That which produces great progress in evolutionary theory is inconsistent with building a strong academic carreer in any field. Result: 1. EvoPsych always disappoints. 2. The public has no incling of the insight, health and liberation that could be unlocked with good Darwinism.https://twitter.com/Barryakers6/status/1018938451813588992 …
-
Are institutional limits the same in China, Japan, etc?
Great question. I don't think Japan is Independent enough. For historical reasons I suspect China will not lean toward clear-headed Darwinism, but who knows?
-
-
Sir, Motoo Kimura was a Japanese émigré. So is Masatoshi Nei. (So is Francis Fukuyama - an evolutionary thinker in political science in some respects and has been minting it). The Japanese are good at evolutionary theory.
-
"The neutral theory of molecular evolution holds that at the molecular level most evolutionary changes and most of the variation within and between species is not caused by natural selection but by genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura …
-
Yeah. Evolution by natural selection (ENS) - aka Darwinism - isn't that important for biological change, let alone culture. And Bret is wrong about evo and academia. Most of the academics that have audiences outside the academy are usually evolutionists.
-
To Bret's feeling that evolutionary theory is never treated seriously within different disciplines in the academy...well it's because it's not needed- e.g. in law. Very stupid idea.https://twitter.com/mnm_tweets/status/960295407996850176 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Having only a single way of doing things seems to go against: capitalism, evolution, and science. But it seems great for consolidation of institutional power and rent seeking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.