We should not forget that from an evolutionary perspective (if we regard groups as the players) it is advantageous to have at least some bias in favor of the group you belong to. Groups which don’t do this, are out-competed by groups who do.
Of course, too much bias leads to extremism. However, no bias at all might lead to the extinction of the group in question.
I know the above statement might have unfortunate implications in the wrong context, but I would like to see it proven wrong instead of just dismissed, if you think you disagree with it. Do you disagree with the factual accuracy of the statement, or are you disagreeing because of the assumptions you made about my intent?
I know the above statement might have unfortunate implications in the wrong context, but I would like to see it proven wrong instead of just dismissed, if you think you disagree with it.
You treat the the theory group selection as fact when a lot of established biologists don’t think that group selection has strong effects.
Furthermore people who speak against group selection like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins have a higher esteem in this community than people speaking in favor of group selection.
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.
I have a vague memory of e-mailing Dawkins a decade or so ago about group selection and getting a response which more or less summed it up to my satisfaction: There’s evolution of evolvability (or something like that, he had an interesting phrase for it), which is to say, group selection can take place based on individual-level selection pressures. The example, IIRC, was the tendency for certain kinds of species to grow larger with longer reproductive cycles, then go extinct as their reproductive cycles extended out to the point where they couldn’t evolve fast enough to keep up with changing conditions. Other types were individual adaptations whose dispersement gave their groups massive advantages, outcompeting all other groups; the example there, IIRC, was sexual reproduction.
Which is to say, it’s wrong to say that group selection doesn’t exist, but it’s also wrong to say it trumps individual (or genetic) selection. Rather, the entire concept of “group” selection is wrong in something the same way “individual” selection is wrong, because it is genes, in the context of other genes, which are selected.
The example, IIRC, was the tendency for certain kinds of species to grow larger with longer reproductive cycles, then go extinct as their reproductive cycles extended out to the point where they couldn’t evolve fast enough to keep up with changing conditions.
That evolution is about a species. That’s not what Val means with group.
I didn’t downvote, but I don’t like your statement. I mostly agree with the biological facts, but you state them as if they apply directly and straightforwardly to the post’s question about human affairs. If applied in the most obvious way, they lead to the unfortunate implications, but I don’t think that application really makes sense. And I can’t help suspecting these apparent implications are a result of motivated stopping.
I recently read an interesting article that touched on this The Three Lessons of Biological History which was extracted from The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant. I believe this is what you are talking about, not the strictly biological perspective others are inferring.
Group are very fluid entities, and can be defined by pretty much any parameter, which make your statement a bit vague.
But even without considering that, there are shortcomings in your theory.
On an individual point of view, being biased towards one group will reduce your own possibilities, it will also reduce the incentives for your group to adapt and better itself. To be fair, it has nothing do with your theory, but still is worth saying imo
Your proposition could also be interpreted has a prisoner dilemna, with each group as a player, not being biased is to cooperate and be biased is to defect. The rational decision for every group is to defect, but everyone would be better if everyone is cooperating. One solution is to have a higher authority impose cooperation, with non-discrimination laws for example.
everyone would be better if everyone is cooperating
I agree with this view. And as I was not claiming that it would be good to be too much biased and always (or too often) defect. However, if there is a general tendency of how often / how likely do all the groups defect and cooperate, then one group who pledges to never ever defect no matter what, will see that the other groups will defect against it, solely because they know they will always win. The solution of the prisoner’s dilemma requires the possibility, or at least the ability for you to defect, even if you don’t choose it. Otherwise your opponent will always defect.
We should not forget that from an evolutionary perspective (if we regard groups as the players) it is advantageous to have at least some bias in favor of the group you belong to. Groups which don’t do this, are out-competed by groups who do.
Of course, too much bias leads to extremism. However, no bias at all might lead to the extinction of the group in question.
I know the above statement might have unfortunate implications in the wrong context, but I would like to see it proven wrong instead of just dismissed, if you think you disagree with it. Do you disagree with the factual accuracy of the statement, or are you disagreeing because of the assumptions you made about my intent?
You treat the the theory group selection as fact when a lot of established biologists don’t think that group selection has strong effects.
Furthermore people who speak against group selection like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins have a higher esteem in this community than people speaking in favor of group selection.
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.
I have a vague memory of e-mailing Dawkins a decade or so ago about group selection and getting a response which more or less summed it up to my satisfaction: There’s evolution of evolvability (or something like that, he had an interesting phrase for it), which is to say, group selection can take place based on individual-level selection pressures. The example, IIRC, was the tendency for certain kinds of species to grow larger with longer reproductive cycles, then go extinct as their reproductive cycles extended out to the point where they couldn’t evolve fast enough to keep up with changing conditions. Other types were individual adaptations whose dispersement gave their groups massive advantages, outcompeting all other groups; the example there, IIRC, was sexual reproduction.
Which is to say, it’s wrong to say that group selection doesn’t exist, but it’s also wrong to say it trumps individual (or genetic) selection. Rather, the entire concept of “group” selection is wrong in something the same way “individual” selection is wrong, because it is genes, in the context of other genes, which are selected.
That evolution is about a species. That’s not what Val means with group.
I didn’t downvote, but I don’t like your statement. I mostly agree with the biological facts, but you state them as if they apply directly and straightforwardly to the post’s question about human affairs. If applied in the most obvious way, they lead to the unfortunate implications, but I don’t think that application really makes sense. And I can’t help suspecting these apparent implications are a result of motivated stopping.
I recently read an interesting article that touched on this The Three Lessons of Biological History which was extracted from The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant. I believe this is what you are talking about, not the strictly biological perspective others are inferring.
Group are very fluid entities, and can be defined by pretty much any parameter, which make your statement a bit vague. But even without considering that, there are shortcomings in your theory.
On an individual point of view, being biased towards one group will reduce your own possibilities, it will also reduce the incentives for your group to adapt and better itself. To be fair, it has nothing do with your theory, but still is worth saying imo
Your proposition could also be interpreted has a prisoner dilemna, with each group as a player, not being biased is to cooperate and be biased is to defect. The rational decision for every group is to defect, but everyone would be better if everyone is cooperating. One solution is to have a higher authority impose cooperation, with non-discrimination laws for example.
I agree with this view. And as I was not claiming that it would be good to be too much biased and always (or too often) defect. However, if there is a general tendency of how often / how likely do all the groups defect and cooperate, then one group who pledges to never ever defect no matter what, will see that the other groups will defect against it, solely because they know they will always win. The solution of the prisoner’s dilemma requires the possibility, or at least the ability for you to defect, even if you don’t choose it. Otherwise your opponent will always defect.