FORGIVE ME FOR CONTINUING WITH PETER’S RESPONSE TO MY RESPONSE TO GORDON’S TWO POSTS. I HAVE LEARNED DIRECTLY FROM PETER BUT MORE OFTEN INDIRECTLY—HE HAS FORCED ME TO THINK THROUGH MATTERS AND IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHERE HE IS WRONG. I AM FINISHED WITH THAT NOW. LIFE IS SHORT AND MINE IS GETTING SHORTER BY THE DAY, SO I WILL REPEAT MY PIECE AND PETER’S RESPONSE TO IT (IN YELLOW) AND THEN MY CURRENT RESPONSE—IN CAPITAL LETTERS. I AM ALSO ADDING TWO NAMES TO GORDON’S LIST. DAVID HAIG WHO IS A BRILLIANT EVOLUTIONARY GENETICIST AT HARVARD AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN WHO IS A BRILLIANT FUND AND INVESTMENT MANAGER (PALM BEACH, NYC, US VIRGIN ISLANDS) WITH BROAD SCIENTIFIC INTERESTS. ---- Dear Gruterites Gordon has now brought the argument full circle and given the project a larger meaning. The most powerful nation on earth, with the greatest power to vent harm—or, in theory, confer benefits—is ruled by an organism that fits the definition of a psychopath—of the narcissistic kind—or a malevolent narcissist. This presents serious dangers that need to be addressed. Peter Richerson has made several valuable points: 1—Causality could go entirely in the other direction than the one I suggested—people avoid more psychopathic relatives the more experience they have had due to closer relatedness. And the paper I attached does not allow discrimination. The fact that psychopaths show only a weak and insignificant tendency to migrate further from place of birth is mildly interesting but has nothing to do with who is causing any difference in migration. As far as I can think it through, selection pressures on psychopaths and relatives of psychopaths should be roughly equal and therefore equally likely. Peter is biased toward reaction by others, perhaps because of his bias toward “cultural” explanations. First, psychopaths always have the first move in the co-evolutionary struggle and relatives getting out of the way is the next move. Secondly, it is very easy for a psychopath to si