"Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote in
message news:...
> "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:ceqv50$2rbi$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > "Perplexed in Peoria" 
wrote in message news:...
> > > "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:celrvu$170q$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > > Note that John Edser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> > > > > being compared are inclusive fitness
> > > > > (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> > > > > as just the cost (c).
> > > >
> > > > This is wrong. Conventionally, inclusive fitness is r b
- c, not r b.
> > >
> > > This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined inclusive fitness in
> > > 1964.  He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), where K would be
> > > the fitness that an organism would have if all social
interactions were
> > > excluded (and the costs of those interactions).
> > >
> >
> > You are correct, I neglected the baseline fitness. r b - c might be
> > described as the "inclusive fitness consequences" of an action.
> >
> > > Inclusive fitness as you have defined it and inclusive fitness as
> > > Hamilton defined it maximize together only if there are no pleiotropic
> > > effects that modify both K and (rb-c).
> >
> > I disagree with you here: surely any change to K is caught in the -c
> > term.
> 
> I think I understand what you are saying - that any change that I want
> to put into K might be better wrapped into c.  I was probably wrong
> to invoke pleiotropy here.  So, we stand mutually corrected.

I'd go further and say that rather than this being "better", it is
actually necessary, by definition.

> Wish it was always this easy.

Me too :)
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/8/04 9:40:51 PM