The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Ch. 6 - Genesmanship
-
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 851 on Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:30 am
Ch. 6 - Genesmanship
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 21
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3513 times
- Been thanked: 1309 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
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
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
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
-
Sophomore
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm
- 14
- Location: Riverhead, Long Island
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
- Contact:
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 wrote:I am kind of confused by this chapter.
-Colin
"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
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.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.
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.
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.seespotrun2008 wrote:Also, what does he mean by "altruistic gene". Is there a specific gene for altruism?
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
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.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.
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
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
That makes sense.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.
Yes, I like it that Dawkins makes complex ideas so accessible.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.
I don’t know. The older you get the shorter 70 – 80 years seems.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.