• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Group selection as opposed to kinship.

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Where does good come from?
Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson tries to upend biology, again


Some excerpts:

Natural selection means that the fittest pass down their genes to the next generation, and every organism would seem to have an overwhelming incentive to survive and reproduce. Yet, strangely, self-sacrifice exists in the natural world, even though it would seem to put individual organisms at an evolutionary disadvantage: The squirrel that lets out a cry to warn of a nearby predator is necessarily putting itself in danger. How could genes that lead to such behavior persist in a population over time? It’s a question that bedeviled even Charles Darwin, who considered altruism a serious challenge to his theory of evolution.

The currently accepted explanation for altruism is something known as kin selection theory. It says that an organism trying to pass its genes down to future generations can do so indirectly, by helping a relative to survive and procreate. Your brother, for example, shares roughly half your genes. And so, by the dispassionate logic of evolution, helping him produce offspring is half as good for you as producing your own. Thus, acting altruistically towards someone with whom you share genetic material does not really constitute self-sacrifice: It’s just a different way of promoting your own genes. Wilson was one of the original champions of kin selection theory, but 40 years later, he is calling it a “gimmick,” and is imploring his colleagues to give it up.

The alternative theory holds that the origins of altruism and teamwork have nothing to do with kinship or the degree of relatedness between individuals. The key, Wilson said, is the group: Under certain circumstances, groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators, thereby ensuring that their genes — including the ones that predispose them to cooperation — are handed down to future generations. This so-called group selection, Wilson insists, is what forms the evolutionary basis for a variety of advanced social behaviors linked to altruism, teamwork, and tribalism — a position that other scientists have taken over the years, but which historically has been considered, in Wilson’s own word, “heresy.”

Interesting stuff. I'm afraid I'm with the heretics on this one. To be very brief, I don't understand how group selection wouldn't happen.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Yep, I agree with you. If you're further interested, I suggest you to read the book "Unto Others" by Sober and Sloan Wilson. A small excerpt:

In their 1998 book Unto Others, and in various articles before this, Sober and David Sloan Wilson challenge this view. While one of their challenges takes the form of naming organisms, such as the so called "brain worm" (Dicrocoelium dendriticum), which has a life cycle much like that of the haystack organisms above, they present a more significant argument, based on the notion of trait groups.
Trait groups can occur within larger groups through the interaction of particular genetic traits, and need not interact for a generation to promote survival value. Sober and Wilson see kin selection, which is often considered an alternative to group selection, as a special case of a trait groups. To see how a trait group could be beneficial, let's imagine an altruist trait, such as cooperation with another organism even in such cases were it only benefits 40% as much as the organism it helps, and a selfish trait such as cooperating with another organism only when it will benefit more than the organism it helps. The first trait is considered altruistic in Sober and Wilson’s sense because the within-group fitness of the altruistic organism drops every time it cooperates compared with the other member of the group. Now imagine five organisms, one of which is altruistic in regards to this trait, and the rest of which are selfish. Assume that each case of cooperation increases the chance of survival and reproduction by 10 units, which is divided among the interacting pair (group of two). Now assume that member of the population groups/interacts with each other member of the population one time. After all the interactions have taken place, the selfish organisms have each acquired 6 units. This is because they all refuse to cooperation with other selfish members (since it is impossible for both members to benefit more than the other), but each takes advantage of the altruist benefits over that individual in a ratio of 60% to 40%. The altruist on the other hand has interacted with 4 selfish organisms and thus has earned 16 units (four for each encounter) and thus has a greater survival advantage than the selfish members of the population. The altruist ends up winning the survival "war" even though it came out behind in every survival "battle".
Because individuals can form hundreds or even thousands of trait groups within its life span, the trait group selection model does not have to rely on the unlikely situation of an entire population isolating into groups, merging, and then isolating into groups again. Likewise the rate at which trait groups can form and dissolve can be many times faster than the rate at which individuals reproduce, providing cumulative as opposed to all-or-nothing benefits. It is important to note that this argument has not settled the issue of group selection however. There is still heavy debate as to whether or not such formations count as “real” groups in the traditional biological sense of groups affected by group selection.

Since I'm not an expert, I don't think I can easily debate this topic. However, their thesis makes perfect sense IMHO.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm a heretic apparently. To me it's like common sense that being altruistic toward other people, even those not related to you, could ensure your own livelihood. What if all your relatives are dead? It's good to have friends.

People make "families" all of the time from people they've chosen. I think it's just human to cooperate, at least in small groups (I know it's not necessarily "natural" on a larger scale, which is why thinking leaning toward socialism is considered a form of being rational and complex beyond instincts, and it's part of the theory of why liberals are smarter than conservatives, oh boy I'm about to get into trouble...).

But YES, at least in small groups it's perfectly logical and normal, like living in a tribe. It's simply easier to survive with a tribe even you aren't related by blood. Every different person serves a purpose, making each person's life easier. You can help each other out when something goes wrong, or if one gets sick. Safety in numbers, et al.

I just want to say fucking duh and conclude with a completely unnecessary (but related)"Ayn Rand was a psychopath".
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Marmie, I don't think this is what is being argued. It's some type of meta-evolution, if it was operating on us we couldn't even notice, we'd need an external observer.
 

InTheFlesh

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
276
Enneagram
CFV
The reason animals want to reproduce is to keep the species going, individual reproduction feeds into that larger goal.
Enabling the species to survive and reproduce by warning them of a threat precedes reproduction on a singular scale, since evolution based off natural selection still has the main goal of species survival.

I'd argue altruism doesn't exist, but that's a little beside the point.
Warning the others of a threat is collective selfishness, the drive to help results from the selfish desire to keep the larger group safe so they can continue to reproduce.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
As a complete layman, group selection (multilevel selection) totally makes intuitive sense to me. I still don't really get why it's controversial.

It might explain the (possible) biological basis for things like why cognitive preferences (like MBTI) are distributed the way they are. Why aren't we all a single optimal type? Why are there more sensors than intuitives? etc.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
Oh and for those interested I recommend this blog (especially the "Truth and Reconcilliation" series:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/

"Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary."
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
Any ideas on how you'd go about raising a child to be intuitive?

Do you think the mbti distribution is optimal as it is or not?
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
Interesting stuff. I'm afraid I'm with the heretics on this one. To be very brief, I don't understand how group selection wouldn't happen.

Some problems with the usual hasty generalisations by the authors.

Once, there is always more than one group. One groups meat is another groups poison.
Twice, the skills and predispositions which can be toxic in a group setting can be extremely effective on an individual level. (See The Lonely Crowd, 1955).
Thrice, mutual exclusive traits on an individual level can be tolerated in the balance due to trade-off and distance.
Fourths, People are rarely extremophiles in the group, however, it is a small jump from moderate to extremophile potentially across a single generation. Evolution of genetics and society implies both the potential for small and gargantuan step outs.

Any ideas on how you'd go about raising a child to be intuitive?

Do you think the mbti distribution is optimal as it is or not?

MBTI/Jungian distribution is flawed in that it exudes a bimodal model, when the trends tend to be across a single mode.

The answer to the above 'how' would be to attempt certain interventions and observe if 'intuitive behaviour' however you might classify it emerges. If this fails attempt a different approach. Rinse and repeat with additional interventions until the desired level is reached.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
However, their thesis makes perfect sense IMHO.

It makes sense in that very abstract and isolated example, I agree.

Marmie, I don't think this is what is being argued.

True. Mutually beneficial relationships and teamwork do not fit the definition of altruism being referred to here.

Altruistic behaviour here, is detrimental to the organism performing it, and beneficial to at least one other organism.

As a complete layman, group selection (multilevel selection) totally makes intuitive sense to me. I still don't really get why it's controversial.

Because it only makes intuitive sense. Armchair psychology/biology, I believe it is called, where it seems nice and fitting in one's mind, but has nothing else to back it up.

The best evidence they can gather, which is admittedly very weak, is the mathematics the OP article speaks of. Mathematics that needs to predict where they will find altruism, and where they won't. Both sides make intuitive sense, kinship and group selection, but the evidence behind both is very much lacking, more so with group than kin. A random intuitive counter example to group, is that whenever altruistic genes comes to be, they die off quickly, as all organisms which possess them are more likely to die, sacrificing themselves for another without the altruistic genes, which does not apply to kinship selection as strongly, because of a greater similarity in genes (this, like all intuitive examples, has no evidence and involves an overly simplified view of genetics and behaviour).

It's evolution, so very difficult to prove what happened in the past with any detail whatsoever. However they'll be able to show similar effects now, which can be extrapolated backwards to make better educated guesses about what happened in the distant past. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
MBTI/Jungian distribution is flawed in that it exudes a bimodal model, when the trends tend to be across a single mode.

I don't think it really does, take ISFP, they have Fi which is almost balanced out by Se, then they have Ni, which is almost balanced out by Te, leaving them overall somewhere in the middle between I and E:

Fi--X---------------------------Fe
Si-----------------------X------Se
Ni-----------X------------------Ne
Ti-----------------X------------Te

Overall:
I--------------X-----------------E
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
I don't think it really does, take ISFP, they have Fi which is almost balanced out by Se, then they have Ni, which is almost balanced out by Te, leaving them overall somewhere in the middle between I and E:

Fi--X---------------------------Fe
Si-----------------------X------Se
Ni-----------X------------------Ne
Ti-----------------X------------Te

Overall:
I--------------X-----------------E

If you take multiple modes you will get a log normal, not a bimodal modal of I vs E.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
If you take multiple modes you will get a log normal, not a bimodal modal of I vs E.

I'm not good with stats but isn't that what we should expect (normal distribution for I-E).

When you test for I or E you will be picking up some traits from Fi and some traits from Se, so for most people you'll wind up somewhere in the middle, appearing ambiverted. Only those rare people that ONLY use their first function, or don't use their secondary at all will appear especially extraverted or introverted.
 
Top