Talk:George R. Price

Driven to suicide by his discoveries?

There's some discussion of this man on this video from 1:23:30 or so http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999158785245212168 The moderator seemed to say that he became despondent after the discovery of the derivation of altruism from the game theoretical equations he developed with Hammond, and that it happened after his conversion to Christianity. As Dawkins tells it, he was a "good and generous man" but that his personal interpretation of the equation led him to believe that "there was no basis for goodness". The moderator also mentioned a book, Andrew Brown's “Dawin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul” Mr. Jones (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression from the evidence of one of his letters that Price may have been psychotic towards the end of his life. If so this could put a different complexion on motivation for suicide, common amongst people suffering from schizophrenia? The dispondency and so called turning to God may have been delusional behavior reactions brought on by psychotic episodes? possibly from reactions to thyroid psychosis. any thoughts? Parsleylion (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Conversion?

I don't think you can convert from atheism to Christianity, since atheism is not a religion. It might be more accurate to rephrase that part. --Viriditas 10:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism isn't a religion, but Christianity is. What alternative word would you use though? Dunc|☺ 12:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a few examples:

A former atheist, Price embraced Christianity, and after giving all his posessions to the poor, he committed suicide.

After living his life as an atheist, Price became a Christian, and after giving all his posessions to the poor, he committed suicide.

Is it necessary to state that he was a troubled man in that paragraph? That almost appears POV, making it seem like atheism was responsible for his problems. Also, the term militant atheist is wikified. I believe that only the word atheist should be wikified, unless you are describing strong atheism in which case that term should be used instead. It might be acceptable to pipe the link for militant atheism to strong atheism, but then again, it might not. --Viriditas 03:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you read Schwartz's biography? It seems he was troubled by his findings on models of behaviour. His articles in science on telepathy were very no-nonsense, and it seems that his atheism may have been a reason for the breakdown of his marriage. Certainly the impression I get from Hamilton's Narrow Roads is that of a troubled genius. His trobles I think also had something to do with a thyroid deficiency. Dunc|☺ 12:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Schwartz's biography, but from what you say, it sounds like "troubled" is the correct term -- however -- I think it should be attributed to the author in question, if that's Schwartz, then fine. Something along the lines of, Biographers describe schwartz's life as troubled'. But, thank you for the refs. I'm going to look deeper into this topic. --Viriditas 01:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Convert means going TO a religion. It doesn't mean that there was a religion before. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Social work" versus "Community work"

I have changed the two instances of "social work" to "community work". Whilst references may (or may not) refer to George Price engaging in 'social work' this is a common misusage of the term - a review of the articles on social work and community work will suggest that the latter is the more accurate description of what he was doing (although arguably volunteering would be more accurate still, it would change the sense somewhat).SeventhHell (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

photo?

Any chance of getting a photo of this enigmatic man? Myles325a (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New biography of Price

The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness, by Oren Harman Norton/Bodley Head: 2010. 464 pp. $27.95/£20

'In Britain'?

The heading for this section leads one to expect some reference, at least, to Britain. There isn't one: a rather basic error. Such is so often the standard of Wikipedia editing competence in use of the English language.

(A 'dumb' editor (*) reverted this addition. A good editor would have rectified the subject of criticism by including content relating the heading to the text, or changing the heading or merging sections, etc. I expect there are far more of the former ('dumb') than the latter (good) amongst Wikipedia editors, keener to wield their 'powers' of reversion than to employ their ability, when it exists, to improve an article. (*) In this case one who styles him/herself as 'Darkwind', presumably with more experience of and affinity with computer gaming than encyclopaedias). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.174.7 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2031 (UTC)