Re: FW:

briefly, trivers and I share the same belief in the major role of decept=on. - a tool to protect or conquer free energy.. in essence if the =redator can read your algorithm, you are easy food . so deception is the=first line of defense as it usually the cheapest. if a prey knows its o=n algorithm it is open to interrogation. so nature hides it from the" =elf". Deceptive self confidence is also a winning game strategy. A=ts engage in the practise of mimetic. camouflage. , false direction. et=. To some extent, so do most viruses. ie since HIV clearly masquerades=itself as a unit of self. your question re is deception increasing, - =es as fast as methods of detection, note I assume you are awake

Notes: recipient and portions of the header are redacted with black bars; small ">>" appears at far right.

Jeff -- much longer discussion, but not sure I even made my questions clear=

(1). I don't question that there is a line of evolutionary thinking under w=ich deception is highly adaptive (and in this sense, it is quite compatibl= with the findings of science). I meant it more as a question of the soci=logy of science: If there is a lot of deception in science, then there ar= a lot of fake scientists trying to get government grant money and thereby=replace the real scientists. I think this is a pretty big phenomenon and =eriously underestimated.

(2). The related question of whether the amount of deception goes up or dow= over time is not about evolutionary biology (since I assume our evolution=ry nature doesn't change that quickly), but more about politics and techno=ogy. Thus, if there are better ways of detecting deception, then there ma= be less taking place (the cost/benefit calculus just shifts). And perhap= conversely, if there is a stronger government, then perhaps it will be ab=e to get away with more deception (think fascist/communist propaganda, or =rwell's 1984) and will find it easier to pretend that it is solving proble=s than actually to solve problems.

--Peter