From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:00 PM To: Peter Thiel Subject: Re: FW: evolution seems to invade culture as well as biological sy=tems. in any socially competitive game govt=C2 . grants. relationships deception is a usefu= strategy, when you have observers, even more so. =s it provides leverage over a group at a small cost/. and yes =uch more to discuss On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Peter Thiel > wrote: 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 und=r which deception is highly adaptive (and in this sense, it is quite compa=ible with the findings of science). I meant it more as a question of=the sociology of science: If there is a lot of deception in science,=then there are a lot of fake scientists trying to get government grant mon=y and thereby replace the real scientists. I think this is a pretty =ig phenomenon and seriously 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 te=hnology. Thus, if there are better ways of detecting deception, then=there may be less taking place (the cost/benefit calculus just shifts). =AO And perhaps conversely, if there is a stronger government, then perhaps=it will be able to get away with more deception (think fascist/communist p=opaganda, or Orwell's 1984) and will find it easier to pretend that it=is solving problems than actually to solve problems. --Peter From: Peter Thiel < <mailto » Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:31 AM Subject: FW: To: <mailt <mailt <mailt > From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] cmailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:39 AM To: Peter Thiel <mailto: Subject: EFTA_R1_01574995 EFTA02466443