game ...
    (sci.math)
Loading