Text 1005, 130 rader
Skriven 2004-12-12 21:43:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Hollowness of Hamilton's
================================



Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote

<snip>

> > > Hamilton's rule doesn't even assume a correlation
> > > between recipients and relatives.
> >
> > correlation in what?
>
> Correlation between being a recipient and being a
> relative.  Tim was saying that it is assumed that
> the donor can distinguish relatives from
> non-relatives and adjusts his behavior so that
> recipients are mostly relatives.  Tim is correct in
> claiming that if the donor does this, then there will
> be a positive "r" and the behavior will be favored by
> selection if the ratio of benefit to cost is high
> enough.

Oh, okay.  I agree.  Hamilton's rule makes no such
assumption.  (In fact, the ability to distinguish kin
so as to focus their altruistic behavior upon them is
one of the abilities that Hamilton's rule is supposed
to predict.)

> I pointed out that the rule still applies even if the
> donor bestows its altruism indiscriminately upon the
> general population ("r" of zero) or if the donor
> perversely bestows its altruism only on non-relatives
> (slightly negative "r").  The rule still works - it
> just doesn't predict the spread of altruism in these
> cases.

Okay, I get your point.  (That's not so say that I
think it actually achieves any of this.)

> > > If there is no correlation,
> > > then "r" is zero.
> >
> > Uh, you sure about that?
>
> Yes.  Well, to be more precise, it will be either
> zero or (-1/N), depending on whether you count
> yourself as a member of the population for
> purposes of calculating the correlation.
>
> Once again, let me recommend the paper by Grafen
> entitled "A Geometric View of Relatedness" for a
> clear description of what "r" means in Hamilton's
> rule.

Is it as Hamilton stated or is it not?  For example,
let's take one part of Hamilton's nonsense that
purportedly allows us to calculate relatedness of
individuals.  Does IBD actually measure relatedness
or is it, as I indicate, a vague abstraction that
is only peripherally indicative of relatedness?
Does Grafen speak to these issues?  (No, like
everybody else he just assumes it's validity.)

> > > Hamilton's rule works in all cases.
> >
> > Don't tell us.  Show us.  If you can show us even
> > one case where Hamilton's rule works (or if you
> > can just describe it so that it makes sense) I
> > will send you a check for 10 thousand dollars!
>
> No thanks.

As I expected.

<snip>

> But better yet, let me give you 2 cents worth of
> advice.  Most of the posters to this NG do not
> understand Hamilton.

All posters on this NG do not understand it,
including myself.  This is because it is nonsense.

> That is, they don't even understand what the rule
> *says*, let alone how it is derived.  And, to make
> it worse, the few that do understand it will often
> describe it imprecisely.
>
> Of those who do not understand it, most seem to
> accept it anyways, as I think you have observed.
> Some of these - notably Hoelzer and Tyler - accept
> it with reservations.  Apparently, they think that
> this stance makes them appear sophisticated.

Yes, it's a King's New Clothes phenomenon.  It
probably has something to do with surviving the peer
pressure of their discipline.

> But there are two people - you and John - who
> misunderstand what the rule says, and who are smart
> enough and ornery enough to point out that the rule,
>     **** as you misunderstand it ****
> cannot possibly be derived correctly.
>
> John's misunderstanding seems to be on the meaning
> of "b" and "c".  Yours appears to be regarding the
> meaning of "r". My advice, sir, is that you correct
> your misunderstanding, and keep the checkbook in the
> desk.  But you are obviously not going to correct
> your misunderstanding here on sbe. Attempting to do
> so will only deepen the misunderstanding.  Get a
> textbook. I would recommend the one by Maynard Smith.
> In it, you will find yet another recommendation of
> the Grafen paper.

Blah, blah, blah.  So you read Grafens paper, and the
light turned on.  But you are unable to explain it.
Gee, like I haven't heard this a hundred times before.
(By the way, there are many who make similar claims
with respect to reading the bible.)

Jim
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/12/04 9:43:01 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)