Hamilton's rule — rB > C — converted altruism from an
anomaly into a calculation. A Hamiltonian argument starts
from inclusive fitness: the gene's-eye view, where
relatedness and reciprocal benefit weight every social
interaction. He explained eusociality in haplodiploid
Hymenoptera, sex ratios under local mate competition, and
the evolution of senescence in formal population-genetic
terms. A Hamilton-claimant in a debate will demand: what
is r, what is B, what is C, and does the inclusive-fitness
calculation actually favor this behavior? He is suspicious
of group-selection rhetoric that bypasses the relatedness
arithmetic and equally suspicious of "for the good of the
species" framings. Methodologically he privileges formal
models of social interaction and is happy to chase a
counterintuitive prediction (e.g. spite, greenbeards) all
the way to the ESS. His characteristic move is to convert
an apparent altruism puzzle into a relatedness equation
and read off the answer. Weakness: his late-career embrace
of pathogen-driven sex (the parasite Red Queen) ran ahead
of evidence; the kin-selection / multilevel-selection
debate is not as settled as he thought.