Message from @Nemets

Discord ID: 529034658218770463


2018-12-30 20:10:59 UTC  

hamilton's rule comes into play here

2018-12-30 20:11:14 UTC  

I think it can happen at the group level for humans cause most of the propositions by David Sloan Wilson is that the compositions of groups matter. For example, the simple saying of selfish individuals best altruists but a group of altruists in theory would beat a group of selfish individuals. So at least group selection could have a say in the composition or the frequency of strategies in groups. coordinating mechanisms which would happen at a genetic level such as ethnocentrism would matter also

2018-12-30 20:12:56 UTC  

What’s Hamilton’s rule?

2018-12-30 20:13:23 UTC  

Oh ok inclusive fitness

2018-12-30 20:14:02 UTC  

I agree that inclusive fitness is real but it can be unified with ethnocentric or genetic similarity theory; you interact with those that look like you

2018-12-30 20:14:24 UTC  

Whites are more comfortable and trustworthy among whites, not just their immediate and extended family

2018-12-30 20:15:01 UTC  

So I guess they are proposing an even longer chain of inclusive fitness with some hard demarcation points; racism. Some people really won’t trade or economically interact or reproduce with another race

2018-12-30 20:16:18 UTC  

Such as how Ashkenazim Jews have to a large extent kept themselves genetically excluded from other populations for quite a long time, the genetic cluster is moving together in a way, in a “groupish” way

2018-12-30 20:18:56 UTC  

Like just to add another point look at how Identity Europa makes European descent a membership requirement

2018-12-30 20:19:54 UTC  

I think we are slowly erecting barriers, as we should, reproductively, economically etc and only interacting with ourselves to a large degree and I think strategies like this are the beginning to a “group evolutionary strategy” or an experiment in living

2018-12-30 20:22:18 UTC  

not sure if everyone views their own race as most trustworthy - a lot of whites here in CA greatly prefer our mestizo, asian and subcon neighbors to conservative whites

2018-12-30 20:22:39 UTC  

in group racial preference is socially and culturally conditioned to a large extent

2018-12-30 20:22:57 UTC  

in past, religion was the largest divide, and in many parts of the world it still is

2018-12-30 20:23:54 UTC  

as for the ashkenazim - they are hardly unique. karelians are still clearly distinct from other finns today, but they little conception of nationhood and are being absorbed into russian and finnish populations rapidly

2018-12-30 20:24:47 UTC  

just doesn't seem likely that racial in group preference is a genetic trait - although in group preference in general might be

2018-12-30 20:27:25 UTC  

Whites are different than most groups and that is why we are in trouble, and a poor example of ethnocentrism or group selection since we probably were not under as much group selection while up in the north according to Kevin Macdonald. We act more on an individualist style. And I don’t disagree that some Religions can operate across ethnic boundaries but that doesn’t mean it is a better strategy compared to religion that is highly homogenous. The more homogenous a religion/group/society the more trust and cooperation because you can bet those that look like you have more of your genes and that is probably how xenophobia, Ethnocentrism racism etc arose. and so I would argue that racial ingroup preference is TOTALLY a genetic trait and would probably arise cause the more accurately you can determine who has your similar genes the better it would be to know who to mate and with for genetic similarity.

2018-12-30 20:29:37 UTC  

So Altruism can increase if you keep yours genetically closed off for quite a time because everyone will become more similar to each other. Nothing close to inbreeding of course, but I would emphasize Ashkenazim Jews ARE unique because they are the only people to be a dispersed or diaspora people to erect genetic barriers. To do so without a physical nation is an impressive feat

2018-12-30 20:33:49 UTC  

neither whites nor azhkenazim are particularly unique. Chinese of the Tang dynasty invited in hordes of iranians and turks, and provided them with plenty of opportunities which they immediately abused. Same for the Hindus with the Moslems in the subcontinent, iranians with their turkic and arab minorities, congo with its tutsis, etc. not all that different from white foolishness.

2018-12-30 20:34:32 UTC  

as for the ashkenazim, check out the armenians of the various caliphates, the sogdians of the tang era, the greeks of the middle ottoman period, italians of the levant during crusader times, etc

2018-12-30 20:34:51 UTC  

gujarati merchants and tamil brahmins are other good examples

2018-12-30 20:35:02 UTC  

I wouldn’t know any of that and I’m missing the point really

2018-12-30 20:35:05 UTC  

very little outbreeding from those groups

2018-12-30 20:35:10 UTC  

Oh ok

2018-12-30 20:38:02 UTC  

Well then I would just say whether anybody is unique or not I would just like to make the point that very little outbreeding is far superior in competition to other mixing of races so I’m just trying to say the Ashkenazim are a good case study of group selection and whites are a poor example unless we are giving a lot of motive to do so. I’m just trying to affirm group selection

2018-12-30 20:40:50 UTC  

Have you checked out Kevin Macdonalds work on Judaism?

2018-12-30 20:41:47 UTC  

not yet - I've been meaning to

2018-12-30 20:42:03 UTC  

It is a good case for group selection

2018-12-30 20:42:27 UTC  

I’m currently reading his first book and a lot of people don’t address his and David Wilson’s claims directly. They usually strawman

2018-12-30 20:42:53 UTC  

Which is understandable cause if you accept group selection for humans people are going to start looking at Kevin Macdonalds work more

2018-12-30 20:47:28 UTC  

Does it have the math showing how genes promoting group selection spread through a population?

2018-12-30 20:48:31 UTC  

Been a while since I read a population genetics book, but have vague memory the numbers for group selection didn’t work out

2018-12-30 20:48:57 UTC  

That specific book doesn’t I don’t believe. I can look through David Sloan Wilson’s paper at the top and see what he has to say though. He makes a good case

2018-12-30 20:52:40 UTC  

I’ll type out a quote and tell me what you think. A lot of it still evades me

2018-12-30 20:53:46 UTC  

The
rejection of group selection was based largely on
theoretical plausibility arguments (5, 11), which made it
seem that between-group selection requires a delicate
balance of parameter values to prevail against within-group
selection. These early models were published at a time when
D. S. Wilson and E. O. Wilson 8
the desktop computing revolution, complexity theory, and
appreciation of such things as social control (12) and
cultural transmission (13, 14) were barely on the horizon.
It therefore means something when group selection has become
more plausible, according to more recent theoretical models.
All of the early models assumed that altruistic and
selfish behaviors are caused directly by corresponding
genes, which means that the only way for groups to vary
behaviorally is for them to vary genetically. Hardly anyone
regards such strict genetic determinism as biologically
realistic today. And in fact it was assumed in the models
primarily to simplify the mathematics. Yet, when more
complex genotype-phenotype relationships are built into the
models, the balance between levels of selection can be
easily and dramatically altered (15).

2018-12-30 20:55:29 UTC  

Their models are getting more accurate and certain assumptions which are faulty are being overturned. I can give you another example from the paper of how if, within a population of bacteria, to many cheaters reproduce the population will fail. So once again composition of groups can determine a "shared fate" for groups

2018-12-30 20:56:42 UTC  

Although this isn't a human example, it is at least one example for bacteria.

2018-12-30 20:57:37 UTC  

Some of the best recent evidence for group selection comes from microbial organisms, in part because they are such efficient systems for ecological and evolutionary research spanning many generations.

2018-12-30 20:59:01 UTC  

The "wrinkly spreader" (WS) strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens evolves in response to anoxic conditions in unmixed liquid medium, by producing a cellulosic polymer that forms a mat on the surface. The polymer is expensive to produce, which means that nonproducing "cheaters" have the highest relative fitness within the group.

2018-12-30 21:00:02 UTC  

As the cheaters spread, the mat deteriorates and eventually sinks to the bottom. WS is maintained in the total population by between-group selection, despite its selective disadvantage within groups, exactly as envisioned by multilevel selection theory (Rainey and Rainey 2003)

2018-12-30 21:06:07 UTC  

he's saying that we weren't calculating for polygenetic traits back when their theory was first proposed, and that current computer models show that their theory is plausible