Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again

Nic <harrisondalen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 Dec, 20:15, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
dkomo wrote:
....
There are long and detailed explanations in Chapter 8 of _Sex and Death_
supporting the material I quoted. The book is available in any academic
library. Why don't you just read Chapter 8? It shouldn't take you more
than an hour or two. You do believe in challenging your biases by
reading opposing viewpoints, do you not?

Sure. I'll check out the book. But aren't you a little bit concerned at
your complete inability even to attempt an explanation?

No, it's just lack of time. That's why I say read the book. I'd simply
be quoting or paraphrasing large sections of the book anyway.

By the way, in answer to your question "Can it? How? If the selfish
animals outcompete the altruistic ones, won't altruism disappear in the
group?", it's called "Simpson's Paradox". Here's the relevant quote:

"Wilson argued that the trait group is a unit of selection. Trait
groups composed of altruistic animals can outcompete trait groups of
selfish animals. This can be true even if *within every trait group*
the selfish animals are out-competing the altruistic individuals. Sober
showed that Wilson's idea that selection can work one way in every group
and the opposite way in the ensemble of those groups is an instance of
Simpson's Paradox [Sober, _Philosophy of Biology_, 98-102]."

Sterelny and Griffiths, p. 161

Then on pages 162-163 they launch into an explanation of Simpson's
Paradox using an example with fitness calculations displayed in two
tables. It makes me fatigued just thinking about trying to summarize
the explanation of Simpson's Paradox in a Usenet post. It would take an
hour or more. Read the book.

I think you put it well enough in the paragraph before this. I
haven't read those books but would like to. In the mean time I want
to be clear about this. What exactly happens to groups? Do they have
exactly one genetic founder (like a multicellular organism, or like
bee colony)? Is it the difference between them having zero and one
member having any surving offspring that selects for altrusim (like a
multicellular organism, or like bees)? If not, what possible obstacle
is there in the way of the non-altruists?


Couple of comments:

1. Sterelny and Griffiths are philosophers of biology (two of the
leaders in that field), and they are interpreting Wilson and Sober here.
Hence they focus on the philosophical implications of the view they
ascribe to Sober (another philosopher) and Sloan Wilson (an actual
biologist).

2. Recently, Ed Wilson and David Sloan Wilson published a paper on this
topic in QRB; if you go to DSW's home page you can download it.

3. The argument given is that kin selection is a form of group selection
that runs contrary to individual selection.

4. Simpson's paradox is a hot topic in game theory right now, as it
identifies levels of confusion in identifying the equivalence classes.

OK, four comments...


--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... by group selection. ... because your paragraph above (and the beaver example that used to go ... This can be true even if *within every trait group* ... won't altruism disappear in the group? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... I'm afraid you don't understand natural selection. ... The beaver example was taken from Sterelny and Griffiths, ... "Wilson argued that the trait group is a unit of selection. ... won't altruism disappear in the group? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... won't altruism disappear in the ... "Wilson argued that the trait group is a unit of selection. ... the selfish animals are out-competing the altruistic individuals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... In a landmark article for the December issue of the Quarterly Review of Biology, eminent evolutionary scientists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson usher in a new era in evolutionary science. ... published in The Descent of Man, however, Darwin's explanation based on group selection had become taboo and has not recovered since. ... Scientific dogma became entrenched in popular culture with the publication of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. ... They conclude with a rallying cry that paraphrases Rabbi Hillel: "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... evolution, is in theoretical disarray. ... scientists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson usher in a new era ... explanation based on group selection had become taboo and has not ... and how altruism can be maintained in groups that happen to ...
    (talk.origins)