David Sloan Wilson, the doyen of Multilevel Selection theorists, has a new book out, Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives. It seems pretty clear to me that Wilson is trying to "do a Dennett" here. But unlike Dennett, who was not a scientist himself and so operated within standard evolutionary science by regurgitating Richard Dawkins' work (who was himself simply a channel for W.D. Hamilton and John Maynard Smith), Wilson is known to be something of a heterodox figure because of his emphasis upon higher levels of selection than the individual. Via these models of interdemic (group) selection Wilson has attempted to revive functionalism within anthropology (see Darwin's Cathedral). An extract of his book up over at the The New York Times:
If our own species can be included in this grand synthesis, there is every reason to do so. It would be like a strange figure emerging from the shadows to enjoy the warmth of a campfire with good company. My own career shows that this is possible. Just like Darwin-not because I share his personal attributes but because I share his theory-I have seamlessly added humans to the bestiary of animals that I study, on topics as diverse as altruism, beauty, decision making, gossip, personality, and religion. I publish in anthropology, economic, philosophy, and psychology journals in addition to my biological research....
Having reread Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, which Wilson co-wrote with Elliott Sober, I am not surprised at the boasting above. Unlike Darwin or E.O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson doesn't mask his ego under a self-deprecating exterior, he makes it clear that other scientists just lack his subtle perspective, his Olympian breadth of knowledge. Other scientists find math hard, are cowed by Political Correctness and swept along with the latest scientific fashions. They can't see what's right before their noses, mere mortals that they are. Wilson's ego is big enough to venture boldly into some pretty treacherous waters, recall that several years ago he wrote to defend Kevin Mac Donald against charges of anti-Semitism (Mac Donald works within a group selectionist framework). Unlike some of the cheerleaders for group selection theory he notes in Unto Others that shifting the level of selection up the hierarchy simply moves the conflict to that level (i.e., from inter-individual to inter-group). At the end of the day I often find Wilson's work just a bit too clever by a half, but I'll pick up this book for laughs and the bibliography. Even if Wilson's ideas are crap because all sorts of stuff have been blended together to produce a confused mush, the raw material of his sources are often quite illuminating.
- Log in to post comments
That so does not match what a kind, softspoken, nice, yet brilliant person David is in person.
I read Angier's review of Wilson's book in the Times tomorrow (in NYC, the Book Review gets deliverd Saturday). It didn't sound terribly interesting, one more attempt to metaphorize Darwin.
coturnix, You should have seen Newt Gingrich on Jon Stewart a few years ago. He was utterly charming and even seemed quite bright. If that was all we knew about Gingrich, you'd never guess that his brain was just a pile of nasty mush.
If that was all we knew about Gingrich, you'd never guess that his brain was just a pile of nasty mush.
both wilson and gingrich are very smart, no matter what you think of their ideas. but he's a hardcore imperialist (e.g., his project to revive functionalism from outside anthropology especially), just like dan dennett is, and far more than richard dawkins. and like dennett he seems to think a lot of himself if the prose is any judge.
p.s., i'm an imperialist as well. but, i think the "aw shucks" facade which e.o. wilson is necessary if you are really going enter into multidisciplinary dialogue. david sloan wilson's tone in darwin's cathedral toward the non-functionalist consensus was a bit too hectoring for my taste.
I saw DS Wilson give a talk back in '96. He didn't seem too egomaniacal; on the other hand, that was a long time ago and a lot of people are far more restrained in person than they are in print.
One of the worst examples of bloated scientific ego has to be Gabriel Dover's a book of an imaginary exchange of letters between himself and Charles Darwin. Now that is chutzpah. Unfortunately, insufferable vaingloriousness, conceitedness, and smugness are hardly uncommon traits among scientists.
I don't doubt that group selection is relevant in humans and other social animals; however, lower-level selection is much more important in non-eusocial species - even for traits related to sociality - for the reasons Razib and others mentioned in this post and the one from the 5th.
When the concept of multilevel selection is brought up by both proponents and critics, the topic at hand is often really group selection rather than equally or even more interesting processes like somatic selection or clade selection.
Well, we did not just have a brief chat - we spent about two days discussing these things a few years back, and along with beeing a nice guy he is, as I stated, brilliant.
I also saw D.S.O. give a talk a few years ago on Darwin's Cathedral, and talked to him for about 15 minutes afterwards. He was perfectly friendly and polite and definitely not egomaniacal.
sorry, that should be "D.S.W." not "D.S.O." in the above post.
You left out this passage where he is at least trying to feign some modesty: