Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: the commons

Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 4:23:36

In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:40

well then...

i guess you could view it as a commons.

some points of similarity that occur to me, that might be relevant...

it is a space.

that was a potential problem with the mental illness idea... i guess my thought there was that mental illness might be selected for (without being adaptive) rather than dysfunctional (to the individual). but i think now that the crucial bit that got me excited was the idea that inclusive fitness or evolution by selection doesn't necessarily produce adaptation.

even though Campbell's Biology (what is that, like the very best textbook in the whole freaking world!!!) says:

(concept 23.4 HEADER --)

'Natural selection is the only mechanism that consistently causes adaptive evolution'

That is not true.

WHat is this notion of adaptation? fit between organism and environment? What the hell does that mean? Consider the behaviour of the handstanding beetle that stands on its head in deserts so morning dew collects on its body and runs down into its mouth. or darwins finches with beaks and foraging behavior both adapted to a niche... What is this notion of fit?

Consider also... (I totally stole this).

a gene that is only carried on the y chromosome... results in the y sperm swimming faster than the x sperm so they tend to reach (hence successfully fertilize) the egg before the x's get there. this will take over the population and eventually... result in the extinction of the species (including that particular gene, of course) from too many boys / not enough girls.

what we seem to have here is... un co-operative genes (that replicate themselves to the cost of the genes they are supposed to be co-operating with). but also ultimately... to their own demise... which... isn't very rational. seems to me. more things considered... isn't very optimal. isn't very adaptive.

anyway... back to babble...

it is space limited (sort of) in the sense that people who look at the boards are looking at a certain number of posts because older posts are archived.

the three post rule is an obvious one with respect to limiting the frequency of posts by a single poster. which limits the frequency of their posts relative to others. which alters the sample that a new poster perusing the boards is likely to read. which alters their decision whether to join...

perhaps...

basic things...

these boards are obviously tended. there aren't a bunch of 'enlarge your penisses with natural artificial supplementz!' posts. insofar as the internet is a commons the problem is... the sh*t that the masses contribute. that takes so very much time... to sort though. hence the three post rule, again.. sigh. (i only violate it because i feel like i'm running out of space. but this shows that babble is indeed space limited, in a sense). and it is weird, right, because i can make this post (for example) as long as i like (to the best of my knowledge).... anyway... i need to get better at impulse control. clearly.

what else.... i don't know.

i don't know.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1047868
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1051003.html