I’m not sure I understand your point. By way of example, do you agree that generally speaking, ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that it’s a good idea to have a lot of children and to pass this idea to their children?
And do you agree that the numbers of ultra-Orthodox Jews have increased dramatically over the last 100 years and are likely to continue increasing dramatically?
Group selection doesn’t work. if you were to delete those two words, it would be fine, but if you start talking about increasing the reproductive fitness of a group as a whole, evolutionary biologists and other scientists will tend to dismiss what you say.
Well what exactly is “group selection”? If a group of people has a particular belief; and as a result of that belief, the group increases dramatically in numbers, would it qualify as “group selection”?
Conversely, if a group of people has a particular belief; and as a result of that belief, the group decreases dramatically in numbers, would it qualify as “group selection”?
It would not qualify. The ultra-Orthodox Jews example you give is of a set of individuals each pursuing their own fitness, and the set does well because each individual in the set does well. Group selection specifically refers to practices which make the group better off at individual cost. For example, if you had more daughters than sons, your group could grow faster- but any person in the group who defects and has more sons than daughters will reap massive benefits from doing so.
The moral of the story is, some people are oversensitive to “group” in the same sentence as “reproductive fitness.” Try to avoid it.
Well in that case, I was not talking about group selection. I was referring to a set of individuals each of whose reproductive fitness would be enhanced by the beliefs shared by him and the other members of the set of individuals.
I think that in normal discussions, it’s reasonable to refer to a set of individuals with shared beliefs as a “group.” And if those beliefs generally enhance the reproduction of the individuals in that group, it’s reasonable to state that the reproductive fitness in the group has been enhanced.
Try to avoid it.
I suppose, but I think it was pretty clear from the context what I meant when I said that certain beliefs “arguably increase the reproductive fitness in the individuals and groups who hold them.” At a minimum, I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I’m not sure I understand your point. By way of example, do you agree that generally speaking, ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that it’s a good idea to have a lot of children and to pass this idea to their children?
And do you agree that the numbers of ultra-Orthodox Jews have increased dramatically over the last 100 years and are likely to continue increasing dramatically?
His complaint is from here:
Group selection doesn’t work. if you were to delete those two words, it would be fine, but if you start talking about increasing the reproductive fitness of a group as a whole, evolutionary biologists and other scientists will tend to dismiss what you say.
Well what exactly is “group selection”? If a group of people has a particular belief; and as a result of that belief, the group increases dramatically in numbers, would it qualify as “group selection”?
Conversely, if a group of people has a particular belief; and as a result of that belief, the group decreases dramatically in numbers, would it qualify as “group selection”?
It would not qualify. The ultra-Orthodox Jews example you give is of a set of individuals each pursuing their own fitness, and the set does well because each individual in the set does well. Group selection specifically refers to practices which make the group better off at individual cost. For example, if you had more daughters than sons, your group could grow faster- but any person in the group who defects and has more sons than daughters will reap massive benefits from doing so.
The moral of the story is, some people are oversensitive to “group” in the same sentence as “reproductive fitness.” Try to avoid it.
Well in that case, I was not talking about group selection. I was referring to a set of individuals each of whose reproductive fitness would be enhanced by the beliefs shared by him and the other members of the set of individuals.
I think that in normal discussions, it’s reasonable to refer to a set of individuals with shared beliefs as a “group.” And if those beliefs generally enhance the reproduction of the individuals in that group, it’s reasonable to state that the reproductive fitness in the group has been enhanced.
I suppose, but I think it was pretty clear from the context what I meant when I said that certain beliefs “arguably increase the reproductive fitness in the individuals and groups who hold them.” At a minimum, I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with you, as implied by my choice of “oversensitive” rather than “sensitive.”
Thanks, and for what it’s worth I do agree that group selection as you have defined it is vulnerable to defection by individuals.