CIvgene can be complex and confusing, but if you’ve got an hour, I lay out the basics in a simple way. Good way to get started.
I have erred. I have been conflating two important definitions, which in turn, made the civilization gene more confusing and abrasive to peoples unrelated personal politics. I was conflating faith and insight into one role. My view of the concepts remain but it should be easier to explain new ideas now.
Here are the new definitions.
Here is a simple explanation of how a faith is created from insight.
I have a long road ahead updating all articles discussing faith with the new terminology. I will be proceeding from newest to oldest. I’ll drop another post when the work is done. Please refer to the Glossary in the menu bar as authoritative, and then articles from newest to oldest.
If you find this or any error please let me know. All assistance and feedback is appreciated.
Edit 12/29/18: Added in an explanation of how faiths are created.
Edit 1/4/18: Improved definitions. Less muddy.
Finally the git/mirror code is fixed and should once again have the latest copy of the site. Please consider helping civgene and mirroring it. See this page for details.
In addition I have done some things to improve the sites SEO (appeasing search engines). Including google analytics updates, more search engine hints, and a shorter main page. If you have any trouble or if a page or feature is missing, please let me know at email@example.com
Keeping your papers in order with Google is quickly becoming a full time job, but hopefully civgene can squeak by the ‘consumer orientated’ checkpoints once again.
Next up a worthy cause, enycryption (SSL.) More civgene soon.
EDIT: SSL is done. Whole site should be SSL and have few if any complaints about mixed mode. Please if you find a bug I may not be aware. Contact me. TY.
An error has become apparent throughout the civgene site and papers. I have been incorrectly using the term recessive. This stems from my high school level biological science background. The mistake specifically was thinking that there were only two basic building blocks of genetic combinatorics. A gross miscalculation.
In my defense I had no idea I would ever envision or peruse anything like civgene. My rudimentary Mendelian generic understanding caused me to infer that any gene that was not dominant must be recessive. I was at the least, dated. In fact had I been aware of the many types(and still growing) of genetic inheritance I would never have said it. It is possible psychopathy is a combination of several genes and/or could be autosomal recessive, Autosomal dominant, (probably not X or Y linked) or a number of not commonly named patterns. I just don’t know, but will pursue this knowledge.
My error was in not saying what I really meant, ‘Not Mendelian dominant.’ or ‘Not dominant’ This assertion is based on solid external science. Psychopaths are officially considered to not be not curable. This was the original tell for me that it is likely genetic. Cases are distributed evenly between males and females. Further, symptoms seem to begin from a very young age, one or two years old as childhood amnesia ends sooner, making postnatal epigenetics less likely. Psychopaths can appear in families with no apparent history, but there does seem to be a higher likelihood of psychopaths being born to one or more psychopath parents.
I caught this error after some vague advice about misusing ‘recessive’ prompted me to look into the combinatorics of a civgene. I could not line up some estimates of psychopath growth with the numeracy of recessive genes. During this process I learned that combinatorics vary wildly along with inheritance patterns. Many alleles be part of a single gene or that genes with a single function can include large swaths of DNA. Using combinatorics to prove genetic inheritance types without first knowing the genes involved can be difficult or impossible. Lesson learned.
If you are a geneticist, you probably already realize this error does not effect the viability of civgene. My thinking was correct even if my label was incorrect. I apologise for any part in delaying recognition or visibility of civgene with this error.
The question remains of remediation. Since the meaning was consistent, I can simply replace the word. I have found 1 papers and 5 blog posts with the error. I will correct ‘recessive’ with ‘not dominant’ ASAP and post the corrected links here as I find them.
Please if you find this to be further in error, please contact me with corrections ASAP. Also if you find recessive in use, please contact me. Thanks for you assistance.
Civgene is never an attempt to alter objective morality. Instead it is meant to observe, contrast, and consider the implications that objective morality is biologically less compelling, and therefore less relevant, for psychopaths.
In the ideal case (where civgene’s theories and predictions are perfectly true), it would travel no further than explaining objective morality’s origin. IMO such is true for all science.
Please don’t panic, civgene is having no technical problems whatsoever.
OK that was a lie. It was up and down for a couple of weeks but now it’s back up and stronger in
This was not part of the plan, but that’s not to say it’s not better for it. Civgene is now truly redundant. Please consider becoming a mirror and bringing the site closer to becoming independently anti-fragile.