Maybe we are not talking about the same thing in this case.
If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist’s criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters. This, however, views “group selection” as a theory where the group is responsible for developing biological traits in the individuals, and as a theory which tries to explain altruistic behavior inside the group. I was not claiming any of the above.
I was not talking about an evolutionary pressure on the individual caused by the so-called “group selection theory”. I was only talking about support for one’s own group in contrast with support for other groups, not in contrast with support for oneself.
Also, if “group selection”, as per definition, means that biological traits in individuals develop on the group level, then I was not supporting the group selection theory at all! I was talking about the competition between different groups. Where one group competes with another group.
Would you say this competition doesn’t exist, and that groups didn’t go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
Maybe I used the term “evolution” in a way which might be misunderstood? I’m not claiming that biological traits spread among the individuals of a group for the good of the group. I’m claiming that general cultural or social principles of one group might make the group more competitive against other groups, and we can see plenty of historical proof for it.
If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist’s criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters.
Modern discourse about genetics isn’t an ivory tower exercise where you can reason your way to the right answer without looking at empiric reality.
Would you say this competition doesn’t exist, and that groups didn’t go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
I’m not sure what “group” goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
The empiric reality I’m looking at is that during the course of human history there were many groups, tribes, nations, civilizations which disappeared, and there are several in existence now, which might soon disappear if current trends continue. I doubt it would be too illogical to say that it was not only random chance, but it also played a role what values and goals those groups had, and how did those work out in comparison with the values and goals of other groups.
I’m not sure what “group” goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
The empiric reality I’m looking at is that during the course of human history there were many groups, tribes, nations, civilizations which disappeared
The fact that a nation disappear doesn’t mean that there aren’t any descendents of members of that nation.
Is is an topic where you can argue both the pro-group selection and the contra-group selection position based on arguments like you are making. But academics actually engaged more deeply with the subject and focused more strongly on the empiric predictions that various theories make.
As a result no argument that doesn’t cite any papers will convince me.
I doubt it would be too illogical to say that it was not only random chance, but it also played a role what values and goals those groups had, and how did those work out in comparison with the values and goals of other groups.
A priori there’s nothing illogical about saying it was random chance. The only way to know whether or not it was random chance is to actually studying empiric reality. That’s a subject studied by experts.
it also played a role what values and goals those groups had, and how did those work out in comparison with the values and goals of other groups.
Values can chance fast culturally in a way that has nothing to do with genes. A few hundred years in which a nation forms has creates little distinct genetics that produce long-term evolutionary effects.
Do you never consider yourself part of a group which is smaller than “all humans”? Would you lose nothing if that group became smaller and less powerful?
The fact that a nation disappear doesn’t mean that there aren’t any descendents of members of that nation.
Biological descendants, yes, but they were usually much worse off (usually enslaved, having a higher chance to be genocided, or just having fewer rights or fewer possibilities)
Is is an topic where you can argue both the pro-group selection and the contra-group selection position
If you define group selection as the theory that genetic traits in individuals develop for the main purpose of making the group fitter, then I was never talking about group selection at all.
As a result no argument that doesn’t cite any papers will convince me.
If you only consider hard sciences as being exclusively important, and believe that all we know about and can infer from history and culture to be completely useless, than I doubt we have much chance to speak the same language in this case. People before the last century or so didn’t write much scientific papers in the modern sense, but they did write down what they’ve seen happening, and while there might be inaccuracies, it would be a waste to throw away everything which was ever written down which is not an article in scientific journal. The information content of old historical documents (and even the information content of myths) is not zero.
Values can chance fast culturally in a way that has nothing to do with genes. A few hundred years in which a nation forms has creates little distinct genetics that produce long-term evolutionary effects.
Of course, I completely agree with that. But I was never talking about genetics in the first place. I used the term of evolution as … I can’t find a better word… not strictly as a metaphor, but you get the idea. Would you also attack the term “stellar evolution” as it is used in astronomy because evolution only means genetics? If not, than think about that my usage, while still distinct from the genetic meaning you were talking about, is still closer to it than the term of “stellar evolution”.
People before the last century or so didn’t write scientific papers, but they did write down what they’ve seen happening, and while there might be inaccuracies, it would be a waste to throw away everything which was ever written down which is not an article in scientific journal. The information content of old historical documents (and even the information content of myths) is not zero.
In cases where modern science disagrees with what’s written in historical documents, there are usually strong reasons to prefer the conclusions of modern science.
Notice also that you used very definite language when you said “We should not forget that from an evolutionary perspective”. That’s a phrase to use when refering to established knowledge and not for positions for which there are arguments in favor but that are not established.
Of course, I completely agree with that. But I was never talking about genetics in the first place.
Okay if you didn’t mean it, then that’s fine.
Would you also attack the term “stellar evolution” as it is used in astronomy because evolution only means genetics?
If someone uses that term in astronomy they usually communicate in way that’s clear that they did’t mean genetic evolution. Your post didn’t have that clarity and thus deserve to be voted down for it. It’s motte-and-bailey.
In cases where modern science disagrees with what’s written in historical documents, there are usually strong reasons to prefer the conclusions of modern science.
Do you know of any modern scientific results which would prove that if members of a group stop supporting their group, than that group will not have reduced chances of survival?
It’s motte-and-bailey.
Don’t worry, I will not “go back to claiming” that “genetic traits in individuals develop for the main purpose of making the group fitter” after the discussion is over. :) I honestly didn’t held that belief. I only held (and still hold) the belief that the survival of the fittest can also apply in the case of competition between groups, which is not something which is disproved by the arguments against group selection.
On the other hand, this discussion made me think about the possibility of people confusing the above with the term “group selection”, and having read that “group selection is obsolete, not supported, and wrong” might conclude that it’s not true that groups adapt, change, and get stronger or get destroyed based on how fit (how well group members are supporting the group also making part of the fitness of the group) and how adaptive they are compared to other groups, although this is not what group selection is about.
Maybe we are not talking about the same thing in this case.
If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist’s criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters. This, however, views “group selection” as a theory where the group is responsible for developing biological traits in the individuals, and as a theory which tries to explain altruistic behavior inside the group. I was not claiming any of the above.
I was not talking about an evolutionary pressure on the individual caused by the so-called “group selection theory”. I was only talking about support for one’s own group in contrast with support for other groups, not in contrast with support for oneself.
Also, if “group selection”, as per definition, means that biological traits in individuals develop on the group level, then I was not supporting the group selection theory at all! I was talking about the competition between different groups. Where one group competes with another group.
Would you say this competition doesn’t exist, and that groups didn’t go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
Maybe I used the term “evolution” in a way which might be misunderstood? I’m not claiming that biological traits spread among the individuals of a group for the good of the group. I’m claiming that general cultural or social principles of one group might make the group more competitive against other groups, and we can see plenty of historical proof for it.
Modern discourse about genetics isn’t an ivory tower exercise where you can reason your way to the right answer without looking at empiric reality.
I’m not sure what “group” goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
The empiric reality I’m looking at is that during the course of human history there were many groups, tribes, nations, civilizations which disappeared, and there are several in existence now, which might soon disappear if current trends continue. I doubt it would be too illogical to say that it was not only random chance, but it also played a role what values and goals those groups had, and how did those work out in comparison with the values and goals of other groups.
Sorry for not being pedantic enough.
The fact that a nation disappear doesn’t mean that there aren’t any descendents of members of that nation.
Is is an topic where you can argue both the pro-group selection and the contra-group selection position based on arguments like you are making. But academics actually engaged more deeply with the subject and focused more strongly on the empiric predictions that various theories make.
As a result no argument that doesn’t cite any papers will convince me.
A priori there’s nothing illogical about saying it was random chance. The only way to know whether or not it was random chance is to actually studying empiric reality. That’s a subject studied by experts.
Values can chance fast culturally in a way that has nothing to do with genes. A few hundred years in which a nation forms has creates little distinct genetics that produce long-term evolutionary effects.
Do you never consider yourself part of a group which is smaller than “all humans”? Would you lose nothing if that group became smaller and less powerful?
Biological descendants, yes, but they were usually much worse off (usually enslaved, having a higher chance to be genocided, or just having fewer rights or fewer possibilities)
If you define group selection as the theory that genetic traits in individuals develop for the main purpose of making the group fitter, then I was never talking about group selection at all.
If you only consider hard sciences as being exclusively important, and believe that all we know about and can infer from history and culture to be completely useless, than I doubt we have much chance to speak the same language in this case. People before the last century or so didn’t write much scientific papers in the modern sense, but they did write down what they’ve seen happening, and while there might be inaccuracies, it would be a waste to throw away everything which was ever written down which is not an article in scientific journal. The information content of old historical documents (and even the information content of myths) is not zero.
Of course, I completely agree with that. But I was never talking about genetics in the first place. I used the term of evolution as … I can’t find a better word… not strictly as a metaphor, but you get the idea. Would you also attack the term “stellar evolution” as it is used in astronomy because evolution only means genetics? If not, than think about that my usage, while still distinct from the genetic meaning you were talking about, is still closer to it than the term of “stellar evolution”.
In cases where modern science disagrees with what’s written in historical documents, there are usually strong reasons to prefer the conclusions of modern science.
Notice also that you used very definite language when you said “We should not forget that from an evolutionary perspective”. That’s a phrase to use when refering to established knowledge and not for positions for which there are arguments in favor but that are not established.
Okay if you didn’t mean it, then that’s fine.
If someone uses that term in astronomy they usually communicate in way that’s clear that they did’t mean genetic evolution. Your post didn’t have that clarity and thus deserve to be voted down for it. It’s motte-and-bailey.
Do you know of any modern scientific results which would prove that if members of a group stop supporting their group, than that group will not have reduced chances of survival?
Don’t worry, I will not “go back to claiming” that “genetic traits in individuals develop for the main purpose of making the group fitter” after the discussion is over. :) I honestly didn’t held that belief. I only held (and still hold) the belief that the survival of the fittest can also apply in the case of competition between groups, which is not something which is disproved by the arguments against group selection.
On the other hand, this discussion made me think about the possibility of people confusing the above with the term “group selection”, and having read that “group selection is obsolete, not supported, and wrong” might conclude that it’s not true that groups adapt, change, and get stronger or get destroyed based on how fit (how well group members are supporting the group also making part of the fitness of the group) and how adaptive they are compared to other groups, although this is not what group selection is about.