Dawkins' Selfish Gene

Dexter · Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:24 pm

I was just reading an excerpt from this book that was in an anthology (I have read the book before). If you haven't read it, you are really missing out. Dawkins is a master of his craft. I had to share a brief paragraph:


	Quote: Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.

In the preface he writes,


	Quote: THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others.

Full text here: http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/gene30.htm

geo · Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:28 am

Hey Dexter. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene was life-changing for me, probably more than any book I've ever read. Early on, Dawkins builds up to the idea that we are basically "survival machines" for our genes. This idea alone still blows my mind and it explains so much about who we are and what makes us tick. I wish everyone would read this book. Thanks for posting that excerpt.

One of the books I received for Christmas (per my request, of course) was The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, subtitled The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. In the introduction, Wright discusses Darwin's idea in the Descent of Man that through the study of evolution, we are bound to learn so much about the origin of man and his history. Darwin goes on to say that the study of psychology "will be based on a new foundation." This new foundation, Wright says, has been a long time coming. But between 1963 and 1974, four biologists laid down a series of new ideas that were ground-breaking. Those biologists were William Hamilton, George Williams, Robert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith. The significance of these new ideas was murky until two ground-breaking books came along to put them in context: E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology (1975), and Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (1976).

Dexter · Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:16 am

As I said in the book suggestions, I was thinking about reading Wright, I'll probably try that newer book on ev psych I proposed one of these days.

geo · Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:52 pm

Say the word, Dexter. Hobbes is going to keep me busy for awhile, but I'm very interested in Wright or the other one you nominated.

Dexter · Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:52 pm


	geo wrote: Say the word, Dexter. Hobbes is going to keep me busy for awhile, but I'm very interested in Wright or the other one you nominated.

Yes, still interested. Hopefully we'll get to it one of these days.

I'm interested to read some of the criticisms of ev psych. I think the major criticism is that you can tell a "just so" story to try to explain anything as an adaptation.

Vallhall · Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:16 pm

Dexter wrote:


	geo wrote: Say the word, Dexter. Hobbes is going to keep me busy for awhile, but I'm very interested in Wright or the other one you nominated.

Yes, still interested. Hopefully we'll get to it one of these days.

I'm interested to read some of the criticisms of ev psych. I think the major criticism is that you can tell a "just so" story to try to explain anything as an adaptation.

Are there anything other than the stories we tell each other, and those we tell ourselves, when it comes to explaining reality? Evolutionary psychology is founded upon observation of repeating patterns found in different environments where similar systems occur. How we describe observations of reality will always be very limited, not forgetting absolute knowledge is out of human reach.

We have constructed and use a word like "a forest", as it explains something beyond being a "just so" story. If we consider the immensely vast amount of information a single cell contains, think of the complexity to fully explain all those things connected to what we define as "a forest".

Explain something that is not a "just so" story, and I will attempt to show that the explanation is a "just so" story.

geo · Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:09 pm

Vallhall wrote:

Dexter wrote:


	geo wrote: Say the word, Dexter. Hobbes is going to keep me busy for awhile, but I'm very interested in Wright or the other one you nominated.

Yes, still interested. Hopefully we'll get to it one of these days.

I'm interested to read some of the criticisms of ev psych. I think the major criticism is that you can tell a "just so" story to try to explain anything as an adaptation.

Are there anything other than the stories we tell each other, and those we tell ourselves, when it comes to explaining reality? Evolutionary psychology is founded upon observation of repeating patterns found in different environments where similar systems occur. How we describe observations of reality will always be very limited, not forgetting absolute knowledge is out of human reach.

We have constructed and use a word like "a forest", as it explains something beyond being a "just so" story. If we consider the immensely vast amount of information a single cell contains, think of the complexity to fully explain all those things connected to what we define as "a forest".

Explain something that is not a "just so" story, and I will attempt to show that the explanation is a "just so" story.

Welcome, Vallhall!

I would say that all scientific knowledge is firmly grounded in empirical evidence. By "knowledge" I'm referring to any scientific theory we have so much confidence in that it can be considered fact. Evolution, for example, is anything but a just-so story. It is based on observation and careful consideration of many lines of evidence that converge across many different scientific disciplines. Whereas something like evolutionary psychology is almost impossible to observe or verify by experiments in a laboratory. It doesn't mean it's not true, only that it's very difficult to prove empirically and so cannot be accepted with the same level of confidence. I don't doubt that the science will eventually become much more sophisticated to the point that we can be more confident, but as I understand it, evolutionary psychology at this stage is more conjecture than fact. It's a young science, an emerging field of inquiry.

Vallhall · Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:52 pm

Aha.. I think I understand your comment somewhat better and more correct now.

Evolution related to biology and psychology is perhaps something close to the philosophical musings on the body-mind complexity.

What I intentionally meant was that since we are forced to relate to truth as accepted degree of certainty, we are also forced to fill any open/blank spots with stories of own creation. What this implies is that all things explained contain a element of "just-so" story, although science attempt to keep it to a minimal element. This is exactly why science is a continued process without the absolute truths promoted by various religious beliefs.

Regarding biological evolution, and the complexity of the total knowledge. Explanations and information is almost always filled with stories. It is those stories I mention that have created a common belief in humans evolving from apes, as the common ancestor link are in many ways difficult to fully comprehend.

I do agree with you on the difference between biological evolution and psychological evolution, and the diffuse foundation psychological evolution is based on. We know we react and act on external stimuli, but how we explain it are perhaps of own choice.

Nonetheless, in relation to Dawkins`Selfish Gene, we are talking about stories we tell ourselves and others. Dawkins is "old school" and still clings to the stories about competition and "survival machines". What is often left out is evolution as corresponding reaction, instead of evolution as competitive reaction. Without getting all "new age" when explaining, it could perhaps more correctly be said that evolution is a change of "the whole". To view evolution as a process of change disconnected and separated from a mutual change in one or the other direction, is to disregard that cause/effect is a continuous and unrestricted mutual flow.

The concept of selfish does not belong to nature. It is a perception of reality conjured by the least rational part of the human brain, the ego. That which influence us with thoughts of greater purpose and importance in the universe. Describing natural laws with concepts of emotional abstract origin, as selfish is, does not imply that it is wrong. It just proves what I said about our explanations of reality are all influenced by stories.

Interbane · Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:18 pm


	Quote: What I intentionally meant was that since we are forced to relate to truth as accepted degree of certainty, we are also forced to fill any open/blank spots with stories of own creation.

I believe that it is a disposition to fill the blank spots, but we are not forced to do this. We can hold an unformulated agnostic stance on many things.


	Quote: The concept of selfish does not belong to nature. It is a perception of reality conjured by the least rational part of the human brain, the ego.

What other medium do we have to discuss these concepts than language? Mathematics, to an extent, but that still needs interpretation. There is nothing wrong with using the concept of selfishness, as that most closely approximates the concept when we abstract it. The concept reeks of teleology, but what do you suggest it be replaced with to explain these concepts to others? It is effective, although it needs massaging to get closer to what truly happens.

What you're touching on, I think, is that no matter what words we use to explain something, those words are still an abstraction, so there will always be a tremendous amount of information that's lost or not entirely accurate. What do you suggest we do to improve our methods of communication?

Vallhall · Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:39 am


	Interbane wrote: What you're touching on, I think, is that no matter what words we use to explain something, those words are still an abstraction, so there will always be a tremendous amount of information that's lost or not entirely accurate. What do you suggest we do to improve our methods of communication?

It seems you understood me very well. I sometimes struggle to communicate my thoughts, and end up with long texts I personally struggle to understand as well.

Unfortunately I am one of those who have very few answers. My subject of interest is to examine where we are, where we came from, and how our journey brought us to this point.

On improving our methods of communication, I think we have much to gain by acknowledging that communication will cause loss of information. By understanding and being observant to communication being limited to stories we tell, both sender and receiver of information participate to ensure minimal information loss.
As you actively examined my long texts with stories that could come of as difficult to understand, You also helped ensuring the intended information was delivered.

Being aware and taking our stories and mythical ways of communicating into consideration, will not remove the natural loss of information. But it can reduce loss, and therefore improve the process in itself.

In western societies today we often seem to forget that regardless of what stories we tell to explain our perception of reality, the important issue is how we interact with the objective reality we are all forced to abide by. Perhaps I can better explain by examples of how and what I see in certain situations.

- Looking at political left and right, they tell different stories. They have different versions of how present came to be, and what road to travel forward. These are different interpretations of the same objective reality. By telling different stories people often confuse it with also living in separate realities. When someone support war, others usually protest it. Such situations tend to additional stories being created. Stories about someone being aggressive and bloodthirsty, and others being weak and afraid. Some like to destroy, others want to be destroyed. Behind different stories as mentioned, we find the same objective reality, and a society with people who have the same concerns, fears, needs, ambitions and dreams. Divided not by separate realities, but by separate stories.

- Looking to a conflict like the Israeli - Palestinian issue. When you see a father or mother in tears, carrying their wounded child. Is it the response of someone from Israel or Palestine, or is it a common human common response. I wonder if both sides understand that their children are under threat from the different stories they tell and are motivated by, and not by some biological human need to put children in danger.

Would we destroy our environment and planet if we understood that our need to have television in our kitchen, while we consume our nutrition free junk food, in our vast houses with beautiful lifeless gardens. A house where two cars wait to ensure a smooth transition from point A to point B. As the option to get what you want, when you want, is a necessity according to the stories we are told and ourselves tell.

Would we create weapons to wipe out all life on earth several times if wished for, if it was not for the stories we are told and tell ourselves.

This brings us back to Dawkins, who I admire and work I appreciate. Before I was known with "the four horsemen" I did not know about the need to label myself as atheist. Before I only knew about other people interpreting some stories differently than me. I did not think about the different relation to stories, as stories are only the abstract interpretation of reality. A reality where actions speaks, the truth regardless of the story told to explain them.
Dawkins and others sometimes forget that they are storytellers when they focus attention and time on exposing other people as nothing but storytellers. Perhaps this effort and energy used bears little fruit, and contribute little to their real intentions?

I do not say Dawkins lack understanding of what I talk about, or that it is never taken into consideration. Only that it at times is difficult to keep it in mind, and use such knowledge to the fullest potential it offers. One of the latest audiobooks I entertain myself with at work, was Dawkins newly published - The Magic of Reality.
Although it is intended for a younger audience, this book reveals a deeper understanding on how to communicate better by the stories we tell and are told.
Kudos to Mr. Dawkins on such approach to storytelling. I hope and believe such approach result in better reward.

geo · Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Vallhall, good post. I think we invent stories as the start of scientific inquiry. Dawkins himself categories them as "Just so" stories in The Selfish Gene and I don't see it as disparaging at all. I think he's just saying we can't take them too seriously without proper scientific evidence. But with an emerging science such as evolutionary psychology we rely on stories to try to explain why things are and then move on to form hypotheses. I think Einstein said something to the effect that the imagination is what truly fuels the scientific process.

DWill · Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:14 pm


	Vallhall wrote: Nonetheless, in relation to Dawkins`Selfish Gene, we are talking about stories we tell ourselves and others. Dawkins is "old school" and still clings to the stories about competition and "survival machines". What is often left out is evolution as corresponding reaction, instead of evolution as competitive reaction. Without getting all "new age" when explaining, it could perhaps more correctly be said that evolution is a change of "the whole". To view evolution as a process of change disconnected and separated from a mutual change in one or the other direction, is to disregard that cause/effect is a continuous and unrestricted mutual flow. The concept of selfish does not belong to nature. It is a perception of reality conjured by the least rational part of the human brain, the ego. That which influence us with thoughts of greater purpose and importance in the universe. Describing natural laws with concepts of emotional abstract origin, as selfish is, does not imply that it is wrong. It just proves what I said about our explanations of reality are all influenced by stories.

As I recall, Dawkins discusses the background of the choice of that famous adjective--"selfish"-- in the 30th anniversary edition of the book. If I'm correct, he says he would recall the word if he could, because it caused controversy that detracted from serious discussion of the book. He had a few other words in mind that might have been more palatable. He also talks about the use of anthropomorphic language in science writing. He's in favor of it under certain conditions and quite obviously uses it himself. To me, the use of "selfish" is defensible when you consider the imperatives that genes seem to operate under in order to get themselves passed on. Dawkins writes the book to explain how even altruistic behaviors are under the control of selfish genes. That was a downer for many readers, he tells us. However, when it comes to humans the good news is that we have often exerted ourselves against the dictates of our genes, for example when we use a condom during sex. Dawkins counts himself a strict anti-Darwinian in his social views as well. He wants compassion and justice to fight against selfish genes.

It's good to keep in mind that we often aren't going to know what is influencing our thinking, and stories might be as important as you say in doing that, Vallhall. But I don't go along with the reasoning that science is just another way of telling stories, if that might be concluded from what you say, and that therefore it has no certain advantage for us. Certain kinds of science have in fact replaced stories (i.e., myths) as explanations, and that constitutes the value of this science for us.

Vallhall · Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:41 pm


	DWill wrote: It's good to keep in mind that we often aren't going to know what is influencing our thinking, and stories might be as important as you say in doing that, Vallhall. But I don't go along with the reasoning that science is just another way of telling stories, if that might be concluded from what you say, and that therefore it has no certain advantage for us. Certain kinds of science have in fact replaced stories (i.e., myths) as explanations, and that constitutes the value of this science for us.

Your conclusion is wrong. I am saying our observations and interpretations of reality are in essence all stories. The different value and advantage they present is not questioned anywhere in my comments. You assumption of me claiming value and advantage of myths equals or rivals science is only a story you have told yourself.

Perhaps Mr. Oppenheimer explains it best when describing his contribution to one of humanities greatest scientific achievements. To understand what Mr. Oppenheimer is saying you need some knowledge about subject, although not at the level Mr. Oppenheimer himself had.

If you do not understand what I am saying, I do not know how to explain what my comment was about. I could probably write a wall of text from sunrise to sunset, without managing to do it in a better way. I could probably even point out the existence of ancient myths still being in use when we describe our interpretation of reality, and still not get my message across.

NB! When I said the sun rises and sets I did not imply that the earth is the center of our sola.... well you know.... myths and the stories we tell :roll:

Forum rules

Dawkins' Selfish Gene Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!