I think the recent topic there is a 5 dimensional cultural parametrization of various societies that I like to call the LINGOSPHERES of the world. And I have suggested that such LINGOSPHERES can have a DIAMETER that can be quantified based on a metric, which quantity is a measure of the society's gravity or cohesion. Fun stuff, nice to discover your site. I was a bit mystified by globalization in water, but i'll come more often to understand such things a lil better. My blog is less than 2 months old, but I've already met so many interesting people, like TDAXP>THANKS.

Thanks for the comment. Dr. Kurzban discussed memetics without naming it, and had a lot of good to say about Dr. Dawkins. Specifically, he believed that anyone who red The Selfish Gene [1] was “80% along in understanding evolution.” Interestingly, he was critical of Stephen Jay Gould. Kurzban said that Gould just wasn't a top evolutionary biologist, and that Gould overemphasized punctuated equibilibrium.

Interesting, Kurzban said human intelligence could not have evolved during puncuated equilibrium — what I have previously called periods of revolutionary remodeling [2]. Too many things have to evolve at once, in Kurzban's views, to get intelligent masss competition/nonkin-cooperation. And since this is an existence proof of slow darwinian evolution, Kurzban would say that there is no longer a need for puncuated equilibrium.

(To me, it seems that Dr. Kurzban was using an “irreducible complexity” argument in favor of Darwinism, which is somewhat ironic… )

Primarily, Dr. Kurzban believes that humans are strongly influenced by genetically evolved behaviors and ability. For instance, he views strong male cooperation, female hierarchical scrambling, dancing, etc, as genetically pre-built. It's possible to socialize against these behaviors (some cultures discourage dancing) and add additional behaviors (such as socially constructed racism), but humans can “default” to their genetic behaviors absent social sanctions very quickly.

For comparison, while Dr Hibbing's speech [3] emphasized genetic differences within a population, Dr. Kurzban talked about ways all humans seem to be similar.

I think Kurzban's politically correct enemies do know better. They realize that if human beings have such a strong internal nature, creating their New Style Society will be very expensive. Likewise, a generally conservative society becomes “cheaper.” Discrediting Kurzban (who I assume is a fellow liberal) is a rational political move by feminists, ethnic identitists, the editors of Scientific American, etc.

Interestingly blog [4], btw. Fascinating seeing a Philippines-Iraq comparison from a filipino perspective.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192860925/002-8053330-8680837?v=glance&n=283155
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/21/globalization-is-water-the-magic-cloud.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/03/the-dna-of-politics.html
[4] http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/

It would be interesting, though I'm certain a highly controversial proposition, to assign certain behavioral characteristics in evolutionary psychology under ” the genetic heritage” box in Boyd's OODA loop.

Wonder what Chet Richards would think of that ?

I agree completely. I think as long as one believes in a “human nature,” it's a given.

Genetic heritage is a constantly changing process that constantly works with culture, memories, analysis/synthesis, and new information to create Orientation. This is what I was getting at in Section V of “The Magic Cloud,” and what Boyd, Richards, and others are getting at in their representation of OODA as well [2].

However, while genetics can give weight to certain behaviors, it is just one of many sub-processes under Orientation. As Dr. Kurzban said, “There is no evolutionary reason for anything. There are evolutionary and environmental reasons for everything.” Genetics operates in the context of the magically cloudy process known of reality.

An example of this is the famous “Bobo Doll” experiment in educational psychology. [3] When young children, of any sex, see a model attack a doll, they become much more likely to attack the doll as well. However, the ways they attack the doll depends on their prior experience: young boys will innovate by telling the doll that they will kill it, young girls will attack the doll with smaller toys, etc.

The one behavior (a child attacking the doll) depends on genetics (the genetic heritage makes emulating violence very likely, play-use of tools like smaller dolls as weapons), culture (I bet Western boys are far less likely to behead dolls than middle-eastern boys, though gunviolence is just as deadly) prior experience (boys giving threatening speeches like in movies), and analysis/syntehsis (children tying these behaviors together to create novel violence)

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/21/globalization-is-water-the-magic-cloud.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop
[3] http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm

Of course I'm not being argumentative — just theatrical — because I too enjoy the show at tdaxp. Thanks to the host.

Dr. Kurzban focused on the evolution of genes.

So for example, suicide would be a genetically evolved trait to increase the spread of ones genes. Perhaps individuals who commit suicide have more successful offpsring than if they didn't: think of all the resources a mentally ill person might use if they had to be cared for.

Likewise, “liberty,” “war,” etc may be memes, but they are here because of genetics. All groups want to see free-riders punished, and male-groups especially want to organize for competition against potential competitors. If “liberty” is a form of cooperation which is more productive — if it is a more efficient tool for this evolutionary drive — it will naturally spread.

However, he repeated praised Dawkins, so it would be interesting to have him go into his thoughts on memetics in some detail.

He actually used the phrase “of course, this is hand-waving” at a few points, to let us know when the data wasn't as good as other places. Dr. Kurzban is a top-notch scientist.

Thanks for the kind words, btw

I suspect that it's another thing, or a few things.

Similar to your idea, a suicide of a mentally ill person cleans up the system. Not only do others not need to waste resources caring for such a person, but that person is no longer around to threaten their siblings, family members, neighbors. Plus, the suicide is no longer using resources himself. Offspring no longer need to compete with the parent for resources if the parent commits suicide — but, also, mentally ill offspring leave the stage and other offspring can recieved more focused attention (care-giving) from the parent. (Different paths to success via suicide.)

Secondly, on the issue of offspring, I've noticed that many children who lose parents at an early age tend to mature a bit faster if they don't have mom and pop to always look after them. They learn to take care of themselves.

In relevence to this, I would like to put in a quote from the book Origins of Genius by Dean Keith Simonton pg.115

“Several investigators have found the incidence rates of parental losses than what holds true for the rest of the population. Thus, one ambitious study of 699 eminent figures of world history discovered that 61% lost a parent before age 31, 52% before 26 and 45% before 21. Another study of 301 geniuses found that over one-fifth were plagued by orphanhood A follow-up investigation, also based on famous people from all area of accomplishment, discovered that nearly one-third had lost their fathers early on.”

Now, this doesn't account for suicide versus natural death, but it does pose an interesting situation, and also calls to mind the question of nature vs. nuture.

When Dr. Hibbing gave a lecture on evolutionary politics a while ago, he looked at how correlated “trauamatic life events” were too suicide. The answer was very slightly.

However, then he looked at when corrected for certain genetic populations. (I cannot remember the details of this). Suddenly the “very slight” correlation was split into one genetic population whose propensity for suicide did not increase, another whose increased slightly, and another whose skyrocketed.

Is the answer nature or nurture? Yes.

I'll be taking a human creativity and expertise seminar next semester, so perhaps I will know more then