So therefore all societies must develop guards against huge cocks? That is the logical conclusion of Schneider's argument anyway.

Mmm, yeah. Basically that's what haters are.

How is developing beneficial mutations tantamount to deception against cooperation? The concept is that cooperative societies must have deceivers who reap benefit from others' cooperation by their deception. Hence in case of bees, there must exist a type of worker bee that tries to pose as a drone so as to be fed without needing to do work.

Too narrow. Think more like a drone bee who gives a misleading dance then runs the other way to mate. Just because you don't know what's happening in a beehive doesn't make Schneider wrong. I postulate you know almost nothing about bees. In fact, I bet you've never even BEEN a bee.

This, as far as I know, has not happened nor is possible. Yet by Schneider's theory, this is not only possible, it is a requirement, as well as a requirement for the queen, or a class of other bees, to detect and reject such poser workers.

If able. Or to be replaced by them if possible (and therefore necessary, beneficial parasitism).

Let me point out further:

Quote from: Bruce Schneier

All complex systems contain parasites.  In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous or too effective

Summary: uncooperatives are parasites.

You're adding TONS of negative context to the words "parasites" and "uncooperatives." When the system is threatened from within, it fights back. This is the premise of evolution. Let's see who's stronger: old or new. Schneider allows that some of the 'parasites' who are 'reaping the benefits of those who aren't as able as their allies' may be the correct ones from some vague theory of morality's standpoint.

Quote

The term "dishonest minority" is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change.

Summary: parasites are...instruments of social change.

Either he is referring to symbiotic parasitism in the latter case (violating his use of the word "uncooperative" in the former), or he is hugely overstepping the limits of the definition of parasitism.

Or a third option you are intentionally ignoring. Dichotomy is typically a red flag to me, in terms of argument at least.

Martin Luther King was very much uncooperative to the status quo during the Civil Rights Era, but I would hardly call him a parasite to society, nor "dishonest" in the manner that he was avoiding the security mechanisms of society.

But...

(I guess you could make that argument, but then what does "dishonest" mean?)

Exactly.

In fact, all I see is Schneider gradually redefining his terms to suit the topic.

I am constantly plagued by the need for new words when trying to describe similar concepts to people. Maybe he picked bad words to use. Maybe we don't have a good word for it. Maybe you thought of a better one.

And yes guild, sociological. Schneider was the one who brought it into the conversation by making the "dishonest minority" instruments of social change. Sociologically, it is just a relabeling of the existing Marxist framework (yay communism). Marx's contribution to Sociology was the framework that all human society is stratified into classes, and that there is continual conflict between classes. See Marxist Sociology and Conflict theory. So nothing new on that front.

I disagree whole heartedly with this assessment of Schneider's point having to do with classes at all. Maybe this is the crux of your problem. You don't believe in inborn rights of equality of opportunity? Or you think words have one definite meaning. Like math. Let's get back to math later, though.

Biologically, Schneider's argument is wholly eclipsed by the evolutionary framework in explaining parasitism. Evolution explains it without issuing blanket statements like "All complex systems contain parasites."

And to be fair, Mongrel was the only person making reasonable claims in this thread to begin with. What we're doing is like holding both ends of a stick and trying to push the other person until one of us is standing next to him. And I don't think you're going to get there while I'm here.

And to go completely overboard, the mathematical definition of a Complex system is one in which the system itself has emergent properties not evident from properties of its constituents. For his argument to be true, one necessary emergent property of ANY system is not just ability to support but existence of constituents who do not contribute to the emergent properties of itself. Consider the Three Body problem in physics. The problem itself is dealing with the mathematical chaos of three sets of very well defined interactions. According to the theory of "dishonest minority", one of the three interactions must be deceptive and not contribute to the chaotic property of the Three Body. Which means the Three Body problem should be generally reducible into a Two Body problem. This is patently, mathematically, false.

Math is a lie that exists only on paper and in computers (it exists only in our imaginations). You can neither prove that one of anything exists, nor accurately measure nor observe any particle, length or . Don't use math to prove things in a discussion about social interaction. Just don't.

if i can't ban evade for this one topic i don't know what i got myself banned for in the first damn place :D