Reading this I thought, when kjmtchl writes something it is really good.

Hbd* chick (see her blog) has suggested that libertarianism flourishes in populations whose members are not bound by much inclusive fitness, the most notable case being the white population of the United States in which we have a number of (mostly) European ethnicities that have recently melded together (contrast to Sweden and Germany for example, to say nothing of Japan. At the opposite pole we have societies composed to tribes and clans due to high degrees of consanguineous marriages, as we see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, libertarianism (or more generally individualism) and "amoral familism," as it has been called, can be understood as value systems shaped by the amount of out-breeding vs. inbreeding in the society concerned. By this measure they are literally poles apart. For myself I think Hbd* chick is on to something. She does good work, for the most part relying on secondary literature which she scours for data.

Damn, if I were younger I might go into neuroscience! When you write about it it starts to make sense. Have you considered neuroscience journalism?

Nicely written! "Love thy neighbor as thy self" came to mind while reading this sentence: "Moral behaviour arose in humans as an extension of the biological systems involved in recognition and care of mates and offspring." Also, concerning the "universality" of (certain) moral values: the ideal of an international order based on reason and justice in place of force and fraud makes sense in the nuclear age, a matter of collective, enlightened self-interest. Or at least it could be seen that way. The Hebraic idea of God was originally conceived in those terms (minus nuclear weapons, but as a matter of enlightened self-interest) at least by my close reading of the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis (not the Mosaic period later). The early Hebrews were a small, weak trading people who depended on their reputation for honesty and fair-dealing to survive in a matrix of powerful city-states among whom they lived and moved and "had their being." The idea of a just God who would protect the weak was later taken up by the masses of ordinary peasants and craftsmen as a matter of (perhaps unenlightened) self-interest. At least this is a possible reading. But again, that was a great piece of synthesis.

Not to worry, this will never pass constitutional muster on 1st amendment grounds -- freedom of speech, press.

Interesting are the outliers in the center, France at the top and U.S. at the bottom.

Nice.

But fix link to "one team" of scholars.

Biography, regional studies, and literature are indispensable for getting a feel for texture and complexity of American history. Here are a few books from those fields that I found to be outstanding. Harrite Beecher Stowe's "Poganuc People" for life in Puritan New England. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson together with Franklin's writings in New America edition to get a feel for his America. American Sphinx for Thomas Jefferson Friedman's 5 volume biography of Washington -- sorry, doesn't seem to be anything shorter that gets his character across, and with him character was everything. There is no single outstanding biography of Lincoln, unfortunately, but you get great insights from Edmund Wilson's biographical sketch in his Patriotic Gore, plus leads on lots of other gems in American literature of the period. Lincoln's law partner's oral history of Lincoln's friends The first volume of Beveridge's biography of Lincoln gives good descriptions of what life was really like on the American frontier during that period. Sandburg's 6 volume biography of Lincoln has tons of material on Lincoln and his times. The best part is you get to be your own editor. Uncle Tom's Cabin is not to be missed -- one of the great novels in American history. Olmstead's "Cotton Kingdom" for a journalistic account of life in the South right before the Civil War The Civil War series on public television is indispensible for the war itself. Moving south, Remini's one volume paperback condensation of his biography of Jackson has all the essential facts and tells a great story. Flush Times in Alabama is a hilarious collection of satires and tall tales about life on the Alabama frontier by a Virginia gentlemen eyewitness with literary talent. Cash's Mind of the South is THE book about the South by a literary genius. For the 20th century, the first two volumes of Geoffrey C. Ward's biography of Roosevelt is by far the best of the best. Francis Perkins oral history online at Columbia University is a funny, fastastic inside story of the first half of the century. I especially like her accounts of her early history and times spend with Governors Smith and Roosevelt in Albany and beginning of the New Deal. All of the above are chosen for their good writing as well as informational qualities, culled from a lot of second-rate work.

I will miss him too.

Is the human brain the lowest entropy object of its size known? In other words, considering (a) the complexity of the genome, (b) the complexity of the cell, (c) the number and complexity of the interconnectedness of the neurons, and (d) whatever molecular changes take place within and between neurons in the process of learning, is the relative improbability of the arrangement of the atoms in a mature human brain greater than that of any other object (not counting other brains)? By relative improbability I mean the ratio of possible arrangements equivalent to the present state of a brain to the total number of possible arrangement of the same set of atoms? I would think so but I haven't seen any mathematical analysis of the problem.

"two components: one of which depends on the covariance between the fitness of individuals in the ‘parent’ generation and their own possession of the gene in question, and the other of which depends on any change of frequency of the gene among the offspring as compared with their own parents." Would you restate (elaborate) that again in different words? thanks

It's this second point that I don't quite get. How does it differ from the first? Give a simple example. thanks,

I see. Thanks. Does this relate to the fact that under the Price Equation group selection is (or so I read) theoretically possible but highly unlikely? What about a proxies for inclusive fitness, such as "we grew up in the same small hunter/gatherer band together"? That would correlate with kinship. Would the result be considered group selection in the non-kin sense? Seems like it would.

Oh, a mutation! But that's pretty rare. Are there other examples? BTW, we are talking alleles not genes I suppose? Can you give a good not a-sexual example? Does it work better if you work with sub-populations instead of individual couples?

David, excuse me, but let me amend my question: Can you give a simple non-a-sexual example that does not involve mutation? Does "transmission bias" refer to mutation or something else? I couldn't find a definition for transmission bias on the web. Thanks again for your patience.

Sorry. From David B's post then.

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?

In my grammar school days I remember my friends and I would sometimes have tickling contests to see who could hold out the longest. It began at a distance of a few feet, from which your friends approached you with fingers awiggling. I usually folded before they got to me. In fact most people did.

On nonhuman vocal learning in Bengalese Finch? Sorry but couldn't help laughing. Welcome anyway.