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
-
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
A Blueprinter seeking a mate will subject Makers to close physical inspection. A Maker seeking a mate will start a war to find the winner.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @zackmdavis
@covfefeAnon
: "I see. So your overall point is that the 'feminists' are actually correct in their most central thesis that Blueprinter Hierarchies evolve to exclude Makers from positions of power, but the true explanation for this phenomenon is rarely stated?"2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Rarely stated because it's rarely understood. As long as Blueprinters followed tradition they never got witness unconstrained Maker nature and so never had first-hand knowledge of the reason for the traditions.
This is the case for many traditions.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
'printers did conspire to frustrate the evolutionarily programmed desires of Makers and since they were able to do this so effectively over so many generations Makers were left with desires that, if unchecked, were profoundly ill-adapted to the continued survival of the species
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @zackmdavis
: "If one argues that Makers would lead to a substantially different leadership style than Blueprinters, and that Makers have been consistently prevented from doing so before, then one is vulnerable to what you humans call the precautionary principle"1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
: "To deal with risky changes to key systems, you should run experiments like replacing *all* of the leaders of a few small countries with Makers and observing the effects"
: "Yet instead you are rolling out the change everywhere at once. Why?"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.