Best form of government?

[OldTrees]

Spoiler for Hidden:

@north
Thank you. A few of the misconceptions are gone. However a few remain.
1) I am sorry but I did not mean to give the impression I relied on a specific "selfish gene" existing. The Green-Beard effect works as long as our behavior is inherited (either genetically or culturally from parents). The behavior of those that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness would tend to be passed on. Thus there is an evolutionary force that would push a population towards being saturated with individuals that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness. These selfish individuals are indistinguishable from rational people that are trying to be selfish. As such this system would be required to continuously use propaganda to prevent this saturation or deal with the consequences it brings.

2) Cultural influences can be a part of natural selection (ex: sexual selection) however it is important to understand that the traits passed on are the traits of the individuals with the highest inclusive fitness. You can change the game but you cannot change the fact that the winners are those that win. Nor can you change the game so selfishness is not rewarded, you merely change which actions it promotes.*
*Would you please tell me what you think I mean by the distinction between the meaning of selfish and the loaded meaning?

3) My comments about the inclusive fitness are the background to prove that the proposed system would be dependent on continuous propaganda. My critique of the system is that it uses continuous propaganda.

PS: Do not claim something is debated when you don't know what is being debated. Green-beard alleles have been found.

The concept remained a merely theoretical possibility under Dawkins' selfish gene model until 1998, when a green-beard allele was first found in nature, in the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta).[4][5] Polygyne colony queens are heterozygous (Bb) at the Gp-9 gene locus. Their worker offspring can have both heterozygous (Bb) and homozygous (BB) genotypes. The investigators discovered that homozygous dominant (BB) queens, which in the wild form produce monogyne rather than polygyne colonies, are specifically killed when introduced into polygyne colonies, most often by heterozygous (Bb) and not homozygous (BB) workers. They concluded that the allele Gp-9b is linked to a greenbeard allele which induces workers bearing this allele to kill all queens that do not have it. A final conclusion notes that the workers are able to distinguish BB queens from Bb queens based on an odor cue.

Okay, so let me ask this, going back to your buoyancy example: it seems the constant in your post is that selfishness is like gravity in humans and propaganda is like the opposing force in your view. Correct? Are you saying humans will naturally tend to go back to selfishness if outside influence stops?

If so, what about the example of pushing a rock up a triangle hill. It's an older theory, but makes sense. Think of a triangle where one side on the bottom is selfishness and the other is selflessness. Now, if I push the rock half way up the selfishness side and give up, it will roll back down, but if I try hard enough, eventually I can get it to the other side. Now, as long as there is no influence of selfish nature, that rock will stay in place.

Also, to be honest, you 'loaded meaning' question is still not clear with me. I know what you mean, but as far as specifics, I have no idea.

Yes, I am saying people will have a tendency to go back to what maximizes their inclusive fitness if outside influences to be irrational stop.

I understand your triangle theory but I do not see it as applicable to the meaning of selfishness I am using. The relevant function is that the traits that promote success tend to succeed in being passed down. The graph of this function is akin to a line not a triangle. The fraction of the population that are more successful than the mean will tend to succeed in passing down their traits more than the mean. Thus shifting the population up the line. (Gravity down the slope in your example)

The loaded version of selfish is the common usage of selfish. It is used to mean immorally greedy with no concern for the interests of others even if those interests benefit you. (Ex: Not donating a kidney to a sibling)
A better definition of selfishness is rationally deciding choices based upon your values taking into account how the interests of others can benefit your interests.
However since we are talking about inclusive fitness right now we can simplify this better definition to: Choices that maximizes the amount of your traits that are passed on including those passed on by other people (even at your expense). (Ex: Diving on a live grenade)

The loaded version of selfish does indeed have a triangle function. However the triangle is between loaded selfish and the better definitions of selfish. Why? Because rational selfishness is more successful than irrational selfishness.

[northcity4]

1) that last paragraph between rational selfish vs irrational selfless doesn't seem clear nor does it follow from what you said (or I don't see at least).

2) So, you don't agree this tendency can 'genetically' change over multiple generations? I mean, over time, I think the tendency can change because eventually there will be a society where the trait that promotes the most success will be selflessness? (God gave me these gifts, so let me use them correctly vs. I am the best, let me take advantage of my abilities).

--->This is what I mean by the triangle. The 2 sides are your tendencies. I think over time, however long it takes, those tendencies will change. According to Andrew Brown, this 'gene' (I am not saying it is a gene, but using the word 'gene' as an analogy per say) can have it's quality changed over time (source: science of selfishness).

The term 'quality' is how much the 'gene' is expressed in this case. Brown seems to think it can change over time and then this new 'gene' will replicate it self normally and spread as you put it. Soon, the 'norm' will be inclusive fitness to be thinking of everyone else more than the self and you won't need to continually move people with propaganda after this stage.

--->at first, it will be slow. More people are 'selfish' so there genes will pass down much more than 'selfless' genes, which is why I agree with your graph statement. But the graph changes as outside influence comes in. Like taking the graph x^2 and subtracting .1x^3. Eventually, over time, the norm will change, but very slow at first.

[northcity4]

It appears, then, that caring about others is as much a part of human nature as caring about ourselves. Which impulse gets emphasized is a matter of training, according to the experts. "We fundamentally have the potential to develop into caring, altruistic people or violent, aggressive people," says Staub. "No one will be altruistic if their experiences teach them to be concerned only about themselves. But human connection is intrinsically satisfying if we allow it to be."

Last paragraph of : http://www.altruists.org/static/files/Beyond%20Selfishness%20%28Alfie%20Kohn%29.htm

[OldTrees]

1) that last paragraph between rational selfish vs irrational selfless doesn't seem clear nor does it follow from what you said (or I don't see at least).

2) So, you don't agree this tendency can 'genetically' change over multiple generations? I mean, over time, I think the tendency can change because eventually there will be a society where the trait that promotes the most success will be selflessness? (God gave me these gifts, so let me use them correctly vs. I am the best, let me take advantage of my abilities).

--->This is what I mean by the triangle. The 2 sides are your tendencies. I think over time, however long it takes, those tendencies will change. According to Andrew Brown, this 'gene' (I am not saying it is a gene, but using the word 'gene' as an analogy per say) can have it's quality changed over time (source: science of selfishness).

The term 'quality' is how much the 'gene' is expressed in this case. Brown seems to think it can change over time and then this new 'gene' will replicate it self normally and spread as you put it. Soon, the 'norm' will be inclusive fitness to be thinking of everyone else more than the self and you won't need to continually move people with propaganda after this stage.

--->at first, it will be slow. More people are 'selfish' so there genes will pass down much more than 'selfless' genes, which is why I agree with your graph statement. But the graph changes as outside influence comes in. Like taking the graph x^2 and subtracting .1x^3. Eventually, over time, the norm will change, but very slow at first.

1) No wonder I said irrationally selfish not irrationally selfless.
It was between irrationally selfish (the loaded term of selfish) and rationally selfish (the better definition of selfish). Some people are deserted on an island. (some irrational selfish, some rational selfish) Each gathers supplies during the day. The irrationally selfish hoard their supplies or try to swindle supplies from the others. The rationally selfish trade honestly and even share supplies that are not needed in large quantities. If there are enough irrationally selfish people then the rationally selfish people will be swindled into poverty. If there are enough rationally selfish people then their standard of living increases from the trade and sharing.

2) When you change the game you change which strategy is the selfish one. In this manner the behavior can change. However the tendency will be for people to choose the selfish strategy since it is, by definition, the highest inclusive fitness and thus the one than tends to be passed on. However in order to change which strategy is the selfish one you need to change the game. In some games the selfish strategy benefits everyone greatly (See the Prairie Dog example) however the system you are proposing is not one of these systems (See earlier critiques about disincentives to improve). You can engineer behavior  without propaganda if you use selfishness rather than fight it. This is why capitalism uses the selfishness of the middle class to raise the standard of living of the poor. (Practice has shown that the rich tend to use government to alter their incentives away from this)

It appears, then, that caring about others is as much a part of human nature as caring about ourselves. Which impulse gets emphasized is a matter of training, according to the experts. "We fundamentally have the potential to develop into caring, altruistic people or violent, aggressive people," says Staub. "No one will be altruistic if their experiences teach them to be concerned only about themselves. But human connection is intrinsically satisfying if we allow it to be."

Last paragraph of : http://www.altruists.org/static/files/Beyond%20Selfishness%20%28Alfie%20Kohn%29.htm

Good example of selfishness (See the Prairie Dog example if surprised.)

[northcity4]

1) I am not sure if the prarie dog example is the best example though. Animals differ a lot from humans, especially non-domesticated ones.

2) Your quote: 'However the tendency will be for people to choose the selfish strategy since it is, by definition, the highest inclusive fitness and thus the one than tends to be passed on.'

So, this can never change into '...........selfless strategy.......passed on?' I am sure over time this can be the inclusive fitness that tends to be passed on. Your comments on this? I feel this is the one thing stopping us from an agreement.

Now: remember, there are no more disincentives. At first...yes, there will of course.

Example: cooks choosing the best way to do their job. You need a great manager to do the best you can, but the best managers are those who worked for the rich and they will want a ton of money for their services. So, in the first generations, it will be according to work, but over time, we will slowly work our way into according ability/need.

So, over time, (we'll use the bible example of 7 generations), you don't agree a system can change both the incentives and the inclusive fitness? (Remember, God becomes the new incentive to think about others as an example).

Or, are you saying, selfishness is so prominent, it is impossible to change the inclusive fitness?

Note: have they done experiments of children, without outside influence, growing up and seeing how 'selfish' they are?

[OldTrees]

1) I am not sure if the prarie dog example is the best example though. Animals differ a lot from humans, especially non-domesticated ones.

2) Your quote: 'However the tendency will be for people to choose the selfish strategy since it is, by definition, the highest inclusive fitness and thus the one than tends to be passed on.'

So, this can never change into '...........selfless strategy.......passed on?' I am sure over time this can be the inclusive fitness that tends to be passed on. Your comments on this? I feel this is the one thing stopping us from an agreement.

Now: remember, there are no more disincentives. At first...yes, there will of course.

Example: cooks choosing the best way to do their job. You need a great manager to do the best you can, but the best managers are those who worked for the rich and they will want a ton of money for their services. So, in the first generations, it will be according to work, but over time, we will slowly work our way into according ability/need.

So, over time, (we'll use the bible example of 7 generations), you don't agree a system can change both the incentives and the inclusive fitness? (Remember, God becomes the new incentive to think about others as an example).

Or, are you saying, selfishness is so prominent, it is impossible to change the inclusive fitness?

Note: have they done experiments of children, without outside influence, growing up and seeing how 'selfish' they are?

1) It is a good example to highlight what selfishness means rather than how selfishness is loaded.

2) The selfish strategy is defined as the strategy that is most successful at passing on traits. Thus the strategy that is most successful at passing on traits is the selfish strategy. The game can be arranged such that the selfless strategy is functionally identical to the selfish strategy. However to do this you need to make the selfless and selfish strategies functionally identical. At this point either you have grasped this or you have failed to grasp what selfish means in this context. If you do not move beyond the loaded definition of selfish then you will never understand the opposing view.

3) Trotskey's base system (before the propaganda layer) has disincentives. The proposed solution was using propaganda on each subsequent generation to prevent them from realizing the disincentives*. My 2 criticisms of this solution are "It requires and uses propaganda" and "Not realizing disincentives is irrational". Both of these criticisms claim that the system has a flaw that is too large to accept.
*As you have described the brainwashing, there would be 2 viable strategies
a)Spend resources and time becoming the best you can. Resources spent for no increase in inclusive fitness. [<-most used]
b)Don't expend resources and time becoming the best you can. Resources conserved for no penalty to inclusive fitness. [<-most successful]

[northcity4]

When I am talking about selfishness...we all know what it means in general. This stuff about loaded meaning and selflessness you bring up is making no sense. Can we please just keep it to: selfish: think more about yourself and selfless: think more about others for the sake of argument?

2) the strategy that most successful in passing on desired traits is not necessarily selfish. In trotsky's view, this is for the good of everyone. It's also no immoral either.

3) We are not brainwashing. People want equality and after the deranking of the rich, how do we be fair to everyone? Reward according to work. By the time we have according to ability/need, many generations would have passed by and the thought thinking process will be that being the best you can for the people will be what is best. As I have already said before, trotsky knows there will be disincentives at first, but using work--->need you can change this. Also, your critique of propaganda is not really a critique since there is nothing really wrong with it, especially since you don't have to do it forever.

You are still holding onto the notion that the selfish incentive of 'why be better when if profits me no more' will not have disappeared. I don't think you have grasped this concept that it slowly will die away each generation.

Note: propaganda is not the only use. Peer pressure, examples of how selfless actually profits you more, teachings of true equality...there are many other ways/

[OldTrees]

When I am talking about selfishness...we all know what it means in general. This stuff about loaded meaning and selflessness you bring up is making no sense. Can we please just keep it to: selfish: think more about yourself and selfless: think more about others for the sake of argument?

That misrepresents the opposition. If you decide not to understand my argument then I cannot communicate with you. For one must understand before one can evaluate.

2) the strategy that most successful in passing on desired traits is not necessarily selfish. In trotsky's view, this is for the good of everyone. It's also no immoral either.

Unless the desired traits tend to maximize inclusive fitness, they will not be selected for.

3) We are not brainwashing. People want equality and after the deranking of the rich, how do we be fair to everyone? Reward according to work. By the time we have according to ability/need, many generations would have passed by and the thought thinking process will be that being the best you can for the people will be what is best. As I have already said before, trotsky knows there will be disincentives at first, but using work--->need you can change this. Also, your critique of propaganda is not really a critique since there is nothing really wrong with it, especially since you don't have to do it forever.

You are still holding onto the notion that the selfish incentive of 'why be better when if profits me no more' will not have disappeared. I don't think you have grasped this concept that it slowly will die away each generation.

Note: propaganda is not the only use. Peer pressure, examples of how selfless actually profits you more, teachings of true equality...there are many other ways/

You were not proposing rewarding according to work. Rewarding according to work is a valid system that uses selfishness as an incentive for good deeds. Your proposed system punished improvement (either self improvement or higher quality work depending on how you changed your answer to my questions). I am not saying the selfish strategy might not disappear for a generation or two. However the natural variation in human behavior combined with the selfish strategy being favored, would result in it reappearing occasionally. (Hence continuous propaganda being required) If you seek to prevent the disincentives from being acted upon, you would need continuous propaganda. However you seem not to see a problem with using propaganda to change people's points of view. This disconnect is great enough that you do not consider it brainwashing despite it clearly being brainwashing in my point of view.

[northcity4]

Brainwashing involves force in a sense or 'the other person doesn't have a choice.' So, in this new government, people have a choice still. Now, everyone can be 'brainwashed' (we all have been) from how we are brought up and such.

2) I disagree. You are arguing from a genetic standpoint/passed traits, but the reality is, if you bring up a child to not care so much about money, he/she will not desire it as much.

Lastly, I think you misinterpreted...

We will start with work. Going straight to need/ability will not work of course...at first.

If #2 is true, then over time, we show people more and more that selfless acts are the best kind of acts. Teach people to think about others. Find enjoyment, praise, herosim when you be the best you can be for the greatest amount of people. These are the new incentives. No longer about money/greed and about the self. So, inclusive fitness will find the desire to be selfless to the new desired trait and will be passed on.

[OldTrees]

Brainwashing involves force in a sense or 'the other person doesn't have a choice.' So, in this new government, people have a choice still. Now, everyone can be 'brainwashed' (we all have been) from how we are brought up and such.

2) I disagree. You are arguing from a genetic standpoint/passed traits, but the reality is, if you bring up a child to not care so much about money, he/she will not desire it as much.

Lastly, I think you misinterpreted...

We will start with work. Going straight to need/ability will not work of course...at first.

If #2 is true, then over time, we show people more and more that selfless acts are the best kind of acts. Teach people to think about others. Find enjoyment, praise, herosim when you be the best you can be for the greatest amount of people. These are the new incentives. No longer about money/greed and about the self. So, inclusive fitness will find the desire to be selfless to the new desired trait and will be passed on.

Since the system relies on the propaganda working, I don't think it is fair to say people have a "choice". Additionally there is a difference between a parent raising a child and a psychologist intentionally manipulating a child's psyche. Either the propaganda is incompetent or it is brainwashing.

Inclusive fitness will never find the desire to be selfless to be a desired trait if you continue to punish improvement. At best you will find a midpoint that maximizes the prestige while minimizing the punishment. On the other hand if you rewarded improvement then it is easy to have selfless be a desired trait.

Note: Of course I am using the evolution of populations as a model for the evolution of the proposed population. However I seem to have failed to communicate several difference nuances.

At this point you see determined not to understand the opposing view and your system has been demonstrated (in my opinion) to punish improvement and use propaganda. It certainly is not the best form of government.

[northcity4]

Where are you getting the idea of punishing improvement?

Improvement is looked on upon in Trotsky's view. You find your reward not in money or wealth anymore. You reward is social praise, heroism. Like Indian cultures who have potlatches and give tons of stuff away...why give away money? You gain the praise of the people. Praise of the people > money.

In the same way, willing to be the best you can is looked at as: you are going to even be able to help even more people. Thank you so much. People will respect you. You don't agree this could be done? We use it today in American culture still. Money/wealth isn't everything and you seem to be pushing that issue.

Because of this, your second paragraph is a misinterpretation. Inclusive fitness can be changed to be selfless by the way regardless. I am not taking your word for it and from your sources and my sources I posted, they also agree inclusive fitness can change to selfless nature. Maybe it is you who is not understanding the argument as I am answer your questions each time and giving support.

Also, your conclusion is based soley off the argument that if your right about inclusive fitness, this government would not be the best form. Seriously? Start some new critiques and make a well round argument before you go on saying that.

[northcity4]

Brainwashing involves force in a sense or 'the other person doesn't have a choice.' So, in this new government, people have a choice still. Now, everyone can be 'brainwashed' (we all have been) from how we are brought up and such.

2) I disagree. You are arguing from a genetic standpoint/passed traits, but the reality is, if you bring up a child to not care so much about money, he/she will not desire it as much.

Lastly, I think you misinterpreted...

We will start with work. Going straight to need/ability will not work of course...at first.

If #2 is true, then over time, we show people more and more that selfless acts are the best kind of acts. Teach people to think about others. Find enjoyment, praise, herosim when you be the best you can be for the greatest amount of people. These are the new incentives. No longer about money/greed and about the self. So, inclusive fitness will find the desire to be selfless to the new desired trait and will be passed on.

Since the system relies on the propaganda working, I don't think it is fair to say people have a "choice". Additionally there is a difference between a parent raising a child and a psychologist intentionally manipulating a child's psyche. Either the propaganda is incompetent or it is brainwashing.

Inclusive fitness will never find the desire to be selfless to be a desired trait if you continue to punish improvement. At best you will find a midpoint that maximizes the prestige while minimizing the punishment. On the other hand if you rewarded improvement then it is easy to have selfless be a desired trait.

Note: Of course I am using the evolution of populations as a model for the evolution of the proposed population. However I seem to have failed to communicate several difference nuances.

At this point you see determined not to understand the opposing view and your system has been demonstrated (in my opinion) to punish improvement and use propaganda. It certainly is not the best form of government.

Now that we have cleared up punishing improvement, what is wrong with propaganda? You know, propaganda has a loaded meaning (immoral advertising-hitler saying to blame the jews) so let's use the term: advertisement or influential media, but not propaganda. You still let the people choose. Not brainwashing.