: "Sure. In this paper, evolutionary anthropologist Barbara Smuts explains how male primates use coercion to control female reproduction, and how females form alliances to resist this: https://www.academia.edu/21986624/THE_EVOLUTIONARY_ORIGINS_OF_PATRIARCHY … "
-
-
Replying to @zackmdavis
: "Zack of Davis, I see the rationality flows strongly in you"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis
: "Will you summarize why the less-evolved Blueprinters would be interested in limiting the number of new beings created by the less-evolved Makers? Each Blueprinter is individually incented to maximize the occurrences of its Blueprint, or are you speaking of group selection?"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Now your alien is sneaking in a thought-terminating cliche. Try to expand on the phrase "group selection" because that phrase is doing a lot of work - there's plenty of evolutionary history of total Y-chromosome replacement events (tribe gets conquered, men die, women don't).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Putting this back in your dialog's framework: Makers are highly invested in all their own offspring so would prefer to only get the highest quality blueprints - which all makers would recognize. Discerning which blueprinters are the highest quality is very difficult. 1/3(?)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ideally for the makers, all the blueprinters would ruthlessly compete directly with each other so all the makers could get blueprints from the one winner and all the non-winners could die or whatever. Ah, but this isn't a game theoretically stable solution! 2/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
There's another tribe over the next hill that has blueprinters who, instead of fighting to the death to demonstrate quality to the makers, cooperate to kill the one winning blueprinter in the next tribe (easy to do - he's one vs many). The blueprinters then have a problem. 3/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
They have to divide up the makers as spoils of war. If they fail and fight amongst themselves, they get killed by blueprinters who are better at cooperating. This over many, many generations all the makers produce offspring. Only the most cooperative blueprinters do. 4/5
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The makers still have the genetic tendency to want to see the blueprinters fight but the blueprinters now have a massive genetic disinclination to do so (all those who did, got killed). 5/5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @zackmdavis
: Covfefe, your analysis is remarkably astute, I did not think that sentient chickens existed on your planet yet.
You are able to explain Blueprinter hierarchy, but not yet explain the exclusion of Makers of extreme quality from that Blueprinter hierarchy. Whence cometh it?1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Because Makers were selected to be disruptive to Blueprinter cooperation as part of their selection (they have to sow conflict to find the best Blueprinters). The costs of excluding exceptional Makers are tiny compared to the losses due to reduced cooperation from including them
-
-
You see, in a sexually reproducing species mating is very high stakes so there are game theory reasons for both hiding your own quality as well as a desire for testing potential mates for quality.
The test for Makers is simpler as a 'printer can simply use visual inspection.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Testing 'printer quality is much more complex (and higher stakes). Makers have to test Blueprinters for traits that the Maker lacks - like physical strength and cleverness in conflict. One way for Makers to solve this is by manipulating 'printers into conflicts *with each other*
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.