Ch. 6 - Genesmanship

Chris OConnor · Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:47 am

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Ch. 6 - Genesmanship

seespotrun2008 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:56 pm

I am kind of confused by this chapter. Does anyone have any ideas? He is talking about genes being altruistic and in practice the survival machines being altruistic to others of the same kind? This makes survival of a particular gene more probable. But relatives share genes so more is at stake because relatives often share rare genes. So saving a relative is even more important in a particular gene pool. Am I on the right track? In saving, is he talking about physically saving? Like jumping in front of a car to save someone, etc.?

seespotrun2008 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:02 pm

Also, what does he mean by "altruistic gene". Is there a specific gene for altruism?

seespotrun2008 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:10 pm

Wait, page 96:

"...postulating the spread of a gene for saving close relatives from drowning..." Wow, genes can get really specific!

seespotrun2008 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:52 pm

Ok. I think I am starting to understand. Because genes want to survive, not individuals, not groups, but genes, genes automatically calculate different behaviors mathematically. Those calculations are to find the cost or the benefit of certain selfish or altruistic behaviors in the individual species.

CWT36 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:09 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: I am kind of confused by this chapter.

Thank you for saying that. I'm grappling with this book myself and am having a hard time even putting my questions into words. I've been reading other people's posts hoping to find some direction and I just get more lost.

seespotrun2008 · Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:14 pm


	Quote: Thank you for saying that. I'm grappling with this book myself and am having a hard time even putting my questions into words. I've been reading other people's posts hoping to find some direction and I just get more lost.

That makes sense.

This is are pretty complicated ideas.

geo · Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:35 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: Ok. I think I am starting to understand. Because genes want to survive, not individuals, not groups, but genes, genes automatically calculate different behaviors mathematically. Those calculations are to find the cost or the benefit of certain selfish or altruistic behaviors in the individual species.

This is such an important concept, seespot. Individual genes, of course, aren't actually calculating anything, but over time certain behaviors that increase the likelihood for gene replication are going to increase the presence of that gene in the gene pool. This chapter is fairly technical, but I think Dawkins is only laying down more groundwork for the idea that natural selection is ultimately gene-centric. The actions of the individual—the survival machine—is geared towards replicating itself and thus preserving its precious genes through the generations. Dawkins says that from the point of view of the selfish genes "there is no distinction in principle between caring for a baby brother and caring for a baby son. Both infants are equally closely related to you." (this actually from the next chapter, Family Planning) This is just a simplified example, just as in gaming theory, because there are lots of complicated factors. For example, your parents are more capable of caring for your baby brother's and there is the identification factor as well—how sure are you this is your baby brother and not a half-brother? Your genes don't actually try to calculate these things, but again certain behaviors are going to increase the likelihood of those particular family genes surviving in the gene pool.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of these concepts can be rendered mathematically, but Dawkins is intentionally keeping the mathematics out of this book. I think that's why these last couple of chapters feel so technical.


	seespotrun2008 wrote: Also, what does he mean by "altruistic gene". Is there a specific gene for altruism?

I think whenever Dawkins mentions altruism, what he really means is apparent altruism and it always stems from selfish goals—at least, from the perspective of the gene. All examples of altruism are really just behaviors that increase the presence of that gene in the gene pool. There's a good example on pg. 100 with the observation of adult male baboons risking their lives to defend the rest of the troupe against predators such as leopards. This may seem like altruistic behavior until you consider that the baboon "has a fairly large number of genes tied up in other members of the troupe." It's just more of the same selfish behavior, at least from the gene's perspective.

Robert Tulip · Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:01 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: Ok. I think I am starting to understand. Because genes want to survive, not individuals, not groups, but genes, genes automatically calculate different behaviors mathematically. Those calculations are to find the cost or the benefit of certain selfish or altruistic behaviors in the individual species.

Hi Seespotrun. It's great that you are exploring how to get your head around the basic ideas of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins has a big agenda, to explain the nature of real life. Many of his observations are counter-intuitive, meaning they are far from obvious and go against the assumptions of ordinary experience. However, they are soundly based on scientific analysis and evidence, and have strong predictive power.

One theme that I find particularly interesting, which he uses in later books to explain why genetic evolution seems counter-intuitive, is ‘deep time’. We are used to thinking of a human lifetime as a long time, although 70 years is only 0.000002% of the period that life has been on our planet. Once we start to frame our picture of reality against deep time we can see that because genes persist through deep time while individuals do not, that in this sense genes have more reality than the individual.

Your comment about mathematics is also very pertinent and perceptive. I’ve been re-reading Chapter Five about hawks and doves and Game Theory, and will make more comments in that thread. As I can’t resist, for now I will say that this whole idea of economic calculation as a natural stabilising product of genetic selection over deep time is a very powerful tool for understanding evolution. As well, the basis of equilibrium in non-cooperative game theory – against the major effort to look at games as cooperative – is very perceptive about how nature actually works, and leads to some interesting political implications regarding socialism and capitalism.

A good explanation of Game Theory is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

seespotrun2008 · Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:22 am


	Quote: This is such an important concept, seespot. Individual genes, of course, aren't actually calculating anything, but over time certain behaviors that increase the likelihood for gene replication are going to increase the presence of that gene in the gene pool.

That makes sense.


	Quote: One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of these concepts can be rendered mathematically, but Dawkins is intentionally keeping the mathematics out of this book. I think that's why these last couple of chapters feel so technical.

Yes, I like it that Dawkins makes complex ideas so accessible.


	Quote: We are used to thinking of a human lifetime as a long time, although 70 years is only 0.000002% of the period that life has been on our planet.

I don’t know. The older you get the shorter 70 – 80 years seems.

seespotrun2008 · Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:42 pm

So how many of our decisions are based upon our gene's survival skills and when can we override our genes? This may be something that is coming up in another chapter but this chapter is making me think of that. Can other animals override their genes? Is this a debate that goes on among scientists?

seespotrun2008 · Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Here is an interesting article about a conference on feminism and evolutionary biology. It does not look like they have ever had another one. It does say that there are a multiplicity of factors that go into behavior, not just the genes. It is the nature vs. nurture debate I guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/scien ... e-gap.html

DWill · Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:03 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: So how many of our decisions are based upon our gene's survival skills and when can we override our genes? This may be something that is coming up in another chapter but this chapter is making me think of that. Can other animals override their genes? Is this a debate that goes on among scientists?

If you've found that something is not quite clicking in this material Dawkins is offering, I'm finding that, too. I need to spend some more time with it. Dawkins is certainly a fine explainer, an excellent science writer, so I can't put my finger on the problem. I have wondered, too, about the force our genes exert on us to pass on our genes through altruistic actions to those closely related to us. Is this something that happened as we were evolving and before we acquired conscious purpose, or does it still exert control despite our ability to (seemingly) choose actions according to the light of reason? Parents came to care for their offspring because of genes for that kind of altruism, but is our love for our children something we would call genetically controlled, based on our children having half of our genes? It must not be, because we can love adopted children just as much and put just as much effort into seeing that they do well in life.

I find some of the material a bit spooky, even though Dawkins presents it so calmly and with a minimum of drama. I'm talking about passages such as this from the beginning of the chapter:


	Quote: what is a selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool. Basically it does this by helping to program the bodies in which it finds itself to survive and to reproduce. But now we are emphasizing that 'it' is a distributed agency, existing in many different individuals at once. The key point of this chapter is is that a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness. (p. 88)

Even though Dawkins frequently reminds us that he uses the language of conscious purpose only to more easily get the concepts across, even the blind purpose (if that is not a contradiction) that is the real case is pretty amazing to consider. What is that? What do you call it?

seespotrun2008 · Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:31 pm


	Quote: If you've found that something is not quite clicking in this material Dawkins is offering, I'm finding that, too. I need to spend some more time with it. Dawkins is certainly a fine explainer, an excellent science writer, so I can't put my finger on the problem.

I don't know that it is not clicking. I kind of understand that Dawkins is talking about only a section of science and that he cannot possibly explain everything. From what I have been reading it almost seems like there are some scientists who believe that everything is controlled by the genes. We do not have any decisions they are all controlled by our genes. But others do not agree with that. So I think it is a debate. I think Dawkins thinks that there is some nurture involved though. He said that we should teach altruism. The question then is how much is nature and how much is nurture?

Robert Tulip · Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:24 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: So how many of our decisions are based upon our gene's survival skills and when can we override our genes? This may be something that is coming up in another chapter but this chapter is making me think of that. Can other animals override their genes? Is this a debate that goes on among scientists?

This question needs to look at our evolutionary heritage more fully. What has been called 'overriding' of our genes means the use of our rational intelligence to make decisions where our genetic instinct sways us towards a different decision. For example we can decide not to eat food because we know it is bad for our health, although our genes for hunger are telling us that food is scarce and should always be eaten.

The key point here is that our rational intelligence has also evolved genetically, so the question is more a conflict between different genes than the postulating of a non-genetic source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain provides a good description of the human brain. It states "Especially expanded are the frontal lobes, which are involved in executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought." Brains today are the same as those of people tens of thousands of years ago, and have not perceptibly involved. Hence we can say that our 'executive function' is genetic, and indeed has been the key to human success.

The issue is that human life depends strongly on reasoning, so the conflicting selective pressures (reason and instinct) have their corresponding genes. Older parts of the human brain are common to all vertebrates, so instinctive action based on activity in these parts of our brain is what your question describes as genetic.

Forum rules

Ch. 6 - Genesmanship Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!