Soif the ideas from the 70s are riddled with error you would still expect progress. TheSlefish Gene solved specific problems. As we know solving problems creates new problems. Perhaps Bret means that he doesn't think these subsequent problems have been given enough attention. So you can argue there hasn't been progress since and still think the central ideas put forth in the Selfish Gene are right.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

If you're wondering why the audio is cut it is because Travis Panburn didn't know what he was doing. He organised all these "dangerous ideas" talks with people like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Weinsteins etc. He basically cheaped out on the recording equipment. There were even events that were cancelled and people were not refunded. Seems like a grifter to me. But yeah no intentional cut, just pure incompetence.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

I don;t understand why this is bonkers. You could say the same thing about the peacock feathers example. How do the genes know to code for longer feathers. THe mechanism in this reagrd is clearly much easier to parse comapred with Bret's German genes case. I'm not saying he is right but there could be a mechanism. Also antisemitism, or The Pattern as David Duetsch refers to it, has been around for as long as we know so it could have had ample time to evolve potentially. I am however more inclined togo with the memetic bad ideas explanation.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

Also the inborn fear of heights isn't as easy to overcome as you may think. It's possible to be sure but it's no easy task.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

Does the fact that it is "not easy" to change imply that genes are still operative. Or is it hard because true ideas are hard to come by?

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

I'd guess ideas that have successfully spread through one's mind are harder to change than inborn ideas.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

We have good explanations suggesting that peacock tails are genetically determined and good explanations saying creatively conjectured ideas are not. The neo-Darwinian theory of the mind in particular explains how ideas mutate away from their inborn origins. If anyone can refute the neo-Darwinian theory of the mind, I'll change my mind on this issue. As to why it's bonkers, consider this question: were genes encoding national socialism dominant or recessive? Were half-German babies only a little bit national socialist? How come some Germans were not national socialist at all? How come Germans dropped national socialism after the war so quickly if national socialism is coded for (or at least favored) genetically? Etc. Lots of problems with this view.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

BTW genes know how to code for feathers because they contain the instructions that make the feathers. I don't know what you mean by longer feathers in particular.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

Thanks for your replies.You corrected some of my errors. I should probably have waited until your closing statements to post my questions since you answered some of them there.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]

My guess would be that the genes aren't coding for national socialism per se but some other things that when combined lead to national socialism. As I say I am more on board with the ideas and neo-Darwinian theory of mind as an explanation. Just trying to find the most charitable intepretation of what Bret is thinking. Although he should be stating it more precisely and clearly in the first place.

[This comment was imported from Soundcloud.]