Comments on: Born to conform

By: Paul Rain

Paul Rain — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:38:33 +0000

#3: But, uh, ‘Medical Hypotheses’? If the author is competent to write on the subject, isn’t he competent enough to find a peer reviewed journal known for science?

By: Robert Dole

Robert Dole — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:02:53 +0000

#2, I “know” it.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:32:23 +0000

#1, do you know this literature, or so you just look shit up and post it? because a cursory examination of the paper indicates that the author is not familiar with the literature (in particular w. d. hamilton’s work from the 1960s and 1970s which covers the gamut).

By: Robert Dole

Robert Dole — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:53:46 +0000

“This article also proposes to regard ancestral environments as determinants of human eusociality. By contrast, virtually all previous articles about it leave primitive habitats unmentioned. To support the hypothesis that human unselfish behaviours represent genetically conserved traits that evolved ancestrally, not products of cultural transmission, this paper also discusses six groups of arguments in the section “Genes versus culture”. Finally, this article advances a purely genetic evolutionary explanation for the uniqueness of human eusociality, thereby challenging prevailing cultural explanations for the incomparably developed levels of cooperation in humankind, which are observed in no other social species.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987707002526