Album Title Meme

Via Quantized Thoughts comes the first album meme. The rules:

My title is Which We Created Them, since my quotation was, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them,” attributed to Albert Einstein. My band name is Köprülü family: I’m triply heavy metal. Just call me osmium, biyotch.

The original image also has its umlauts: Gümüş martı / Yellow-legged Gull / Larus michahellis.

14 thoughts on “Album Title Meme”

  1. Apparently Flickr is “having a massage” and so there are no pictures. (And GMail has been acting funny for the last two days … is the internet breaking, or what?!) But anyhow, my band name is Diary of a Shinjuku Thief and my album name is “to be thought enigmas” from “Never tell a man you can read him through and through; most people prefer to be thought enigmas.” I think the album name should be Diary of a Shinjuku Thief, though, and the band name would better be To Be Thought Enigmas.

  2. I haven’t noticed any GMail problems (then again, I basically use it as a spam bucket and comic-strip delivery system). This, though, is priceless:

    Widely respected for his stubborn belief that the whole universe should be run just like his neighborhood on the backwater planet Tatooine, Obi-ron spends a lot of time wistfully remembering the Old Republic. He practices a peculiar interpretation of The Force, in which reducing government to only local control and returning to the gold standard is the answer. Obi-ron reluctantly returned the contributions of the Tusken Raiders and Jawas, whose politics of ethnic slaughter and droid slave trade he justifies as “states rights”. While his anti-Empire foreign policy excites the Rebel Alliance, it’s pretty much a Jedi mind trick. He’s still a crazy old guy living in the desert.


  3. This is PROBABLY the best meme I’ve seen in a long, long time. So much so that it prompted me to break about five months of blog silence just to post my album.

    For those who don’t want to click through, my band is called ZEN V, and our first album is “The Judgment of Charity”…which, if you ask me, is a pretty awesome combo. Especially with the peony-wallpaper image that Flickr chose for me.

  4. Not much luck on the album titles – “use being anything else”? “left is a compromise”?

    PS: Blake, I’ve written a (bit belated) response to one of the points you brought up in the “Group Delusion” thread on the Dawkins site, in case you’re interested.

  5. I guess we can’t always count on randomness to fulfill all our creative needs.

    Thanks for the comment over at the RD forum. Trying to find a paper I’d found before, I came across this instead: “To avoid semantic confusion both within and across disciplines, it appears more useful to reckon that, whenever interactions occur at a local spatial scale, and dispersal is limited, then interactions occur among genetic relatives, and thus kin selection is operating.” But this doesn’t address the “quasi-steady-state assumption” issue (at least, not on my first reading of the paper). . . .

    Aha! Found what I was thinking of:

    Although we think there is great merit in Lehmann and Keller’s attempt at synthesis we see a number of obstacles that might stand in the way of its general acceptance as a common framework. A first important obstacle is that it does not make clear how kin selection relates to kin discrimination. This is unfortunate as Lehmann and Keller’s approach will help to perpetuate the common misconception that kin selection requires discrimination or recognition of related individuals. As Hamilton showed in his classic paper (Hamilton, 1964), altruistic behaviour can be selected if one meets, on balance, sufficiently many individuals who carry the same gene, without having to know who is related and who is not. Part of the confusion is probably caused by Hamilton himself when he remarks that kin selection would probably more effective when individuals adjust their behaviour according to their genealogical relationship with the individuals they interact with.

    This also looks interesting.

  6. But this doesn’t address the “quasi-steady-state assumption” issue (at least, not on my first reading of the paper). . . .

    No, they are addressing the “mean field approximation assumption” issue by another name ;) Those articles you linked to had some references demonstrating that kin selection models don’t rely on panmictic assumptions or on lack of spatial structure.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen the “quasi steady state assumption” talked about outside Goodnight et al’s “prudent predator” article, which isn’t technically published yet, so it’s not surprising that the current kin selection literature doesn’t address it by name? (And, all these physics terms might elicit only blank stares from most biologists, even if they do read about them!)

    I’m sure that Bar-Yam’s and friends’ models are useful models of something, but the claims of biologists so far relying on this or that assumption don’t hold up AFAICS, and thus I’m suspicious of claims of a radically new level of evolution emerging from the models.

  7. Always try to assume that a new model is much less revolutionary than first advertised, right? :-)

    My personal suspicion — and take that for what it’s worth — is that new models of this sort might become useful in modeling other situations where a kind of natural selection occurs: neuron wiring, clonal selection of B lymphocytes, something like that. And, who knows, the “quasi steady state” business might be a useful extension to thinking about evolutionary stable strategies.

    Fortunately, it’s not my job to make it work. Heh heh heh.

    And, all these physics terms might elicit only blank stares from most biologists, even if they do read about them!

    No doubt.

    There’s definitely some weird interdisciplinary communication failures going on here. And, of course, the whole situation is worsened by redefinitions of “group selection,” and by dragging religion into the business (DS Wilson might have a lot to answer for).

  8. And, of course, the whole situation is worsened by redefinitions of “group selection,” and by dragging religion into the business (DS Wilson might have a lot to answer for).

    I think many laymen and even biologists are wrongly interpreting Dawkins as retreating into dogma in the recent discussion, as a result of his repeating his old points and Wilson and Wilson presenting new somewhat slippery and vague claims. Their New Scientist article, at least, makes their brand of group selection to be all about “niceness” and an alternative to kin selection, when it’s probably neither.

  9. My Band is called Pine Ridge, Oklahoma, and our freshman effort is called Follows Religiously the New.

    The cover looks like this. We each play a half-dozen instruments, and try to bring a disharmonious rebellion against the White Stripes, Dashboard Confessional and Modest Mouse to the forefront of the MySpace Music Revolution. But we dig Man Man.

  10. I note, somewhat belatedly, that I’ve talked this over with a couple friends who’ve been doing population genetics for significantly longer than I, and we’re hacking out a nice, explicit model to illustrate how spatial distribution and kin recognition can perform comparable roles in breaking the mean-field approximation. It’s a few notches down on everybody’s priority list, but it sounds like fun.

Comments are closed.