So, check out this retarded post at the Huntington Post, Goodbye Selfish-Gene: A New Upheaval in the Science of Human Behavior:
Plain talk: The Darwinian prop of the lone cowboy rugged conservative bundle of selfish genes has now been pulled out from under the cowboy and the lone cowboy has suddenly collapsed into a mumbling baffled cartoon.
Humans are pack animals. We live and die in herds. The group provides the individual with the means of physical and psychological survival. We need the group as much as the group needs us. It's a fair trade that's been evolving for millions of years.
The selfish-gene mantra of conservative psychologists and columnists is now more or less dead. Will we see the public media focus on this new development?
The "selfish gene" idea was popularized by that lion of the right-wing movement, Richard Dawkins! You know, that darling of the conservative media, what with his anti-Bush and anti-God stances. I'm not going to parse and decompose the details of how gene-level selective dynamics do not imply that individuals are actually islands outside of the sea of sociality. That's pretty much common sense, we're a social species. Any theory that explains anything has to take that into account.
Rather, I would like to point out that group-level selection means that some groups have to die or be marginalized. It is called multi-level selection. So instead of the local big-man marginalizing his fellow citizens and monopolizing resources, you have tribe A exterminating & assimilating tribe B. How edifying! David Sloan Wilson makes this explicit in Darwin's Cathedral, where he recounts the expansion of the Nuer at the expense of the Dinka. This is why group selection was so congenial to a certain anti-Semitic scholar for explaining how Jews as a group were dominating gentile whites. You see, they're the hive-Jew-mind, acting as one to dominate other groups. This is a scholar who David Sloan Wilson defended at one point (though I grant that the normative biases at work weren't so manifest or clear at the time, so I don't think that the defense is any indication of Wilson's personal beliefs or values).
To breezily map scientific facts to the values they imply in the manner above is retarded, and dangerous. It debases and muddies science. And I'm frankly getting tired of all the posturing which is sometimes necessary when talking about the human sciences to shield oneself from charges that one is attempting to lend support to Hitler part II. The reality is that science is a tool for evil or good, it does not create evil or good. Neither David Sloan Wilson or E.O. Wilson are very worried about political correctness, the latter was involved in the famous sociobiology controversies of the 1970s while David Sloan Wilson is a big fan of evolutionary psychology (see Evolution for Everyone where he lays out his own views pretty clearly and tells the readers not to worry too much about genetic determinism). The phenotypes which putatively emerged from group-level selective processes could very well be responsible both for the kindness that Southern American whites showed to their neighbors when they were down on their luck, as well as to their sense that the "Negroes" had to be kept in their place. That reality does not speak to whether group-level processes do, or do not, occur. It is all good and well to emphasize that group-level effects mean that we care about our fellow man for explicable communitarian reasons, but remember that just as the Israelites were not to murder their fellow Hebrew they were also enjoined to ethnically cleanse Palestine.
Note: Also, the author of the post above mistakenly asserts that E.O. Wilson has changed his mind in supporting group selection. This is false. Wilson was a supporter of this theory in the 1970s when it was in eclipse, see Defenders of the Truth. David Sloan Wilson recounts in his most recent book that the elder Wilson was the one who first encouraged him during a seminar when he was reporting the likelihood of group level dynamics (the elder Wilson actually pro-actively pointed it the younger Wilson). E.O. Wilson was always a believer, he was just waiting for a stronger case before he was more vocal. Not only do our preferences of ought not determine the validity of is, but the history of is can always be looked up. People should try this more often.
Via Steve.
- Log in to post comments
The book Sociobiology has an illustration of various levels of selection, including interdemic, that suggests that kin selection is a kind of group selection rather than taking a gene's-eye view. Some sources are implying that the issue is settled because Wilson, Mr. Sociobiology, has allegedly converted (or is reverted). But EO Wilson was never one of the top tier of "sociobiology" theorists in terms of innovation and influence (that would be Hamilton, Trivers, Williams, and Maynard Smith, in my opinion). He became the public face because he popularized an old term by coined John Paul Scott. (Just like Dawkins rather than Donald Campbell got the credit for the meme concept because the former coined and popularized a neologism.) Dawkins (anyone know the source?) called Wilson's Sociobiology the last great book of old school ethology, or something like that.
I've long accepted multilevel selection. And DS Wilson deserves credit for flying the multilevel selection flag when it was very unpopular. But Wilson & Wilson get some things wrong in their New Scientist piece. For one, just because organisms emerged from groups of individuals does not mean that current social groups are incipient organisms, much less ARE organisms (except in the loosest analogy). A termite colony is very different, in terms of behavior, population structure, reproduction, exchange of individuals, and selection, than a human society.
Second, not all selection at all levels drive the functional integration of lower order entities into higher order entities. There can be selection between ecosystems (see Ecological Imperialism, for example) where they meet. But this does not mean that ecosystems are functionally integrated anything like organisms are, although symbiotic associations are important. Selection also occurs at the levels of species and clades, but that doesn't mean they function like even groups, much less organisms. There is a conflation between social evolution (which can be wholly driven by old-fashioned "selfish" kin selection and reciprocal altruism) and levels of selection. Often these are related, sometimes they are not.
And third, selection below the level of the individual (Edelman, Calvin, Hebb etc) generates adaptive specification of structure without the need for fancy innate Chomskyian/ES cognitivist devices/modules and the like.
I think it's hilarious that the Huffington Post blogger wrote "We live and die in herds" because that brings to mind Hamilton's 'Geometry of the Selfish Herd' in which he showed that herding behavior could be modeled as individuals clustering to protect themselves from predators - meaning that that they were forcing some of their fellows to be exposed to predation instead. So a herd is a very poor example of "good of the group" perspective, but is a paragon of individualistic selfishness. He should have cited a carnivore hunting pack preying on that herd.
Another thing that bothers me about DS Wilson is that he zings Dawkins (and to be sure, there are many to legitimately criticize Dawkins about) for passionately endorsing universalist altruism and empathy even though Dawkins thinks such behavior is epiphenomenal or a mistake. Is an epiphenomenon any less real to us, in our proximate existence, than a casually ultimate adaptation? Can we value a feature of human life only if it can be shown to be an adaptation? What do we intelligent self-aware beings care - in terms of our morality - if something was evolved via natural selection or not? That is strangely essentialist, and goes without saying, the naturalistic fallacy. Furthermore, as Razib points out, the relentless logic of group selection alone is hardly compatible with species-wide universalist altruism and compassion either.
The naturalist fallacy is the assumption that what is natural is "good".
It's a very different idea to say that our prejudices about what is desirable and proper should be abandoned in recognition of what is natural.
The moralist fallacy is the idea that it is self-evidently correct that we should ignore the natural world in favor of a culturally-developed set of strictures.
Colugo,
A wildebeest herd or a cape buffalo herd? Cape buffalo do come to the aid of others in trouble. As do the members of elephant herds. Cape buffalo form social groups, wildebeest are just fellow travelers.
I stand corrected.
Group selection also pertains to economic classes if there is any heritable component to their stratification, like if uppers tend to marry uppers. The glory of group selection then tells us what a morally marvelous thing it is when corporate cartels band together to fleece the plebian consumer class, while it's morally repugnant for the CEOs to selfishly compete against one another.
I'm sure that's an endorsement that HuffPo people would agree with, infatuated with un-selfish selection as they are.
It's a very different idea to say that our prejudices about what is desirable and proper should be abandoned in recognition of what is natural.
I doubt that the current group selection cheerleading will increase objectivity much...
I suppose I will have to knuckle down and read the Wilsons' stuff (the full QRB version) but on skimming through it I don't see much to rock my boat. Wilson (D.S.) has always tended to load the dice by defining group selection to include kin selection. The controversial bit is the *non*-kin-selection variety. Given the right parameters, it is theoretically possible (as Maynard Smith's 'haystack' model showed way back in 1964). The argument has always been about the likelihood that the right parameters will exist.
Hunter and gatherers are living in small tribes. They survive in group. When come to competions with other tribe, it is group survival and selection. So in barbaric society, tribe elemenation or genocide are often rule than exception. The way they compete is very similar to those wild animals.
However, in civilized society, human are equavalent to domesticated animals. So called civilized societies were often ruled by king or emperors. The rule of game in civilized society is productivity or taxation. Highly productive individual domesticated human or animal is selected to survive in such condition. Non-compliant non-productive barbaric human or wild animal would be rid of. As ruler or breed selector, it does not matter what ethnicity or breed of subjects are. What is really matter is productivity. Thus, in civilized society, ruler and subjects can be different ethnicity or from different original. England have been invaded numerous times. But original Celtic blood survived under different rulers as long as they survived brutal taxation imposed by increasing demanding successive rulers. New ruler either by inheritance or conquering often want more wealth than previous ruler. Higher taxation will be imposed on subjects. Only highly productive subjects can survive. Ony obedient subject (law-abiding) can survive just as domesticated animal. The net result of thousands year of social darwin evolution is highly productive civilized (domesticated) obediant citizens.
When English estabolished its empire, it was about wealth and taxation. If local subjects are taxatable, they can survive like Hong Kong. If they were nontaxable barbarians, they would be replaced by domesticated species, English settlers in north America, Chinese in Singapore, ects. To ruler, it does matter what subjects are. Ony matter is tax. Same thing happened to domesticated animals agains wild animals. Domesticated wheat or rice are replace wild plants around world because they are useful to civilized society. Corn or patato in new world survive onslaught of old world invasion because they are productive to civilized society.
Group behavior based tribalism is true for people with short history of civilization. Group behavior is different story for civilized people, which is more of loyalty to the master who might have different ethnicity.
In civilized society, a royal king is more interested in his subjects loyalty and productivity than their ethnicity. Thus, WASPs less ethnicentric behavior had its histological and evolutional background.
Tribalism is relic of barbarians. In today, tribalism express itself in form of racism
Group behavior based tribalism is true for people with short history of civilization. Group behavior is different story for civilized people, which is more of loyalty to the master who might have different ethnicity.
In civilized society, a royal king is more interested in his subjects loyalty and productivity than their ethnicity. Thus, WASP less ethnocentric behavior had its histological and evolutionary background.
Tribalism is relic of barbarians. In today, tribalism express itself in form of racism
Group selection is about tribal mindset.
Hunter-gathers are living in small tribes. They survive in group. When come to competitions with other tribe, it is about group survival and selection. So in barbaric (hunter-gather) society, tribe elimination or genocide is often rule than exception. The way they compete is very similar to that of wild animals.
However, in civilized society, human subjects are equivalent to domesticated animals. So called civilized societies were often ruled by king or emperors in early days. The rule of game in civilized society is productivity and taxation. Highly productive individual domesticated human or animal is selected to survive in such condition. Non-compliant non-productive barbaric human or wild animal would be rid of. As ruler or breed selector, it does not matter what ethnicity or breed of subjects are. What is really matter is productivity. Thus, in civilized society, ruler and subjects can have different ethnicity or be from different origin. England have been invaded numerous times. But original Celtic blood survived under different rulers as long as they survived brutal taxation imposed by increasing demanding successive rulers. New ruler either by inheritance or conquering often want more wealth than previous ruler. Higher taxation will be imposed on subjects. Only highly productive subjects can survive. Only obedient subject (law-abiding) can survive just as domesticated animal. The net result of thousands year of social Darwin evolution is highly productive civilized (domesticated) obedient citizens.
Ruler's greed for wealth to higher tax to higher productivity of subject creates evolutionary cycle leading to high material wealth in civilized society. Civilized productive subjects are descendants of brutal exploitation.
When English established its empire, it was about wealth and taxation. If local subjects are taxable, they can survive like Hong Kong. If they were nontaxable barbarians, they would be replaced by domesticated species, English settlers in north America, Chinese in Singapore, ects. To ruler, it does matter what subjects are. Only matter is tax. Same thing happened to domesticated animals against wild animals. Domesticated wheat or rice are replace wild plants around world because they are useful to civilized society. Corn or potato in new world survive onslaught of old world invasion because they are productive to civilized society.
I'm not going to parse and decompose the details of how gene-level selective dynamics do not imply that individuals are actually islands outside of the sea of sociality. That's pretty much common sense, we're a social species.
I think you're giving him too much credit for suggesting that he bothered to make that implication. My impression is that he doesn't have the slightest idea that "selfish gene" refers to selfish genes, not genes for selfishness. Despite linking to a Wikipedia article that clarifies that point in the first paragraph.