Institutions are Fauceirs

This actually is a comment on a Peter Turchin post on institutions.

First of all I want to mention the new look of his social evolution forum. Looks great though I miss a little bit the sobriety of a scientific publication. Looks rather like a glossy newspaper.

Anyway, remarkable is his scientific thoughts slowly approach Fauceir Theory. Institutions are mere fauceirs, and comparing them with software, another typical fauceir, is just abstracting those analogies that make a fauceir a fauceir. Fauceirs are essential to describe evolution scientifically.

While in the realm of biological evolution it is still possible to get the big picture of evolution without fauceir because
(1) there are only a few fauceirs and you can name them personally,
(2) clades, biotopes and environments are relative stable and comparable in their influences on evolution.
This, however, is no longer true in the realm of social evolution. The main actors, such as laws, education, institutions, economic enterprises, change rapidly and so does their impact on evolution. They do so as pieces of software—the analogy is striking—which grow into one or several new projects. That dynamic process requires these fauceirs to be frequently re-evaluated.

In the majority of scientific literature, those evaluations of actors are made from the perspective of the government. Peter Turchin’s blog is no exception, and this comes as no surprise because most scientists are paid by the government. They work in governmentally supported institutions after all, but that makes those scientists dependable and ideologically imprinted and their work tainted.

In my recent post I demonstrated that a government is but an other actor in social evolution, so evaluating and defining social fauceirs from a state’s perspective only can lead to inconsistencies and even dangerous ideological flaws as we’ve seen with the propagation of war, for instance.

Hope this post helps a little bit further to open eyes.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Epistemology of Evolutionary Theory – The Fauceir Stance

This is actually a comment to a comment. Because it became so extensive, I decided to post it separately.

Still trapped in the classical evolutionary theory, you believe that selection is the only mechanism that controls evolution. It was a great discovery by Wallace, not by Darwin as a matter of fact, that a stochastical process, such as natural selection, is capable to control evolution, but now we know there exist other stochastical processes, too. And it can be even proved that natural selection is not a homogeneous process. This paper provides some idea.

Distinguishing two classes, selective and non-selective (neutral) processes in case of evolutionary theory, is a crucial step, but it is merely the first step towards a more comprehensive theory of evolution. The advancement of the evolutionary theory is an epistomological process, and epistemology, in more general terms, can be understood as an evolutionary process itself to which Fauceir Theory is applicable, so please allow to explain the development of the evolutionary theory in fauceir terms.

Lets start with some analogies that illustrate that the first step in comprehending the worlds complexity is to construct a black-and-white discrimination:

  1. A child learning to comprehend the world by dividing things in bad and good.
  2. Marx starting to analyze social processes by describing two classes exploiter and worker.
  3. The trial and error experiment.
  4. Bit set or not set in computer science.

Well, and if you want a more plausible biological example, take the faculty of seeing. The most primitive visual organs can distinguish between light on and off. More sophisticated organisms can discriminate light intensities, colors (wave lengths), or even, with the help of some memory, motions.

In analogy, the epistemological process that happens to evolutionary theory now is that differentiation between selectively neutral and non-neutral control processes. But appreciating fauceir theory adds the whole spectrum of intensities.

I hope I found some colleagues to discuss this topic seriously and to publish it eventually.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Irremediable Complexity – The Fauceir Perspective

This article published in Science is a remakable step towards general acceptance of fauceir theory.

What are the points of intersection and were fauceir theory extends the concept.

  1. Yes, ratchets whether on the level of organelles or macromolecular complexes as mentioned by this paper are in fact fauceirs that evolve as such.
  2. Yes, natural selection happens, but only at the level of a particulat fauceir.


  1. No, these changes are not neutral. They are stochastical but still directional. That can be proved.
  2. No, these observations are not limited to evolution of cellular complexity, but also tissues, organs, populations, even societies.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

This Year’s Ig® Nobel Prize

Improbable Research publishes the this year’s Ig® Nobel Prize.

What excites me most is that after the Dunning–Kruger effect with the Peter Principle, the discovery of an other psycho-sociological phenomenon has been rewarded. Recently a paper on democratic elections tackles a similar problem why democratic principles result in leaders that are only slightly better than average, which goes into the direction of the Dilbert Principle.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) vs. Capability Quotient (CQ)

Arm Wrestling on Wikipedia

A recent paper defined a CQ that was used in mathematical calculations instead of the traditional IQ. The difference between CQ and IQ is almost the same as between the strength, of an arm muscle measured by arm wrestling for instance, compared to the physical value of force as it is defined by Newtons’s law. Force is what accelerates a certain mass according to the formula given below.

Newton's definition of force

Intelligence is a subjective property describing a man’s intellectual capabilities, as strength describes his physical capabilities. (Please excuse sexual language that may annoy somebody. This holds true for women too, of course.) As strength can be measured by various methods with slightly different but statistically correlating results, also intelligence can be measured by different IQ-Tests, and again they produce different results, but on average they correlate.

Newton didn’t bother to develop his classical mechanics on such a shaky ground as strength measurements, and all the same, if you are trying to perform model calculations on intellectual capabilities, you cannot rely on a paramater that is both subjective and test dependent. Therefore a CQ, capability quotient, has been introduced. The CQ is task related. The better the outcome the better the CQ. In a special case, if the task is a specific IQ test, CQ is identical to IQ.

How to Fauceirize Classical Music

Saturday I attended a fantastic concert of modern (classical) music, and I was wondering all the time how music, the sequence of frequencies and rhythms, can be fauceirized. Yesterday while searching some score on Bach’s organ music, my eye fell on this YouTube video,

and after some research, on this website,

and I got I glimps into how music is knitted from patterns that evolve more and more complex. My most preferred pieces have remarkably the clearest hierarchical structure as Debussy’s ‘Clair de lune’