4 ms·

Which is in part why I stated: Though simplistic applicability of this to human society, in the ways that have been done in the past, should probably be discour

Which is in part why I stated: Though simplistic applicability of this to human society, in the ways that have been done in the past, should probably be discouraged. But you are likely correct; I should have been stronger in my warnings. Unfortunately, however, it could be taken that I was indicating the wholesale applicability of a possibly one-off event as explanation to broader and seemingly repeated phenomena (leveling and/or declining population rates in so-called developed countries), rather that just as a possible single extreme instance of population and reproductive instability as generalized example. My interest is confined strictly to the rat populations themselves. The particulars of the designs involved and for the issues that were introduced by them, I think that to be the more interesting part. Any applicability to human sociology I would regard as ridiculously erroneous at this stage. (Or perhaps any stage. We tend to cross-associate species too much sometimes.) Though, I wonder if reproducibility may not, here, be as useful as we think. It is of course necessary for such to scientific, or at least scientifically studied. Repeatability, however, is not a prerequisite of existence. It is a question of how high a degree of variability exists within the flow and inter-relation and outcomes of population-wide phenomena among social species.

shkkmo 5y ago
> It is of course necessary for such to scientific, or at least scientifically studied. Repeatability, however, is not a prerequisite of existence. It is a question of how high a degree of variability exists within the flow and inter-relation and outcomes of population-wide phenomena among social species. Except Calhoun didn't do the basic stuff to rule out the obvious non-social causes for population breakdown. He didn't take offspring from the colony and test to make sure they still could reproduce healthily in a new setting. Calhoun doesn't clearly specify all the starting conditions, but at least one run started from 4 breeding pairs which introduces the possibility of inbreeding as a close call. There are also diseases that cause sterility and odd behaviors in rats. So basically until someone can reproduce the experiment properly, there is pretty much zero epistemic content that can be drawn from the Calhoun experiments except as a cautionary tale about taking self promoting scientists at their word rather than demanding their data as well.
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  I never focused on the social role as causatory[1]. All I wanted was a quick, easily searchable, not-overly technical example of reproductive variation in a population over time. What is known of Calhoun's experiments still satisfy that requirement. I have tried to dispel the social aspect in two posts so far and have completely failed. Obviously, that the connection of such in the broader imagination is to a degree which I underestimated continues to haul in baggage that is sinking my intentions. Would it have been better to talk about bivalves[2] and baboons[3]? I would generally prefer bivalves to baboons. But then I would be accused, again, in trying to illustrate a general phenomena or principle, of drawing a line to some vector of particular conflux between species A and H. sapiens, ala the domain of Jordan Peterson's lobsters. The problem is, I am afraid, in such discussions as these, my posts will have to account down to the punctuation, lest one correction will need be issued or question be raised, in which case the totality of the thing is blown to the proverbial kingdom come by its (and my) inability to account for the sum totality of a minute portion of the universe. (A trivial failing, I admit, but one I have to own up to.) Except perfect is never going to be good enough. It's similar, after a fashion, to having to deal with young earth creationists. Yes, but where is the transitionary fossil between H. habilis and H. erectus? The counter claim will then arise that there are differences in opinion as to whether H. ergaster is a precursor to H. erectus or categorizable in terms of inclusion with H. erectus. The question is: why do I put in the effort? Maybe because silence, inaction, is always likely in support of something. Neutrality can likely only exist at minimum if the subject and phenomena are not extant within the same light cone. Practical considerations might allow for a smaller distance, but might as well be thorough. Ultimately, I have to be fine with misstepping. Failure, after all, in the end, is the only option. Returning to Calhoun a moment, since I might as well ride the derailment off the cliff (semper desistas semper exieris[4]), the final outcome of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword is that swaths of reality functionally cease to exist. Of course there is epistemic content. That content is not applicable within a scientific framework, that is very true. But something, unless the entirety was fabricated, did happen. Maybe Calhoun purposefully funneled the experiment into his result, The Mad God of Universe 25. Maybe he was the Harry Harlow of rats. But the basics of it are that reproductive rates changed and the population collapsed. Maybe it was from disease. Maybe it was from inbreeding. Maybe it was from the food. Maybe it was from the design of the enclosure. Maybe one day Calhoun decided to climb into the enclosure and stomp them all. Maybe it was all these things together. It's not much. But 'pretty much zero' is not zero.[5] As almost everything I tend to post proves, close enough doesn't cut it. ------- [1] Yes, I am aware this is not a 'real' word, and I don't care. Another few hundred years and it will be a word. It's been independently derived too many times. [2] https://jpswad.people.wm.edu/Martins%20et%20al%202018%20-%20Nature.pdf https://jpswad.people.wm.edu/Martins%20et%20al%202018%20-%20... [3] https://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/publications/2003AJHB.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/publications/2003AJHB.pdf [4] I won't claim this is grammatically correct. My latin classes were more than two decades ago. [5] (Bees, interestingly enough, can be taught the concept of zero, which puts them ahead of human toddlers.)

shkkmo 5y ago

> It is of course necessary for such to scientific, or at least scientifically studied. Repeatability, however, is not a prerequisite of existence. It is a question of how high a degree of variability exists within the flow and inter-relation and outcomes of population-wide phenomena among social species. Except Calhoun didn't do the basic stuff to rule out the obvious non-social causes for population breakdown. He didn't take offspring from the colony and test to make sure they still could reproduce healthily in a new setting. Calhoun doesn't clearly specify all the starting conditions, but at least one run started from 4 breeding pairs which introduces the possibility of inbreeding as a close call. There are also diseases that cause sterility and odd behaviors in rats. So basically until someone can reproduce the experiment properly, there is pretty much zero epistemic content that can be drawn from the Calhoun experiments except as a cautionary tale about taking self promoting scientists at their word rather than demanding their data as well.

apocalypstyx 5y ago
I never focused on the social role as causatory[1]. All I wanted was a quick, easily searchable, not-overly technical example of reproductive variation in a population over time. What is known of Calhoun's experiments still satisfy that requirement. I have tried to dispel the social aspect in two posts so far and have completely failed. Obviously, that the connection of such in the broader imagination is to a degree which I underestimated continues to haul in baggage that is sinking my intentions. Would it have been better to talk about bivalves[2] and baboons[3]? I would generally prefer bivalves to baboons. But then I would be accused, again, in trying to illustrate a general phenomena or principle, of drawing a line to some vector of particular conflux between species A and H. sapiens, ala the domain of Jordan Peterson's lobsters. The problem is, I am afraid, in such discussions as these, my posts will have to account down to the punctuation, lest one correction will need be issued or question be raised, in which case the totality of the thing is blown to the proverbial kingdom come by its (and my) inability to account for the sum totality of a minute portion of the universe. (A trivial failing, I admit, but one I have to own up to.) Except perfect is never going to be good enough. It's similar, after a fashion, to having to deal with young earth creationists. Yes, but where is the transitionary fossil between H. habilis and H. erectus? The counter claim will then arise that there are differences in opinion as to whether H. ergaster is a precursor to H. erectus or categorizable in terms of inclusion with H. erectus. The question is: why do I put in the effort? Maybe because silence, inaction, is always likely in support of something. Neutrality can likely only exist at minimum if the subject and phenomena are not extant within the same light cone. Practical considerations might allow for a smaller distance, but might as well be thorough. Ultimately, I have to be fine with misstepping. Failure, after all, in the end, is the only option. Returning to Calhoun a moment, since I might as well ride the derailment off the cliff (semper desistas semper exieris[4]), the final outcome of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword is that swaths of reality functionally cease to exist. Of course there is epistemic content. That content is not applicable within a scientific framework, that is very true. But something, unless the entirety was fabricated, did happen. Maybe Calhoun purposefully funneled the experiment into his result, The Mad God of Universe 25. Maybe he was the Harry Harlow of rats. But the basics of it are that reproductive rates changed and the population collapsed. Maybe it was from disease. Maybe it was from inbreeding. Maybe it was from the food. Maybe it was from the design of the enclosure. Maybe one day Calhoun decided to climb into the enclosure and stomp them all. Maybe it was all these things together. It's not much. But 'pretty much zero' is not zero.[5] As almost everything I tend to post proves, close enough doesn't cut it. ------- [1] Yes, I am aware this is not a 'real' word, and I don't care. Another few hundred years and it will be a word. It's been independently derived too many times. [2] https://jpswad.people.wm.edu/Martins%20et%20al%202018%20-%20Nature.pdf https://jpswad.people.wm.edu/Martins%20et%20al%202018%20-%20... [3] https://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/publications/2003AJHB.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/publications/2003AJHB.pdf [4] I won't claim this is grammatically correct. My latin classes were more than two decades ago. [5] (Bees, interestingly enough, can be taught the concept of zero, which puts them ahead of human toddlers.)