X-Message-Number: 32398 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:45:50 +0100 References: <> On 18 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:00 AM, David Stodolsky <> > wrote: > > snip > >> This doesn't address the argument in the original article. Regardless >> of what Dawkins himself believes, the "Selfish Gene" concept as been >> used to support a range of social darwinistic policies. > > Probably so. Can you provide pointers to some of them? It is not a > legit use of the selfish gene concept. While the term itself is not used in the professional literature, the individualism implied has played a major role in, for example, the debates about group selection in evolutionary theory, in Friedman's and related economic theories, in certain lines of research in artificial intelligence, such as genetic algorithms, etc. So, the concept has served as a lens through which many of the 'soft' science questions have been viewed over the last thirty years. The originally cited author points to the neo-liberal policies of Thatcher and Reagan. These economic policies have been used to transfer wealth to the rich. The net effect has been harmful to cryonics, since it reduces the number of persons who have sufficient economic reserves for suspension. Regardless of arguments that cryonics is 'cheap' via life insurance, the data show that atheist millionaires are the target population of current marketing efforts. Only about 12% of the World's population are within the formal economy. The rest are excluded from even considering suspension. The current economic collapse, resulting from market fundamentalism, and the resulting transformed expectations of consumers has also removed large numbers of persons from potential membership in cryonics organizations. Since economic instability is contributory to religious belief, which in turn is the best predictor of support for cryonics, the continuing dominance of market fundamentalism is indirectly reducing cryonics enrollments. Therefore, the "Selfish Gene" concept has been contributory to reduction in signups both directly, due to economic limitations, and indirectly due to promotion of religiosity. The economism / market fundamentalism justified by the Concept also contributed to the CryoCare fiasco, an ideologically motivated attempt at social reorganization of the cryonics enterprise. What solid scientific results we do have about what would be a more effective social organization of the cryonics enterprise has been ignored. This can be attributed to the extreme individualism rampant in much of the cryonics movement. And here we can make the transition from the ridiculous - the idea that greed is the only human motive worth considering - to the absurd, with the idea that the 'meme' concept will be useful in solving the marketing problems of cryonics. The sooner this pop science is replace by a professional approach to the marketing of cryonics, the sooner we will see improvements. Failure to do so will lead to the end of the hope that the movement will become a major social force, and perhaps the end of the movement and loss of all investments that have been made. > > It is a legitimate use to invoke selfish gene/evolutionary psychology > concept to *understand* or try to understand social phenomena. I have > done it myself in tying the Patty Hearst kidnapping, army basic > training and SMBD all to one evolved psychological mechanism, capture > bonding. I am not aware of any use of the term "selfish gene" among professional biological or social scientists. So, good luck with your reinvention of social and evolutionary psychology. A review of the literature will get you a lot farther and reduce the risk that you will be regarded as a crank by the professionals in these fields. Social identity theory is often used to explain the above type of phenomena: <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120185297/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 > Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review The social identity approach (comprising social identity theory and self-categorization theory) is a highly influential theory of group processes and intergroup relations, having redefined how we think about numerous group-mediated phenomena. Since its emergence in the early 1970s, the social identity approach has been elaborated, re- interpreted, and occasionally misinterpreted. The goal of this paper is to provide a critical, historical review of how thinking and research within the social identity approach has evolved. The core principles of the theories are reviewed and discussed, and their effect on the field assessed. Strengths and limitations of the approach are discussed, with an eye to future developments. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32398