Traditional societies are not necessarily oriented to the benefit of temporals. From European history, the only one I know with a reasonable extent, one can note the existence of the Hanseatic league, of the Italian merchant republics. The people living there and powering long-distance trade were definitely spatials in culture if not in temperament ! Europe was dotted with countless market towns and country fairs with participation not only by local people but also by travelling salesmen and craftsmen. These were occupations quite fit for spatials and they had their own subculture. Another occupation for spatials was shepherding. This is to illustrate that traditional societies did accommodate both phenotypes and enabled them to prosper.
There were people who fit neither in the usual village or small city life not in the occupations that required travel. These took to the woods and became known as the wicked. So the spiteful mutants are known as the wicked in plain English. They can certainly accumulate in modern cities because of the anonymity they provide and reproduce more successfully than in the past. They can also establish synergies that amplify their behaviour.
I thought the "gay uncle" theory has fallen into disripute lately. Both between "temporals" and spatials. So called "horizontal fitness" can only get you so far.
I'm not sure about a claim that horizontal fitness can only get you so far. There are a lot of variables that would have to be taken into account in any specific case. But certainly, as I mentioned, Wilson's original "gay uncle" hypothesis did not stand up to testing. Though, as I also said, it would be worth re-testing it today, as such variables have changed. There's no serious challenge to inclusive fitness, though. (Of course, it is the nature of science that some ambitious upstart is always trying to refute established science. That's a necessary, if usually quixotic, aspect of science as a culture of discovery.) So many behaviors, among humans and so many other animals, just didn't make sense before Hamilton discovered inclusive fitness. For the foreseeable future it can be expected to remain a mainstay of evolutionary theory.
Thanks for your contribution to the comments discussion, Peter Rabbit. Did you know that you were the first ever fictional character even make into a patented stuff toy?
Didnt know that, always nice to meet a fellow Beatrix Potter aficionado.
Regarding Hamilton, I dont seek to question the idea of inclusive fitness. My quarrel is with the concept that indeed "SEAMs" constitute a pathology and not, as suggested towards the end, a sort of adaptation. I react with measured skepticism twards the proposition that such behaviour and the phenotypes associated with it, are somehow "rational" under evolutionary thought.
It is indeed a deleterious combine of deviations. I fully expect their influence to grow and intensifie in the next couple of decades followed by their inexorable decline. Both in phenotypic as well as in "episthemic" terms. It is a persistent disease, not a valid outcome of evolution, in my humble assesement. Thank you for your article!
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to read the article. In general, I don't find it helpful to social analysis to pathologize or moralize people's behavior or motives. These are perfectly natural responses, but evolved for small group interaction, where they can actually have an impact. Directing them at social dynamics involving millions of people is a recipe for impotence. And such reactions come at the expense of a dispassionate assessment of what dynamics are at work, which is what I'm most concerned with understanding. But, hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Dear Evolved Psyché,
Traditional societies are not necessarily oriented to the benefit of temporals. From European history, the only one I know with a reasonable extent, one can note the existence of the Hanseatic league, of the Italian merchant republics. The people living there and powering long-distance trade were definitely spatials in culture if not in temperament ! Europe was dotted with countless market towns and country fairs with participation not only by local people but also by travelling salesmen and craftsmen. These were occupations quite fit for spatials and they had their own subculture. Another occupation for spatials was shepherding. This is to illustrate that traditional societies did accommodate both phenotypes and enabled them to prosper.
There were people who fit neither in the usual village or small city life not in the occupations that required travel. These took to the woods and became known as the wicked. So the spiteful mutants are known as the wicked in plain English. They can certainly accumulate in modern cities because of the anonymity they provide and reproduce more successfully than in the past. They can also establish synergies that amplify their behaviour.
I thought the "gay uncle" theory has fallen into disripute lately. Both between "temporals" and spatials. So called "horizontal fitness" can only get you so far.
I'm not sure about a claim that horizontal fitness can only get you so far. There are a lot of variables that would have to be taken into account in any specific case. But certainly, as I mentioned, Wilson's original "gay uncle" hypothesis did not stand up to testing. Though, as I also said, it would be worth re-testing it today, as such variables have changed. There's no serious challenge to inclusive fitness, though. (Of course, it is the nature of science that some ambitious upstart is always trying to refute established science. That's a necessary, if usually quixotic, aspect of science as a culture of discovery.) So many behaviors, among humans and so many other animals, just didn't make sense before Hamilton discovered inclusive fitness. For the foreseeable future it can be expected to remain a mainstay of evolutionary theory.
Thanks for your contribution to the comments discussion, Peter Rabbit. Did you know that you were the first ever fictional character even make into a patented stuff toy?
Didnt know that, always nice to meet a fellow Beatrix Potter aficionado.
Regarding Hamilton, I dont seek to question the idea of inclusive fitness. My quarrel is with the concept that indeed "SEAMs" constitute a pathology and not, as suggested towards the end, a sort of adaptation. I react with measured skepticism twards the proposition that such behaviour and the phenotypes associated with it, are somehow "rational" under evolutionary thought.
It is indeed a deleterious combine of deviations. I fully expect their influence to grow and intensifie in the next couple of decades followed by their inexorable decline. Both in phenotypic as well as in "episthemic" terms. It is a persistent disease, not a valid outcome of evolution, in my humble assesement. Thank you for your article!
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to read the article. In general, I don't find it helpful to social analysis to pathologize or moralize people's behavior or motives. These are perfectly natural responses, but evolved for small group interaction, where they can actually have an impact. Directing them at social dynamics involving millions of people is a recipe for impotence. And such reactions come at the expense of a dispassionate assessment of what dynamics are at work, which is what I'm most concerned with understanding. But, hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.