Comments on: The Price of Altruism

By: Luke Lea

Luke Lea — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:46:46 +0000

Sorry. From David B’s post then.

By: Razib

Razib — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:59:41 +0000

that’s not my post.

By: Luke Lea

Luke Lea — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:57:13 +0000

From your post on the Price equation: “it remains entirely a matter of fact whether or not the intergroup component of the formula is important in nature. I am not aware of much evidence that it is – if there were, enthusiasts for group selection would presumably bring it forward.”

But doesn’t that evidence depend upon how much we know about the distribution of various gene allels, which is still in an early state?

By: Razib

Razib — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:31:25 +0000

kind of had the same thought john.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:55:17 +0000

Prior to his work on evolution Price had corresponded with Paul Samuelson on the possibility of reworking the foundations of neoclassical economics, and, also had developed a close relationship with B. F. Skinner (though this soured as Price rejected Skinner’s Behaviorism

Without knowing exactly what Price said in either case, it seems very possible to me that the world would have been saved a lot of grief and stupidity if the other two guys had listened to him.

By: Razib

Razib — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:58:54 +0000

arosko, don’t take things too seriously :-) since i know you, i’ll just leave at that.

By: arosko

arosko — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:14:11 +0000

Why does it matter whether the term “dove” was influenced by Christianity? The suggestion was clearly not that the *concept* of the two behavior types is a result of Christianity, otherwise “hawk” would have to go too.

I don’t see how the name “dove” is any worse than if someone called a cone-shaped, bristly polymer a “Christmas tree molecule”. There is nothing Christian about either case.