why do I now write about aposyndesis?
I was thinking about group-instincts and what is now called "group selection" before 1975. Around 1975 and later, I judged aspects of this idea to be so important, and so contrary to existing herd-mentalities in the relevant sciences, that I spent two summers writing on a science fiction, a covert purpose of which would be to put the idea into circulation in our culture.
I discovered that I was hopelessly slow at writing fiction.
Next, I thought that computer-simulations might get people to pay attention, but that undertaking seemed overwhelming.
Also, some of the most important ideas, when properly understood, and although they are simply about How Things Really Work, seemed capable of angering most everyone - if I was the least bit clumsy in presenting them.
So, for nearly 40 years I have postponed the project.
Now, in 2013, I have noticed that E. O. Wilson and Steven Pinker, both of Harvard University, and both men whose works I have admired, have argued over "group selection."
E. O. Wilson says it is real.
Steven Pinker says A) it is not real and B) it leads to sin of some intellectual sort.
B) That an idea can lead to bad behavior is not relevant to whether or not it is true. So, I do not understand why Pinker raised that issue at all.
A) It is, in fact, easily seen to be real. Perhaps some people lack the mathematical insight to see it easily. Or, perhaps, they simply lack some key idea that would make the mathematics go. I will suggest some key, and widely unknown, ideas herein.
Social Fission via Aposyndesis