Mathematical Proof that the golden rule is wrong?

Found 6th Sep 2010
The silver rule : (there are other versions that are incorrect) is:
"Do unto others as you would have do unto you, but repay in kind"

In other words, be nice, but if someone smacks you on the cheek, wack 'em back good and solid.

The premise of the model was ape or monkey grooming behavior, but it would apply to any altruistic social behavior that bestows an adaptive advantage. Basically, there were two types of apes:
1) Those that always groomed those who asked (golden rule apes)
2) Those that never groomed other apes even if they asked (evil apes)
The computer model showed that given this situation, the golden rule apes became extinct and all you had were evil apes. You can see how this works, if P_gr(t) = P_gr(0)* exp(k_gr*t) and P_ea(t) = P_ea(0) * exp(k_ea*t), the growth constant of the evil apes, k_ea would always be greater than k_gr, as the evil apes can spend more time finding food, mating and procreating than the golden rule apes. Once the GR apes.

They introduced a new model of ape, the silver rule ape:
3) Silver rule apes groom anyone ONCE, but after they groomed an individual, they would never groom back until that individual groomed them back.

Adding just a few "silver rule" apes would result in the evil apes becoming extinct. The evil apes lost the adaptive advantage as they were no longer being groomed as often.

Groups

Que ? oO

What about 'Don't do onto others as you would not have others do unto you', where would that fit in your hypothesis?

Original Poster

yeh that would work i suppose. and btw its not my hypothesis, i just found it and for some reason felt compelled to put it here :s the conclusion they came to was that the bible was wrong about the ideal rule but idk (I am not saying i agree with that btw) i just found it a bit interesting.

Im not eating fleas.

jknoxville

yeh that would work i suppose. and btw its not my hypothesis, i just … yeh that would work i suppose. and btw its not my hypothesis, i just found it and for some reason felt compelled to put it here :s the conclusion they came to was that the bible was wrong about the ideal rule but idk (I am not saying i agree with that btw) i just found it a bit interesting.

You found it interesting?

I cant understand that, but 7x13=28

Banned

You can get tablets for that mate.

Ha - the big thing is IF!

The premise is that procreation takes place even in the absence of grooming - given a choice I daresay the lady apes would go for the groomers - so the evil apes die out.

Also the theory is ignoring the effects of the environment - it is possible that grooming behaviour is entirely learned, rather than inherited!

I could think of more but I have to wash my hair;)

Why not give the 'golden rule' apes a comb each, then it would take less time to groom each other & they can catch up on the foraging etc that the evil apes are doing...

It seem to me that this theory is among other things an almost textbook example of reductionism at work.

Something else to consider:

Male homosexuality is an inherent aspect of human nature because it would not be passed onto future generations by male/female reproduction.

BFN,

fp.