First, yes, the unit of selection is of course the individual. But a species-wide feature that causes each individual’s chance of survival and propagation to go down does, in fact, imperil the survival of the species when it is selected against in every individual’s case. When every individual dies, so does the species; similarly, if merely enough individuals die that there’s a genetic bottleneck, the species also risks extinction because of inbreeding-related unfitness of individuals. Next time try actually thinking through what is being said, instead of partial-pattern-matching in an effort to score points.
And yes, runaway selection pressure in general happens a lot. Now, how often does it happen specifically on the characteristic of intelligence, instead of all the other possible features it could happen on? Looking at the only paleontological record we have available, it seems to be awfully rare.
First, yes, the unit of selection is of course the individual.
I’d argue it’s the gene.
But a species-wide feature that causes each individual’s chance of survival and propagation to go down does, in fact, imperil the survival of the species when it is selected against in every individual’s case. When every individual dies, so does the species; similarly, if merely enough individuals die that there’s a genetic bottleneck, the species also risks extinction because of inbreeding-related unfitness of individuals.
To the extent that this works against runaway selection pressure for intelligence, it also works against runaway selection pressure in general, which as you say, still happens a lot.
Next time try actually thinking through what is being said, instead of partial-pattern-matching in an effort to score points.
Please tell me why you think I was doing this, if you’ve good reason for not assuming good faith then I’ll try to avoid giving this impression in future.
And yes, runaway selection pressure in general happens a lot. Now, how often does it happen specifically on the characteristic of intelligence, instead of all the other possible features it could happen on? Looking at the only paleontological record we have available, it seems to be awfully rare.
Fair point. I’m not sure if they’d count as runaway selection pressure, but aren’t there lots of examples for animal-level equivalents of social intelligence? If so, then that counts as it looks like that’s the main reason we got smart.
Fair enough. The point is, nothing I said depended on the premise that the species as the unit of selection, it was merely stating the effect that selection (on whatever unit you like) had on the species. These are distinct concepts. Nothing I said was dependent on the erroneous idea of the species as the unit of selection.
The most charitable interpretation of your “cough” link was that you had read my statement, saw I wasn’t making the mistake addressed in your link, but thought I should have made a big verbose show of avoiding the mistake, and thought the appropriate way to say that was the word “cough”. This did not strike me as very probable.
A more probable (in my view) interpretation was that you saw something that looked like the error in the link, and without analyzing whether the error was actually being made, decided to point out I did something that looked like an error. That’s got several possible interpretations itself, of course. I likely shouldn’t have assumed that you were trying to score points; it is, on reflection more likely you were trying to alert me to a possible error that you simply didn’t spend the time to analyze.
I apologize for my hasty imputation of bad faith, but suggest a more verbose message than “cough” would have
To the extent that this works against runaway selection pressure for intelligence, it also works against runaway selection pressure in general
Ah, I wasn’t addressing runaway selection pressure there, I was addressing the survival value of high animal intelligence. There is a tendency among people (for example, the participants in the 1961 Green Bank meeting where the Drake Equation was first introduced) to evaluate higher intelligence as automatically translating to higher chances of survival, and thus set the fi term in the Drake Equation to 1, on the assumption all life evolves toward intelligence. But high animal (sub-sapient) intelligence, like any other adaptation, is not inherently pro-survival, and so does not monotonically increase. That’s fairly basic evolutionary biology, of course, but between the popular notion of the chain of being and the fact that Drake and his colleagues made the error, I’ve developed a reflex of addressing the mistake in discussions of the Fermi Paradox.
Hmm. Looking back, I was very brief and dense in what I wrote, which makes it difficult to comprehend. I know I’m supposed to say what I’m going to say, say it, than say what I said to maximize comprehension, but I find in the event that I am annoyed at the time it takes and bored by the repetition involved. So I skimped on the effort to communicate effectively, and then when I wasn’t understood, I got angry instead of being sensible.
So I again apologize for being short with you. It was my error.
I’m not sure if they’d count as runaway selection pressure, but aren’t there lots of examples for animal-level equivalents of social intelligence? If so, then that counts as it looks like that’s the main reason we got smart.
I tend to evaluate the lots of examples as evidence that it doesn’t likely lead to runaway selection for intelligence, since it so rarely seems to. It could, of course, instead be understood as there being lots of opportunities for social behavior to cause a runaway selection for intelligence, and so it is almost inevitable that social behavior will eventually do so.
Hmm. I really want some other planets to look at, this one isn’t a large enough sample size.
Your point wasn’t dependent on it so I didn’t want to go verbose & waste the reader’s time when they’ve heard those arguments before. My first thought was Eliezer’s ERROR: Postulation of group selection detected but I thought a subtle cough would be kinder. Oh well.
There is a tendency...to evaluate higher intelligence as automatically translating to higher chances of survival...assumption all life evolves toward intelligence. But high animal (sub-sapient) intelligence...is not inherently pro-survival.
Ah. Yeah, that wasn’t where I was arguing from. I agree with you about this. Do many people (who should know better) still believe this nowadays?
I tend to evaluate the lots of examples as evidence that it doesn’t likely lead to runaway selection for intelligence, since it so rarely seems to. It could, of course, instead be understood as there being lots of opportunities for social behavior to cause a runaway selection for intelligence, and so it is almost inevitable that social behavior will eventually do so.
Maybe not inevitable, but I really doubt it’s hard enough to be a Great Filter.
cough
This sort of runaway selection pressure happens a lot in nature (eg. peacocks).
First, yes, the unit of selection is of course the individual. But a species-wide feature that causes each individual’s chance of survival and propagation to go down does, in fact, imperil the survival of the species when it is selected against in every individual’s case. When every individual dies, so does the species; similarly, if merely enough individuals die that there’s a genetic bottleneck, the species also risks extinction because of inbreeding-related unfitness of individuals. Next time try actually thinking through what is being said, instead of partial-pattern-matching in an effort to score points.
And yes, runaway selection pressure in general happens a lot. Now, how often does it happen specifically on the characteristic of intelligence, instead of all the other possible features it could happen on? Looking at the only paleontological record we have available, it seems to be awfully rare.
I’d argue it’s the gene.
To the extent that this works against runaway selection pressure for intelligence, it also works against runaway selection pressure in general, which as you say, still happens a lot.
Please tell me why you think I was doing this, if you’ve good reason for not assuming good faith then I’ll try to avoid giving this impression in future.
Fair point. I’m not sure if they’d count as runaway selection pressure, but aren’t there lots of examples for animal-level equivalents of social intelligence? If so, then that counts as it looks like that’s the main reason we got smart.
Fair enough. The point is, nothing I said depended on the premise that the species as the unit of selection, it was merely stating the effect that selection (on whatever unit you like) had on the species. These are distinct concepts. Nothing I said was dependent on the erroneous idea of the species as the unit of selection.
The most charitable interpretation of your “cough” link was that you had read my statement, saw I wasn’t making the mistake addressed in your link, but thought I should have made a big verbose show of avoiding the mistake, and thought the appropriate way to say that was the word “cough”. This did not strike me as very probable.
A more probable (in my view) interpretation was that you saw something that looked like the error in the link, and without analyzing whether the error was actually being made, decided to point out I did something that looked like an error. That’s got several possible interpretations itself, of course. I likely shouldn’t have assumed that you were trying to score points; it is, on reflection more likely you were trying to alert me to a possible error that you simply didn’t spend the time to analyze.
I apologize for my hasty imputation of bad faith, but suggest a more verbose message than “cough” would have
Ah, I wasn’t addressing runaway selection pressure there, I was addressing the survival value of high animal intelligence. There is a tendency among people (for example, the participants in the 1961 Green Bank meeting where the Drake Equation was first introduced) to evaluate higher intelligence as automatically translating to higher chances of survival, and thus set the fi term in the Drake Equation to 1, on the assumption all life evolves toward intelligence. But high animal (sub-sapient) intelligence, like any other adaptation, is not inherently pro-survival, and so does not monotonically increase. That’s fairly basic evolutionary biology, of course, but between the popular notion of the chain of being and the fact that Drake and his colleagues made the error, I’ve developed a reflex of addressing the mistake in discussions of the Fermi Paradox.
Hmm. Looking back, I was very brief and dense in what I wrote, which makes it difficult to comprehend. I know I’m supposed to say what I’m going to say, say it, than say what I said to maximize comprehension, but I find in the event that I am annoyed at the time it takes and bored by the repetition involved. So I skimped on the effort to communicate effectively, and then when I wasn’t understood, I got angry instead of being sensible.
So I again apologize for being short with you. It was my error.
I tend to evaluate the lots of examples as evidence that it doesn’t likely lead to runaway selection for intelligence, since it so rarely seems to. It could, of course, instead be understood as there being lots of opportunities for social behavior to cause a runaway selection for intelligence, and so it is almost inevitable that social behavior will eventually do so.
Hmm. I really want some other planets to look at, this one isn’t a large enough sample size.
Your point wasn’t dependent on it so I didn’t want to go verbose & waste the reader’s time when they’ve heard those arguments before. My first thought was Eliezer’s ERROR: Postulation of group selection detected but I thought a subtle cough would be kinder. Oh well.
Ah. Yeah, that wasn’t where I was arguing from. I agree with you about this. Do many people (who should know better) still believe this nowadays?
Maybe not inevitable, but I really doubt it’s hard enough to be a Great Filter.