Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word (going OT) and coming back

[pippin_999]

> Neri:
> Stories like these were very common among evolutionary biologists
in 
> the 50s and the 60s, and some of the old geezers still tell them 
> today. However, since then most biologists have realized that not 
> every theory that sounds reasonable can actually be made to work. 
> Today, biologists will usually demand to see a working mathematical 
> model, at the very least. The explanations you suggested were 
> discussed a lot over the years, but at least for explaining extreme 
> altruism they don't work very well, mainly because they are
sensitive 
> to new mutations with slightly more reasonable behavior. In your 
> theory, for example, it's likely  that after a million years or
two, 
> *some* females would get some brain, and would go for the specimen 
> that risk their lives only for females (preferably one female, 
> preferably them). The specimen that risk their lives for any
stranger 
> out there are less likely to stay alive and be there for the kids, 
> after all. You'd also think that some males would get the brain to 
> perform these risky stunts only when some females are around to be 
> impressed. The models show that once very few of the population 
> develop a smarter gene like this, they quickly multiply and take
over 
> the whole population, because they have a survival advantage.
They're 
> only altruists when it's effective for propagating their genes. 
> However, I gathered from Kneasy's story that there wasn't any 
> eligable female around. 


Pippin:
Isn't there a mathematical model for the peacock's tail? It's a
useless, risky appendage for the individual peacock, but the 
female who selects for it is selecting for a male whose strength 
and vigor are obvious and tested, so her offspring are advantaged 
over the female who doesn't select for the showy tail.


Valor, though it endangers the individual, attests
to his strength and vigor if he survives.

Having evolved language, we need not personally witness valor
to appreciate it. Kneasy has had this story to tell  for thirty
years, I gather, in which time he might have encountered an 
eligible female or two. You could call it a feather in his cap. His 
self-deprecation merely serves to assure the listener that he's 
no Lockhart. 


As for risking one's life for a stranger...

Given the long period of childhood dependency in humans, the odds are
against both biological parents lasting till their offspring are
mature. 

My theory would be that  although many mammals will slaughter the 
previous offspring of a new mate, (and humans have been observed 
to do that),  there's some advantage for humans in selecting a mate
who wouldn't--one who is kind to strangers. And of course, in how 
many stories does the selfish jerk's behavior, though directed toward 
the stranger, end up endangering his own kin? ::whistles Star Wars 
theme::

I believe there's a new study that suggests that oxytocin, the
hormone that controls the mother-child bond, also increases trust 
in strangers.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/050531-4.html

In that case, maybe Rowling and the Anglo-Saxons have it right and it 
does make sense to have one word for the whole passel, even if
disinterested altruism and mother love don't  *feel* the same. 
Dumbledore doesn't use the word, just as the hero doesn't tell us he 
was brave, because it would sound, and feel, fraudulent. But it
isn't.

Love is a verb. The word is validated by action, not feeling.

Pippin