You are browsing the forum as a guest. Please log in or register to access additional features.
Online reading group and book discussion forum
  FORUMS ABOUT BOOKS VIDEOS ADVERTISE LINKS BLOGS DONATE CHAT CONTACT  

     Log in   Register 


BookTalk.org News
• Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim!
• Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule.

Links to Explore

Community Rules & Tips
For Authors & Publishers
Link to our old forum
Our Amazon.com Sales
Our Forum Statistics
Member Photos
Book Suggestions
BookTalk.org Store
Author Chat Transcripts
Rationally Speaking
Donations to BookTalk.org
FACTS Book Selections
BookTalk Forum Statistics
Games 170 FREE Games





BookTalk.org Store

All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.

Visit the BookTalk.org store!

Visit the BookTalk.org store!
Visit the BookTalk.org store!

Chat Room

Enter the BookTalk.org Chat Room

Enter our Chat Room

Dec. 2008 Chat Schedule
Jan. 2009 Chat Schedule


Author Interviews


Featured Member Blogs

Robert Tulip's Blog
Frank 013's Blog
Lawrence's Blog
Frank 013's Blog

- View all member Blogs
- See the latest Blog posts



We need your support!

Please support BookTalk.org by donating today.

See who supports us


Show us where you live!
BookTalk.org Member Map

Display Pagerank


Group Evolution

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BookTalk.org Forum Index -> Archived Book Discussions 2004-2005 -> How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God - by Michael Shermer
Author Message
LanDroid LanDroid has been starred
Graduate Student
Silver Contributor
Silver Contributor

Avatar

Usergroups: None


Joined: 27 Jul 2002


Posts: 405

Thanks
Given: 1
Received: 3 in 3 Posts

Gender: Male
Location: Cincinnati, OH
us.gif



PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 9:30 am    Post subject: Group Evolution Reply with quote
When I was discussion leader of Global Brain by Bloom, I got my butt kicked several different ways during a discussion of group evolution. So it was with amusement I read the following.

Quote:
New research by philospher Elliott Sober and biologist David Sloane Wilson, presented in their 1998 book Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, indicates there may have been an additional selection component in human evolution that gave rise to cooperation and altruism, and that is a modified version of group selection. This is a volatile subject among evolutionary theorists because for the past thirty years, group selection has been next to creationism as the doctrine strict Darwinians most love to hate. ...group selection was vilified as the pap of bleeding-heart liberals who couldn't deal with the reality of "nature red in tooth and claw".

... Sober and Wilson show how "individual selection favors traits that maximize relative fitness within single groups," and that "group selection favors traits that maximize the relative fitness of groups." Of course, "altruism is maladaptive with respect to individual selection but adaptive with respect to group selection." Therefore, they conclude, "altruism is can evolve if the process of group selection is sufficiently strong."

Chapter 7, page 165 in hardback


OK, let the butt-kicking resume...

Back to top
  Facebook it
Chris OConnor Chris OConnor has been starred
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner

Avatar

Usergroups: None


Joined: 05 May 2002


Posts: 7373

Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts

Gender: Male
Location: Florida
us.gif



PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 10:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
LanDroid

So what was your opinion on group selection again?

/gets boot in kicking position

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Back to top
  Facebook it
Katala Au
Almost a regular



Usergroups: None


Joined: 24 Jan 2004


Posts: 40

Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts

Gender: None specified



PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2004 7:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
Hey Lan,

Unfortunately I wasn’t involved in the initial discussion and can’t currently view it, but it sounds like you’re taking the stand “akin to creationism” (for "neo-darwinists") :p . I’m really swamped right now, but want to get involved in this thread before it dies a lonely death.

I will point out for starters, that I only have a pretty basic understanding of the population genetics involved here (and even that understanding needs a lot of refreshing!). What I’m generally interested in, is to hear an argument that makes sense for not only why group selection could theoretically exist, but to actually see some clear examples in nature that could not more parsimoniously be explained by kin selection or reciprocal altruism.

I had to do a large paper critiquing Unto Others about 3 years ago, and although my understanding was more minimal than it is now (which is why I chose to tackle it in the first place), I did not find Sober and Wilson’s arguments very convincing at all. Of course, this could be due to my lack of understanding, which is why I’m hoping for some explanation that gives me an “aha” moment.

So I’m going to quote some arguments that I paraphrased in my paper (which hopefully sufficiently represents what they were really trying to say – I don’t have the book on hand).
I really apologise for the length of this - I really wanted to try and cut it down for this post but have not had enough time, and if I wait any longer I probably will give up trying to post at all (as I believe Mark Twain once said, "I don't have time to write you a short letter, so I'll write you a long one, instead").


Quote:
Primary and Secondary Behaviours

Sober and Wilson explain how they perceive group level adaptations to work by looking at different cultural norms, and describe how they affect the fitness of both the group and individual. These descriptions can be thought of as primary and secondary behaviours.

Sober and Wilson describe a primary behaviour as a behaviour that: “…increases the fitness of the group and decreases the relative fitness of the (individual) within the group.” (pg. 143). Secondary behaviours are reward and punishment behaviours that others confer on the individual exhibiting the primary behaviour.

Two examples used to illustrate the difference between the two behaviours are as follows:

1) It has been observed in different hunter-gatherer societies, that the meat collected by hunters is equally distributed between members of the group, and that there is no apparent reward for the hunters or their families for this task. The primary behaviour in this case is seen as the hunting and sharing of food equally among the group, where the hunter and their relatives do not benefit in any extra way from this behaviour. Furthermore the hunter has the fitness costs of the time and energy expended in doing the hunting. However, the rule that the meat is equally shared has not been initiated by the hunters, but is a social rule that is enforced on them, and if they do not conform to this rule they are subject to being punished. This then, would be the secondary behaviour.

2) The second example Sober and Wilson describe involves a rule from 13th Century Spanish Jewish Society. In this society males get black marks next to their names if they do not pay their taxes, which can seriously hurt their marriage prospects. In this case, the primary behaviour is paying the taxes (that is, giving money to the group) and the secondary behaviour is the punishment that the tax-avoider receives for not complying to this law.

What Sober and Wilson are attempting to illustrate with these examples, is that the secondary behaviour which enforces that these rules promotes the fitness of the group as a whole. Depending on the social laws of different societies, the fitness level of each given group will be different, in a way that could not occur at the individual level, and that complies with the condition outlined above that Sober and Wilson believe to show adaptation occurring at a group level.

I find their argument for the existence of group adaptations to be problematic for a number of reasons.

In the first section of this essay where Williams’ criteria for determining what constituted an adaptation was presented, it was mentioned that parsimony was a critical issue to take into account when deciding at what level an adaptation was taking place. If a behaviour could be explained on one level, then it was superfluous – and spurious– to argue that a higher level of explanation was warranted. I can think of a number of alternative explanations that can account for these scenarios perfectly well at an individual level of selection.

For instance, in the hunter gatherer example there are many ways for a hunter and his related fitness to be increased other than by securing more food. For example, hunters may be seen as more attractive to women as they may be better protectors and providers, and may have fitness advantages in this respect. They may be given status in the community that allows them many other benefits from their peers. It is also still possible that the benefit is kin related, as it is reasonable to imagine groups in the Pleistoocene would mainly be comprised of extended families, and thus feeding the group would be equated with increasing fitness of relatives regardless.

There are explanations that are also apparent at an individual level for the Jewish society example. Jeopardizing a man’s chances at marriage is directly targeting his personal reproductive fitness. Evolutionary psychologists subscribe to the view that because females are saddled with a nine month gestation period and several years nurturing afterwards, that they would have evolved a preference for mates that could protect and provide for them. So by penalising males who don’t pay their taxes in this way, law enforcers are also advertising that these males are possibly miserly, which the family of any prospective wife would look very poorly on.

Furthermore, both these groups do not fall within structures that lack hierarchy or motivation by the enforcers of these secondary behaviours. People who make the law have their own motivations for such laws, both for the welfare of the group, and to keep conflicting interests of their constituents from causing them to lose their status and power.

Finally I fail to understand how Sober and Wilson can argue that group selection facilitates altruistic behaviour, and present an explanation that necessitates the use of a reward and punishment system. If altruism is a behaviour that, despite costs to the individual, can evolve naturally because it increases the fitness of the group as a whole, why does the individual have to be kept from doing something that comes more “naturally” to them? Why force hunters to share meat equally if they’re naturally going to do this? Why be worried that people are not going to pay their taxes if they are already predisposed to do so? The individual psychological adaptations I’ve outlined in the last point are purported to be universal among all humans, and it appears far more parsimonious to me that more “natural” behaviours of individuals are regulated in order to stabilise groups of people living together; the reward/punishment system is in place as reaction to behaviours that are adaptations, not as an adaptation in and of itself. I do agree that society can play a huge role in controlling behaviours of individuals for the welfare of the group (or the people in power), but I don’t believe this role has anything to do with evolved adaptations at the group selection level.


So I have a couple of other issues about group selection that I need clarified, but at least this will show you some of what Sober and Wilson are arguing, and I'd be interested to see what you think.

Cheers,

Nicole

Back to top
  Facebook it
Jeremy NYC
Getting comfortable



Usergroups: None


Joined: 23 Apr 2004


Posts: 8

Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts

Gender: None specified



PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
Thanks to both of you, Lan Droid and Katala Au, for bringing up and elucidating this topic. I think Shermer's treatment is very different from Blooms. Bloom based an entire philosophy on group selection: he considers it a powerful, perhaps overridinig force, which has been demonstrated time and again to be quite impossible.

Shermer acknowledges the problems with making it an overall theory, while suggesting that it has SOME influence SOME of the time. THis is a different kettle of fish entirely. Even Dr Dawkins concedes that groups being selected on the basis of fitness of said groups may have some influence on overall evolution; these are not "all or none" propositions.

If one is to have a deep understanding of how we have evolved, however, it is necessary to understand that the primary unit of selection is the gene, as expressed in an individual body. The logic is simple and inescapable, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports this view. Shermer is contributing to a conversation, Bloom is blowing smoke.

Back to top
  Facebook it
Mr. Pessimistic Mr. Pessimistic has been starred
Professor
Silver Contributor
Silver Contributor

Avatar

Usergroups: None


Joined: 16 Jun 2004


Posts: 3530

Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 6 in 6 Posts

Gender: Male
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
us.gif



PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
Quote:
the primary unit of selection is the gene, as expressed in an individual body


I have been reading Ernst Mayr recently and from what I gather, he states the the gene is not the object of selection. It is, as you allude to, the 'Norm of Reaction', that is, the genotype produces a phenotype in an environment. The gene is otherwise a 'hard' ingredient and is not selected. The presence of the same gene in two (or more) different phenotypes may not produce the same results, thus the selection is on the individual in a population, which then passes it's genes on. The group can be selected as well.

This does not account for mutuation of course, just selection.

I will have to go over the specific chapters again, but this is, I think, the jist.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Back to top
  Facebook it
Interbane Interbane has been starred
Stupendously Brilliant
Gold Contributor
Gold Contributor



Usergroups: None


Joined: 09 Oct 2004


Posts: 766

Thanks
Given: 16
Received: 30 in 26 Posts

Gender: Male

us.gif



PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
This topic is interesting, I've never heard of Group Evolution. May I present my thoughts?

A trait of humans - evolved individually to help the group as a whole.

I'm not sure whether to say that this trait is Gossiping or Teaching. I'll call it gossip, since that may have been the same as teaching when we were cavemen.

The reason I touch on this trait is that I sometimes find a powerful urge to tell someone a secret that I promised I wouldn't tell. At first, I thought my motivation was that I wanted to impress the person(parsimoniously, this would be trump I think.) The more I explored peoples reactions, though, the more I realized that they were indifferent to my telling and more interested in the information itself.

Not until I read this post did I think that the trait of gossiping would have excellent survival benefits for groups of people. Let me explain some examples.

A lone hunter comes back from a hunt for food with a deer. An individual survival trait may dictate that he keep this a secret for himself so he has more food. Another individual survival trait may be to tell people where the food is in order to impress them and get a potential mate.

Up until 10 minutes ago I would have said the second trait is the simplest and purest possibility. But think of how much more survivable the entire group would be if the hunter already had a mate, yet still told the others because of an urge to tell them. In the end, he is proud of this, which is the same as telling everyone to impress a mate. Yet more people would survive because of this trait than just him.

Or...

Someone telling his comrades how to make bows and arrows. Group survivability just went up tremendously. Someone explaining that salt kept meat cured. Group survivability also goes up.

Could the urge to gossip/teach be developed from group evolution?

Edited by: Interbane at: 10/14/04 10:41 pm
Back to top
  Facebook it
Chris OConnor Chris OConnor has been starred
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner

Avatar

Usergroups: None


Joined: 05 May 2002


Posts: 7373

Thanks
Given: 64
Received: 21 in 17 Posts

Gender: Male
Location: Florida
us.gif



PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Group Evolution Reply with quote
Interbane

I see you on the site, but you're not in the chat room. We're in there with author Howard Bloom. Come on in!

Chris


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandella

Back to top
  Facebook it
Display replies from:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BookTalk.org Forum Index -> Archived Book Discussions 2004-2005 -> How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God - by Michael Shermer  
Page 1 of 1


 
Recent Topics
» New York Times - Poetry and Poets
by Saffron on Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:03 am

» Ch. 10: The Bible and Morality
by Dissident Heart on Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:43 am

» Getting Things Done by David Allen
by Thomas Hood on Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am

» Consensus
by Interbane on Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:22 am

» Love
by Interbane on Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:06 am

» Is an agnostic a cowardly atheist?
by Interbane on Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:52 am

» Give me liberty and give me a welfare state
by opcode on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:24 pm

» Suggestion by the author of The Paradise Series.
by Dr Paradise on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:03 pm

» Bird Song by Sebastian Faulks
by realiz on Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:47 pm

» Introducing myself as a first timer
by astrid on Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:23 pm








BookTalk.org Suggests


Instant Appeal: The 8 Primal Factors That Create Blockbuster Success by Vicki Kunkel

People of the Book: A Novel by Geraldine Brooks

The Spirit Man by Sean Murphy

Stupid Reasons People Die: An Ingenious Plot for Defusing Deadly Diseases by John Corso, M.D.

Additional Book Suggestions


Featured Videos

Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"

Andrew Bacevich on The Limits of Power

More Videos

Poll
Should it be illegal to wear a "POLICE" shirt?

It should be illegal because.... [4]
It should be legal because.... [4]

You must login to vote


BookTalk.org is a book discussion group, also known as a reading group or book club. We read and talk about non-fiction books, as a group. Live author chats where book group members can interact with and interview authors are common. We often give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys booktalk.  Booktalk is a free online reading group that features quality book reviews, resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. Non-fiction chat, book forum, literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today. Suggest nonfiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to plug their books or ask for an author chat or interview.

MAIN NAVIGATION

FORUMSABOUTBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSVIDEOSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSBLOGSFAQDONATECONTACT

BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power: The End of American ExceptionalismLolitaOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year-History of the Human Body by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael PollanI, Claudius : From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius, Born 10 B.C., Murdered and Deified A.D. 54 by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al FrankenThe Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From the Big Bang To the 21st Century by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of Nature by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES
Baloney Detection KitBanned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book SelectionsAdvertise on BookTalk.org

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2009. All rights reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca