I saw a story today about some radiation-related quackery being flogged to unsuspecting members of the Japanese public.
Some of the most anxious are the parents of young children, who experts say are the most vulnerable to the effects of radiation.
And, I would add, these parents in turn are the most vulnerable to the effects of snake oil sellers. The con-men are selling their “tests” at 8,400 yen per child, it appears.
Recalling that Doug mentioning Ene-news as a source, I decided to see how they were talking about it. Check the comments! 
To preempt certain comment directed towards Japanese, note that the UK government recently fell for bomb detecting quackery. And a darling of the anti-nuclear village teepee compound, Christopher Busby, also sold anti-radiation quackery.
And just to keep Laxman happy, I hear both CJ and Mr Arudou bought one. 
@VK:
Source please.
Nothing I have written suggests I have Nazi views.
Previously, you suggested I hated Jews. Then you learned I’m Jewish.
Now, you’re once again have suggested I have Nazi views.
Please quote whatever sentence I wrote that led you to that mistaken assumption.
@Anonymous:
Let’s look at what you’ve said:
- Racial mixing results in social disorder as a result of genetic incompatibility? Check.
- The races of the Earth are in competition with each other, and are different like separate species are different? Check.
- Jews, more than any others, lie and are obsessed with money? Check.
- Jews are obsessed with their ability to dominate other races? Check.
- Dodgy and dogmatic misinterpretation of biology to give all of the above a veneer of “science”? Check. (I mean – you even reject Dawkins’ clarifications because they don’t fit your desired interpretation!)
It all looks a bit Nazi to me.
Being Jewish wouldn’t stop you being a Nazi, by the way. Dan Burros is a good example, and there are have even been some Israeli neo-Nazis.
If you’re shocked by being called a Nazi, you might use the opportunity afforded by your anonymity to reflect on the views you hold, rather than simply reject the suggestion out of hand because it’s publicly unpleasant. Nazism as a set of ideas didn’t develop ab ovo among a small group of odd people in 1920s Germany. They fed on a long tradition of prejudice that still lingers in Western society about races, group dominance and Jews. The biggest mistake is to think that because your ancestors fought against or suffered at the hands of Hitler, that you are therefore innoculated against sharing to any degree any of the same views.
So be more shocked at what you’ve said rather than at the accusation.
“I am not saying how we humans morally OUGHT to behave. I simply saying how we humans ACTUALLY behave. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved.
I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous [like VK], who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what IS the case from an advocacy of what OUGHT to be the case.
My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true: human society IS based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness.
This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us TRY TO TEACH generosity and altruism, because we ARE BORN SELFISH.
A predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will USUALLY give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour.
SOMTIMES, the gene selfishness will give rise to altruism in individual behavior. There are SPECIAL circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a LIMITED form of altruism at the level of individual animals. Altrusim at the level of individual is SPECIAL and LIMITED, and USUALLY doesn’t happen. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.”
Our genes instruct us to be selfish, we are not genetically programmed to be altruistic. It is difficult to learn altruism, but it is POSSIBLE for culturally taught values to override genetic programming.
Among animals, man is uniquely dominated by culture, by influences learned and handed down. Some say that culture is so important that genes are virtually irrelevant to the understanding of human nature. I disagree. It all depends where you stand in the debate over ‘nature versus nurture’ as determinants of human attributes. I believe in nature over nurture. Genes are vitally relevant to the determination of modern human behaviour, if we are not unique among animals in this respect. Our species is not so exceptional as we might like to think, so it is very important that we should study the rule of selfishness. Selfishness is programmed into each individual human body (the disposable replicator-vehicle) by its genes (the immortal replicator).
I show how both individual selfishness (the usual behavior, practiced the majority of the time) and individual altruism (the rare behavior, practiced in limited special cases) are explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness. And even when those rare cases of individual altruism towards others in the same species are found, often it turns out on closer inspection that those rare acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise.”
- Richard Dawkins
Yeah, the gay got embarrassed over time, and in his later foreword he wrote, “I wasn’t thinking clearly when I wrote The Selfish Gene in 1975. It was not until 1978 that I began to think clearly about the distinction between ‘vehicles’ (usually organisms) and the ‘replicators’ that ride inside them. Please mentally delete all rogue sentences about selfishness which I wrote, and instead substitute my newly revised theory that the natural-selection-evolved-selfishness of the replicators DON’T make the replicator-vehicles act selfishly most of the time [which obviously conflicts with the 1976 quotes above.]
So VK, the reality of Universal Selfishness, starting with the Gene and leading all the way up through individuals, families, tribes, races, and species, is something I admit, and something Richard Dawkins admitted (before he decided in 1978 to start back-pedaling by asking us to mentally delete sentences he wrote published in 1976).
I don’t like this reality, neither does Richard Dawkins, but the fact is this reality exists.
- Racial mixing results in social disorder, this is a fact, but I don’t agree with the Nazi idea of segregation.
- Jews, more than any others, lie to amass money better than most, and this money is taken from mentally weak Goys using clever meme-marketing, false-flag-operations, and media-dominance, yes these are facts, but again I don’t agree with the Nazi idea of segregation. Of course the losers (the goys) will eventually want to retaliate against the winners (the Jews), but I of course don’t support such retaliation. It doesn’t matter which group is currently winning the competition known as life. It is foolish for you to say, “Whoever points out the current winners happen to be Jews is a Nazi.” If the current winners were Sub-Saharan-Africans, I would point out that reality. If the current winners were Asians, I would point out that reality. If the current winners were Caucasians, I would point out that reality. Is pointing out which people exhibit the most successful selfish behavior somehow akin to Nazi-ism? Obviously VK, in your mind, it is.
We should TRY to override our inherited nature-based selfish programming by teaching our children lots of nurture-based altruistic morals.
The fact remains that the groups that succeed in this competition called life do so because they DON’T try to override their inherited selfish programming, they somehow unconsciously KNOW that following that genetic programming of selfishness leads to greater material comforts for themselves and higher chances of survival for their children, and thus they consciously teach their children selfish morals such as “marry within our own group” and “be altruistic to our own group first” and “our group is the chosen one.”
- The races of the Earth ARE in competition with each other, and recently it has been discovered that all “the human species” actually consists of… very separate hybrids of very separate species (like Ligers.) Europeans and Asians descend from a hybrid of the Archaic Homo Sapiens Species PLUS the Neanderthal Species. Sub-Saharan-Africans DON’T contain Neanderthal Species Genes.
VK, obviously in your mind pointing out the differences between races is somehow proof of Nazi-ism.
There is ample evidence of speciation among modern homo sapiens populations. Scientists have published data on over one million crucial DNA variations in three racial groups, paving the way for ‘individualized’ medicines based exclusively on race. The liberal anthropological argument that race is merely a ‘social construct’ is no more than discredited antiquated egalitarian propaganda. In a recent Stanford study in which a very large sample size (3636 people) self-identified their race, a double-blind DNA study showed that scientists were able to correctly determine the race of all but 5 individuals based on racial DNA differences (without knowing the self-identification results of the participants), a predictive ratio of 99.86%. Organ donors can typically expect to reject organs from donors of a different race, and certain blood types are almost ubiquitous in some races, while almost non-existent in others, such as RH-, which is found exclusively in Europeans.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/sumc-rgm012705.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_Homo_sapiens
http://www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal.html
3 questions for you VK:
Are there genetic differences between species?
Are there behavioral differences between species?
Do some species follow their genetic programming more than other species?
Are there genetic differences between races?
Are there behavioral differences between races?
Do some species follow their genetic programming more than other races?
Does pointing out the above 6 facts somehow imply that the most successful species or races should somehow be punished by the losers?
Does pointing out the above 6 facts somehow imply that the person who is pointing out the facts supports Nazi-ism?
See, that’s what you’ve written VK, that I’m a Jewish Nazi.
Look, final summary:
I say that selfishness is programmed into ALL organisms (including ALL animals and including ALL humans.)
I say that SOME humans are amassing material resources because they are BETTER at being selfish.
I say any group who wants to amass MORE material resources should become EVEN BETTER at being selfish.
Selfishness works for the gene, for the individual, and for the group.
And to tie this all back to Debito: this inherent genetic-based Yamato selfishness plus culturally-based Yamato-selfishness is the reason why the Japanese have successfully created the current reality of a relatively-safer, relatively-higher-quality-of-life country.
Selfishness is good, Japan is good, life is good.
@VK:
Dude, you’re not taking the anonymous one’s attempt to disarm you by claiming to be Jewish at face value, are you?
In 1976, Arthur Cain, one of Dawkins’s tutors at Oxford in the 1960s, called The Selfish Gene a “young man’s book”.
Dawkins noted that Cain was deliberately quoting a commentator on A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic.
Dawkins later noted, “I was flattered by the Cain’s comparison between my book and Ayer’s, I knew that Ayer had recanted much of his first book and I could hardly miss Cain’s pointed implication that I should, in the fullness of time, do the same.”
Here we have Richard Dawkins admitting why, in the fullness of time, he recanted much of his 1976 published version of The Selfish Gene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Reception
We honest Jews exist.
Jews criticizing Israel.
We are rare, but we exist.
http://imgur.com/a/vtcia
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
Clearly the answer is a whole lot of fucking. Everyone needs to fuck with everyone else and every race needs to fuck with every other race and we need to fuck, fuck, fuck all our differences away.
WHO’S WITH MR. FALCON?
Yes, the reduction of visibly discernible differences
will lead to the reduction of race/species discrimination.
Once all humans become sufficiently blended hybrids,
then the genetic differences will be slight and hidden.
Currently, the differences are visibly discernible,
so race/species discrimination is easily practiced.
@Level3:
Don’t be silly – I’m having fun getting him to justify his very odd views. He’s only Jewish on the Internet.
In real life he’s a racist, though but.
Anonymous:
Err, no. “Selfishness” applies specifically to the gene. It may thereby indirectly apply to the individual, and doubly indirectly to the group, depending on the evolutionary strategy and the composition of the group. One of the main aims of the Selfish Gene was to explain altruism in individuals – where the individual was not selfish. You’ve tried to cite Hamilton’s rule, so I’m not sure why you still think individuals are always selfish by genetic design.
You might want to read this:
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/wkoenig/wicker/NB4340/Dawkins%201979.pdf
It’s called “Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection”. You could even keep a score for yourself.
You are purposefully lying about The Selfish Gene.
The book clearly focused on why individuals act selfishly.
The book clearly stated altruism is rare, special, and limited.
The book clearly stated that even altruistic acts are usually found to be selfish.
You claim altruism is the rule with selfish-ism being the exception.
The book states again and again that selfish-ism is the rule with altruism being the exception.
The fact that society embarrassed the author into recanting has no effect on the reality of selfishness.
As stated clearly in The Selfish Gene before being recanted in the foreword, “However much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true: human society IS based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness.”
Are you going to continue to be in denial of reality, imagining that your everyday actions are altruistic, until the day you day?
Or will you eventually come back here one day and admit, “I was wrong, pre-1976-Dawkins was correct: the replicators care only about long-term survival, the replicators program the vehicles to do what is in the best interests of the replicators, and most of the time most of the vehicles do what the vehicles are programmed to do: amass resources to attract mates to increase the chances of replicating with other vehicles capable of amassing resources and attracting mates.”
@Anonymous:
So you didn’t read that article then? The first misunderstanding listed by Dawkins covers the issue of mistaking kin selection as an filler-in where individual selection doesn’t do; the second one listed is the mistake of thinking kin selection means group selection. You’re two for two right there.
He wrote that article in 1979 – there’s been no “recanting” going on. You write as if Richard Dawkins is someone whose view bends like a fragile flower in the winds of public opinion. I don’t think anyone else would recognise this as a description of him.
By the way, a genetic theory of the historic Jewish involvement in financing is an interesting one. Mad, but interesting.
Anonymous, I don’t think that word, ‘selfish’ means what you think it means.
In 1976, Arthur Cain called The Selfish Gene a “young man’s book”.
Dawkins later noted, “I could hardly miss Cain’s pointed implication that I should recant much of what I had written in The Selfish Gene.”
Here we have Richard Dawkins admitting why he recanted much of his 1976 published version of The Selfish Gene.
The recanting started in 1978, in which Dawkins writes in the foreword, “I wasn’t thinking clearly when I wrote The Selfish Gene in 1975. It was not until 1978 that I began to think clearly about the distinction between ‘vehicles’ (usually organisms) and the ‘replicators’ that ride inside them. Please MENTALLY DELETE all rogue sentences about selfishness which I wrote, and instead substitute my newly revised theory explained in this new foreword, namely: that the natural-selection-evolved-selfishness of the replicators DOESN’T make the replicator-vehicles act selfishly most of the time.”
Ever since his Oxford Tutor Cain implied that Dawkins should recant, Dawkins has been doing exactly that, Dawkins has been writing papers and giving speeches claiming that people who thought his book was admitting the selfishness of the universe simply only read the title. Nope, these quotes directly from his book The Selfish Gene show exactly where he stood on the issue in 1975 before being criticized in 1976:
“I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior.” – Richard Dawkins
“There are ‘special’ circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a ‘limited’ form of altruism at the level of individual animals. ‘Special’ and ‘limited’ are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” – Richard Dawkins
“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” – Richard Dawkins
“Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” – Richard Dawkins
“If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish.” – Richard Dawkins
“It often turns out on closer inspection that acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise.” – Richard Dawkins
“What are the properties that instantly mark a gene out as a ‘bad’ short-lived one? There might be several such universal properties, but there is one that is particularly relevant to this book: at the gene level, altruism must be bad and selfishness good. Any gene that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously, tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness.” – Richard Dawkins
“I am not saying how we humans morally OUGHT to behave. I simply saying how we humans ACTUALLY behave. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved.” – Richard Dawkins
“I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what IS the case from an advocacy of what OUGHT to be the case.” – Richard Dawkins
“My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true: human society IS based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness.” – Richard Dawkins
“This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us TRY TO TEACH generosity and altruism, because we ARE BORN SELFISH. – Richard Dawkins
“A predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will USUALLY give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour.” – Richard Dawkins
“SOMETIMES, the gene selfishness will give rise to altruism in individual behaviour. There are SPECIAL circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a LIMITED form of altruism at the level of individual animals. Altrusim at the level of individual is SPECIAL and LIMITED, and USUALLY doesn’t happen. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” – Richard Dawkins
“Our genes instruct us to be selfish, we are not genetically programmed to be altruistic. It is difficult to learn altruism, but it is POSSIBLE for culturally taught values to override genetic programming.” – Richard Dawkins
“Among animals, man is uniquely dominated by culture, by influences learned and handed down. Some say that culture is so important that genes are virtually irrelevant to the understanding of human nature. I disagree. It all depends where you stand in the debate over ‘nature versus nurture’ as determinants of human attributes. I believe in nature over nurture. Genes are vitally relevant to the determination of modern human behaviour, if we are not unique among animals in this respect. Our species is not so exceptional as we might like to think, so it is very important that we should study the rule of selfishness. Selfishness is programmed into each individual human body (the disposable replicator-vehicle) by its genes (the immortal replicator).” – Richard Dawkins
“I show how both individual selfishness (the usual behavior, practiced the majority of the time) and individual altruism (the rare behavior, practiced in limited special cases) are explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness. And even when those rare cases of individual altruism towards others in the same species are found, often it turns out on closer inspection that those rare acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise.” – Richard Dawkins
How can those quotes be explained away as a misunderstanding?
I think it is not I who didn’t read The Selfish Gene cover to cover, it is you VK.
You merely read the later foreword, in which he asks us to “mentally delete” all of the “rogue” sentences he originally wrote about Selfishness.
You merely read his later speeches, in which he lamented about idiotic journalists mis-characterizing his book.
You didn’t read The Selfish Gene, because if you did, you wouldn’t be claiming that “Dawkins didn’t write that selfish genes lead to selfish individuals”, and you wouldn’t be claiming that “Dawkins didn’t claim that genes were selfish.”
Obviously, looking at the quotes above, Dawkins wrote in 1975, and published in 1976, that Genes ARE selfish, and that these selfish genes cause indiviual organsims to act selfishly MOST OF THE TIME. Dawkins made it clear, in his 1975/1976 book, that Altruism is NOT the rule, it is the exception.
So, he has fooled you VK into thinking that he really meant to have been writing about a predominantly COOPERATIVE gene, that programs organisms to predominantly practice Altruism.
Whatever, wither you haven’t really read the original book cover to cover, or perhaps you did but you only focused on the minority paragraphs about altruism while you must have ignored the majority paragraphs about selfishness.
So to you, and others like you, The Selfish Gene is somehow proof of your dreamy preconceptions about Altruism being more prevalent than Selfishness.
The fact is Selfishness is more prevalent than Altruism, and the pre-recanted Dawkins quotes above make that perfectly clear.
PS – What is your definition of “a racist”?
Seriously VK, please have the courage to give a brief definition.
Does it go like this? “Anyone who says that races exist: is a racist.”
Or does it go like this? “Anyone who says that there are genetic differences between races: is a racist.”
Or does it go like this? “Anyone who says that there are behavioral differences between races: is a racist.”
Or does it go like this? “Anyone who says that some races, due to a combination of nature (genetic programming) and nurture (cultural programming) lie more than other races do: is a racist.”
Or does it go like this? “Anyone who says that some races, due to a combination of nature (genetic programming) and nurture (cultural programming) do better on standardized math tests: is a racist.”
I really would like to hear which of these strange definitions you think is correct, or if you have your own unassailable definition of what is a racist.
I have a feeling that you will say something like, “Races don’t exist, they are an imaginary cultural mental construct, a mere idea. Geneticists are wrong, like those Stanford folks who conducted that study which proved that they could tell the races of people just by looking at their DNA, totally wrong. And the geneticists who recently proved which races have are descended from “Homo Sapien plus Neanderthal” Hybrids, and which races are not: those geneticists are also totally wrong. They have to be wrong, because admitting that races exist might lead to someone claiming one is superior than another which might lead to one exterminating another, and since that nightmare is so scary, I choose to fight that possible future scenario by claiming as strong as I can that races do not exist and differences between races do not exist. I choose harmony instead of truth. Tatemae instead of Honne. Peace instead of Facts.”
Go ride your “My Little Pony” over a rainbow for world peace VK.
PPS – Seriously, do share your definition of what “a racist” is.
@Anonymous:
The simple fact that you are counterposing altruism and selfishness in this context indicates that Taurus is correct – you don’t understand what is meant by “selfishness” and to what the term is applied.
That they should not be counterposed is from before Dawkins, who is as much a (brilliant) populariser of ideas as he has been an innovator, if not more so. Altruism is observed in individuals in a manner which would not make sense unless we move from an understanding of natural selection of individuals, to natural selection of genes. The dissolution of the paradox of altruism in this manner was the achievement of Bill Hamilton a decade before the Selfish Gene was written. (Although Hamilton did go on later in life to recommend large scale infanticide to prevent the degeneration of the species, it has to be said. I trust you don’t go along with that.)
Above all, the book rejects group selection totally.
You’re treating The Selfish Gene like a religious text – as if any emendation, qualification or re-wording of it is a betrayal of the authentic original divine statement. Those more interested in the science take Dawkins’ subsequent clarifications in good faith. He really isn’t someone who bows to public opinion.
What’s a racist? Someone who believes that clearly socially undesirable traits are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”, or someone who believes that “races” as he identifies them are harmed by mixing. From what you’ve written thus far, I’m quite happy to say that by either definition, this would appear to include you.
I’ve answered your question, but you never answered mine: in these English lessons of yours when, week in, week out, you teach the students about the inevitability of conflict between races, how often do you get monitored by your superiors? I’m surprised your company encourages what you do.
@Anonymous:
Here’s a way for you to break into thinking about the topic: Perhaps you could explain why you think Dawkins’ subsequent emphasis that the individual organism and the gene should be clearly distinguished when it comes to selfishness is wrong, and why you think no such distinction should be made.
About your first definition VK that includes the word undesirable:
Someone who believes that some socially DESIRABLE traits are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that some socially DESIRABLE traits and some socially UNDESIRABLE traits are both genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that traits (simply traits, with no “social desirability” judgments at all) are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that some genetically DESIRABLE traits (such as longevity, or health, or fertility) are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that some genetically DESIRABLE traits and some socially UNDESIRABLE traits are both genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that traits (simply traits, with no “social desirability” judgments at all) are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
About your second definition VK that includes the word harmed:
Someone who believes that “races” as he identifies them are HELPED (Hybrid Vigor) by mixing.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that “races” as he identifies them are harmed by NOT mixing.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
Someone who believes that “races” as he identifies them are simply mixed (with no “helped or harmed” judgments at all) by mixing.
Is that a racist VK, according to your definition?
And now revisiting your first definition:
Someone who believes that some socially UNDESIRABLE traits are genetically inherent in groups of individuals he identifies as “races”.
So, if geneticists say that genes have “race” markers, and if geneticists say that genes have “shortness” markers, and if society says that “shortness is an undesirable trait”, then those geneticists suddenly become racist, according to your definition, just because society at large passes a judgment about that genetically determined trait?
Next subject, you previously wrote, “You’ve tried to cite Hamilton’s rule” which again was an incorrect assumption on your part. I’ve never heard of Hamilton. I wrote an original sentence, “Selfishness works for the gene, for the individual, and for the group.” and you decided that there must be a link between the sentence I wrote and some sentence you read by some guy named Hamilton. And then later, you bring up this Hamilton guy again, as if I care who he is.
Finally, the fact that Dawkins clearly wrote about feeling that his tutor Cain was telling him to “recant, just like Ayers did” in the quote above, is clear, but you continue to ignore that as well.
The fact that you continue to ignore Dawkins’ quotes about recanting, as well as Dawkins’ quotes about selfishness, as well as Dawkins’ quotes counterposing Altruism and Selfishness (http://tepido.org/magical-radiation-detectors/690/comment-page-5#comment-13673) proves your mode of operation: ignoring embarrassing truths.
In these English lessons of yours when, week in, week out, you bore students with politically correct pleasantries about the weather and other such non-controversial topics, how often do you get monitored by your superiors? I’m surprised your conscience encourages you to lie and withhold truth to yourself and to others like you do.
What physical traits does the average Indian like yourself have?
What behavioral traits does the average Indian like yourself have?
Are Indians who admit to positive, negative, and neutral, traits suddenly in your mind racist Nazis?
I admitted that people who share my Ashkenazi genes are on average highly selfish. That’s a trait which society might currently call a negative trait, but which genes and geneticists know to be a positive trait.
Ashkenazi. Nazi. Ha ha, maybe I am a Nazi afterall!
@Anonymous:
There’s no need to be so defensive. Why do you think Dawkins is wrong to differentiate between the organism and the gene in natural selection?
@Anonymous:
By the way, I’m puzzled that you’d never heard of Hamilton yet claim to have read the Selfish Gene “cover to cover.”
Looking at the index, he’s mentioned on the following pages:
69, 90-108, 167-168, 173-175, 179, 214, 274, 288-289, 305-306, 317-319, 321, 325-327 and 328-9.
An eyeball at the index (you can check it in your own copy) suggests he’s referred to more than anyone else.
By “cover to cover”, do you mean “the front cover and the back cover”?
All I know is I want to see John McClane drop one of the two of you off a skyscraper, and it’s not hard to choose which!
I’m reading the book now and have completed the three introductions or “Recanting” and the introductions to biology and on to the actual theory and I have to say the this argument between anon and VK is a lot more fun. Dawkins writing style is dry. He claims the book is more palatable for the layman but I disagree but I don’t have a background in science. By all means ignore Mr Falcon and continue with the argument, someone thinks it’s interesting and it’s a hell of a lot better than cheap shots at Debs.
The problem, Greg, is that the argument is going nowhere. Anon has decided that what was originally written by the Prophet Dawkins is the law, with not even the Prophet Dawkins being able to amend his own words.
VK, on the hand, is open to the Prophet Dawkins’ own adjustments/clarifications to the idea, which means he on the face rejects Anon’s interpretation of the book.
These two gentlemen will certainly *never* come to an agreement, because they’re not even working from the same premises. The Prophet Dawkins himself would not be able to sway Anon.
VK and Anon have both very clearly stated their positions. We are now at the point where Anon will keep shouting “quesadillas” and VK will keep shouting “nachos” and if that is interesting to you, I do not want to come to any of your parties. For real, man.
@Greg:
I think it helps to understand the background to Dawkins’s writing. It’s all about what the unit of selection is.
Biologists used to and people in general still now often talk about certain animal behaviours as having evolved because they’re good for the group. But this can’t be right because groups don’t reproduce, individuals do.
But if evolution was about the individual, then animals would focus on their own ability to reproduce, even at the expense of the group. However, in nature one does observe acts of altruism, whereby individuals appear to sacrifice their own wellbeing or even lives to preserve the general wellbeing of the group.
This is a puzzle.
The solution is to think of evolution not as the survival of the fittest species, subspecies or even individuals, but as survival of the fittest genes. Genes use animals as vehicles to propagate copies of themselves, and this means occasionally sacrificing one individual animal carrying that gene in order to ensure the general survival of that gene as carried by close fertile relatives. Thus, insects sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the queen. The queen is the pathway for gene reproduction, the infertile insects simply tools to ensure those genes reproduce.
Once one accepts that DNA is the means by which inheritance works, this “kin selection” (selfishness) is inevitable, as it is a better strategy for gene survival than either helping or not helping all individuals in the group equally. This selective “altruism” can be predicted and observed mathematically (Hamilton’s rule): on average, a sibling or child receives 16 times more than a second cousin.
This creates a disturbing picture: From the gene’s point of view, we are just machines they create and occupy. We’re not the stars of the show. Evolution is not about us. We may or may not be selfish as a result of genetically-influenced behaviour, but it’s all for something that isn’t “us”.
That’s a difficult point to take on board, and many people have found the book alienating and disturbing. I’ve seen it suggested that some people end up considering our genes to be our ultimate selves – a bit like a chemically encoded soul. If our genes are essentially selfish, then we as individuals are. But this move contains a couple of logical errors; it’s one that Dawkins has confessed to inadvertently encouraging, and a misunderstanding he very, very quickly sought to correct. I think Anonymous is making this mistake (he seems proud to make it), and he is failing to grasp the difference between group and kin selection.
He also forgets well-observed reciprocity between non-related individuals, and seems to presume that kin selection is entirely determined by all-knowing genes, rather than genetically guided reactions to environmental signals of relatedness. There’s nothing inevitable about conflict between ethnic groups just because we don’t share enough genes. Our ability to reason out relationships and moderate conflict is just as much a product of our genes as any other behaviour. A social ability to reason out conflict is clearly advantageous for reproduction.
And don’t get me started on the oddity of thinking that Jews are genetically determined to be good at finance.
@Mr. Falcon:
We may not persuade each other, but public debate is not just about two individuals.
It’s not really public debate if one side isn’t addressing the points of the other side and is just repeating himself over and over again.
But hey, if you’re having fun with the guy, go for it. I still reserve the right to make snarky comments though.
@VK: While I enjoyed his discussion of memes, his infrequent forays into computer science (especially in “The Blind Watchmaker”) are a little painful to read, although I understand he’s not writing for a CS audience.
@gachapin:
I haven’t read the Blind Watchmaker. I don’t know about his computer science, but in general I’m not sure Dawkins is much good at going outside his specialist area. He has that curse that affects some natural scientists of thinking any topic outside the material sciences is easy (and thus he can wade in…).
His whole memetics idea (that ideas replicate like genes replicate) is pretty much bollocks – it’s a throwaway dinner party idea that has resolutely failed to gain any traction in serious academia. The Journal of Memetics died after barely a dozen issues.
His writings on religion (outside of why creationists and IDers are wrong) indicate he doesn’t grasp the existential importance of the topics he’s covering. He seems to treat all religion as a series of material scientific propositions. Reading his reactions to people’s letters to him about how the Selfish Gene depressed them I’m struck by a certain lack of empathy. On the relationship of “humanity” (which I often feel Dawkins treats as 100% interchangeable in a sentence with “homo sapiens“) to the universe, Sagan and Gould are far, far better.
I think he should stay focussed on writing about evolution – the world would be filled with better books that way.
The problem with uber, unreconstructed positivists like Dawkins is that they venture into territory (e.g., social science) that they know fuck all about – and recruit arguments and positions to support their own that essentially undermine them.
The reason his work has been, at times, described as a “young man’s book/work” is that it is naive and unsophisticated. It still is.
As just one example (in keeping with the thread) his critical commentary on religions completely, and utterly, fails to appreciate that many (if not all) religions can be approached as collections of practices – not just metaphysical discourse.
To point to a particular practice and say “how fucking stupid and irrational is that!?” as if said practice exists outside the confines of the human world, as some kind of platonic logical object, is just sheer … stupidity.
VK nailed it. He should stick to evolutionary theory. Polymath he aint.
@VK: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Taking the meme idea to the extreme that Dawkins did was a stretch, but considering how information spreads these days, comparing it to a disease outbreak may be more appropriate.
Reality is not disturbing to realists:
We are just machines that genes create and occupy.
Bodies are not the stars of the show, genes are.
Evolution is not about bodies, it’s about genes.
Bodies are selfish due to gene-influenced behaviour.
All body actions are for the genes, like it or not.
It’s not a difficult point to take on board.
Unrealistic dreamers like VK find reality alienating and disturbing.
Genes are our ultimate selves.
Genes are essentially selfish,
and thus we as individuals are.
Those who fight against the gene program are not rewarded with enough endogenous “happy chemicals”.
Those who cooperate with the selfish gene program are
rewarded with enough endogenous “happy chemicals”.
Reciprocity between non-related individuals is the exception.
Selfishness between non-related individuals is the rule.
Conflict between ethnic groups is inevitable
because because we don’t share enough genes.
Our ability to reason out relationships
and moderate conflict is the exception.
Our propensity to conflict and fight with
“foreigners” and “outsiders” is the rule.
A social ability to be selfish to non-family
is clearly advantageous for gene reproduction.
@Anonymous:
You really are a bit dumb eh – or extending beyond your reach regards trolling.
“Bodies are selfish due to gene-influenced behaviour. All body actions are for the genes, like it or not.”
Genes are not persons. Bodies are not persons. Persons clearly do “have” a body, and do “have” genes. Genes cannot be “selfish” anymore than rocks can be “jealous”. To say that genes influence behaviour, such that behaviour is “selfish” in service of the “selfish” gene is to speak complete non-sense.
You really should get your-self (“-ish genes”) to a place of higher learning, stat. Oh wait, you claim to be at one. Keep on trolling.
Nope, genes have a body.
The body has a brain.
The brain carries memes.
Some brains carry a meme which states
“Egos/minds/persons control bodies.”
Some brains carry a meme which states
“Genes control bodies.”
Most brains (most animals) don’t carry so many memes.
Most brains (most animals) simply follow the gene program.
Most brains (most animals) are happier because of this.
Most animals focus on eating, sleeping, and procreating, thus are happier than animals known as humans.
Animals known as humans don’t focus enough on following the gene program, thus are relatively unhappier.
Genes are real, they create bodies to survive throughout over eons, and they include reward systems built (endogenous chemical releases) to motivate the bodies to do what is best for the genes.
Relatively recently, one particular animal (humans) started imagining that “We are not the body, we are not the genes, we are “soul”, we are “whatever ideas infect our computers”, we are “different from animals.”
“You” are simply a body which is a reproduction vehicle for the genes inside your body, deal with it.
@Anonymous:
Your genes just made you say that.
Anonymous, you still don’t seem to understand what selfish means, in the context of genes.
Taurus you still seem to think you understand what selfish means, in the context of genes.
Please enlighten us Taurus: what is your definition selfish in the context of genes?
@@Anonymous: Brains don’t carry memes; they transmit them (according to Dawkins). If the brains merely carried them, they would die with the body. Thoreau’s quip about going to the grave with your inner song unsung applies here.
@Anonymous:
I’ll try to unpick some of what you’ve got wrong here. (Hey, I can say you’re wrong – whereas all you can do is express a meme with no inherent judgemental value. I like my world better than yours.
)
About the self
“He’s a self-made man” is not a statement about gene expression.
“The self is an illusion” is not a statement that our genes don’t exist.
When Eminem says “lose yourself”, he’s not inviting you to misplace some DNA.
“A journey of self-discovery” is not about taking the bus to a lab to look down through a microscope at strands of DNA.
And a life-tip: Should a partner ever say to you “I feel I’ve lost too much of myself in this relationship” the correct response is not to say “It’s OK – I’ll pay for you to have your genome sequenced.”
(When we describe an experience as “depersonalising”, we do not mean that it makes us less of an example of homo sapiens, or that someone is stealing our genes.)
Memes
Can you tell me how many memes are in the following?
1) “37 X 28 = 1036″
2) “Yesterday/ All my troubles seemed so far”
3) “37 X 28 = 1026″
4) The complete works of Shakespeare
5) “The complete works of Shakespeare”
6) “The Catholic Church for too long has exploited its position of moral authority to cover up appalling crimes committed against children placed in the care of its priests.”
(The point being that only certain kinds of cultural information come in discrete, isolatable packets that are stored in people without contextual compression and/or reference to an external standard. Ideas don’t behave much at all like genes or the things that genes produce. It’s a pretty basic problem and it’s the central reason why memetics has died on its big fat hairy arse. It’s a weak analogy masquerading as a science.)
Science as a replacement for religion
Your version of evolution is uncannily similar to an Abrahamic religion in a couple of ways.
First of all, dualism. You identify the “self” as a quasi-material thing in the same way that Christians, Jews and Muslims think of souls. For you, the genome is the essential “person”, just as for God the soul is the essence of a person. You even invoke immortality! Proper scientists these days understand that personhood is an emergent property of human beings, not a “thing” to be found under a microscope.
Secondly, you’re abdicating responsibility for your actions to a higher authority, much as a fundamentalist Christian would. “God told me to do it” and “My genes tell me to do it” are basically the same thing in practice. They’re moral justifications dressed up as helplessness.
Basically, you’re like the stroppy emo child of creationist parents. You may slag them off, but you’re still their son.
@gachapin:
It’s not the extremity, it’s the basic idea that is the problem. Memetics doesn’t work in principle. One has to find specific cases where an idea mutates in a similar way to genes to find a Dawkinsian “meme” – it’s the ultimate in data dredging. You can’t even get memetics to work for any particular class of ideas.
I agree that contagious disease is a better model for what in daily life gets called a “meme”. After all, it’s something that “goes viral”.