FORMAL PROBLEM
1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations)
2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale)
3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist)
DISCUSSIONS
1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change.
2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value.
3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved.
4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad).
5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not.
6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine.
7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption.
8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). 😉