1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThank you, Mr. Know It All II. I understand the theory just fine. I say that it is equivocating on the meaning of the word selfish and that SS has consistently refused to limit "selfishness" to a genetic context (where the term is being misused anyway).
Well, #1, I give up. You've become Ivanhoe in this thread. If you refuse to recognize that
something can be both genetically selfish and morally altruistic (because it entails recognizing
that the point of view is different), then you will never understand what SS and I are saying.
That is, until you acknowledge that coöperative behaviors which entail ...[text shortened]... 'selfish gene' and the schools of evolutionary thought which have
arisen from it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere is the anthropological evidence that humans evolved in small groups, controlled by a single alpha male? Hunter gatherer societies that we know of certainly do not typically follow this pattern.
Two things, I would suggest.
One, resources. Wars are most often fought for resources, more than any other single reason. If someone wants to take my resources off me, I'll defend them. If I want to take the resources off someone else, then I'll cooperate with others to get the job done (cooperation / (potential) benefit of victory greater than ...[text shortened]... to a society, and if the cost of that is going off to war occasionally, well, so be it.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI know pretty well Diamond's work (being an economist by trade) but that hasn't got much to do with what I was trying to say.
Two things, I would suggest.
One, resources. Wars are most often fought for resources, more than any other single reason. If someone wants to take my resources off me, I'll defend them. If I want to take the resources off someone else, then I'll cooperate with others to get the job done (cooperation / (potential) benefit of victory greater than ...[text shortened]... to a society, and if the cost of that is going off to war occasionally, well, so be it.
Wars can be described as cultural selection processes and their genetic implications are not Darwinian in the sense that they are 'pure' group selection and not merely group selection through aggregated individual selections of members of a group. (My bad. I do not know if there are technical terms for what I describe as pure vs aggregated I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here...) Take the roman empire for example. Their expansion left a cultural and infrastructural legacy that influenced Europe's position in the world that went far beyond the relatively small dissemination of their gene pool. However, it seems fair to say that such a legacy has influenced both thought and morality across centuries (for evidence look at their influence on some many legal systems currently existing in Europe).
Note that I don't question genetic implications in behaviour, I question the seemingly absence of cultural effects in your explanations which seem to contradict the bulk of the results in social sciences and reduce them to biology. It just seems an excessive oversimplification that is very tempting when it comes to scientific modeling (as you've presented several examples) but which I seriously question as biased.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut each individual is behaving the way they are to maximise their own reproductive rates! You said so yourself - thus it is individual selectionism. Group selectionism died a horrible, cold, lonely death in the 1960s, and few serious mainstream evolutionary biologists take it seriously, since true group selection (where for example, one organism gives up breeding rights, so that another may breed) cannot evolve - the altruist genes would be outcompeted by selfish genes.
No, it ain't. You're again using the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Reciprocal altruism has you previously described it was doing something expecting someone to do the same or similar thing for you in the future. But what is being described here is the punishment of someone who constantly does things against the group's norms with the main purpose of having them conforming their behavior to that acceptable to the group.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously, you do not understand the theory if you think that the term is being misused, given
...I understand the theory just fine...(where the term is being misused anyway).
that the definition of 'genetic selfishness' is contained within the theory itself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is a good question, and one that requires further work. It may well be a throwback to small group behaviour, or there may well be adaptive benefit. Perhaps people just get caught up in the recruiters' shpeel about "glory" and "honour" (i.e. benefits) without considering the rather large potential cost (death).
I know pretty well Diamond's work (being an economist by trade) but that hasn't got much to do with what I was trying to say.
Wars can be described as cultural selection processes and their genetic implications are not Darwinian in the sense that they are 'pure' group selection and not merely group selection through aggregated individual selections of mem ...[text shortened]... odeling (as you've presented several examples) but which I seriously question as biased.
Originally posted by Palynka(I'm about to get started on the Diamond 'Guns, Germs and Steel' book, btw.)
Note that I don't question genetic implications in behaviour, I question the seemingly absence of cultural effects in your explanations which seem to contradict the bulk of the results in social sciences and reduce them to biology. It just seems an excessive oversimplification that is very tempting when it comes to scientific modeling (as you've presented several examples) but which I seriously question as biased.
To reduce behaviors as necessary consequences of genes is, indeed, oversimplification, I believe
(I think SS and I depart on this issue, but I am not sure). I believe genes guide or constrain
the normative expressions of behaviors.
However, I think of most pre-modern culture (which developed at such an explosive rate as to outpace
the slowness of evolutionary change) is indeed informed by genetic impetuses.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI'm sorry, but to use the term "selfishness" in a way that is contrary to its standard meaning is a misuse. I believe Dawkins did this deliberately for marketing purposes.
Obviously, you do not understand the theory if you think that the term is being misused, given
that the definition of 'genetic selfishness' is contained within the theory itself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, YOU keep saying that! What I'm saying is that individuals have a loyalty to the group quite apart from any of their own desires. And that this cooperative altruism has a evolutionary advantage but that isn't "selfishness" except when you use that term in a non-standard manner.
But each individual is behaving the way they are to maximise their own reproductive rates! You said so yourself - thus it is individual selectionism. Group selectionism died a horrible, cold, lonely death in the 1960s, and few serious mainstream evolutionary biologists take it seriously, since true group selection (where for example, one organism give ...[text shortened]... hat another may breed) cannot evolve - the altruist genes would be outcompeted by selfish genes.
Originally posted by no1marauderCan I ask a question here? If you think that the individual has a loyalty to the group, and that does not benefit them, what are you saying the loyalty is for then? Surely if the group benefits by staying as a group, each member benefits?
No, YOU keep saying that! What I'm saying is that individuals have a loyalty to the group quite apart from any of their own desires. And that this cooperative altruism has a evolutionary advantage but that isn't "selfishness" except when you use that term in a non-standard manner.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandUsually but not always. Some times the individual must do things, including sacrificing his life or limb, to maximize the group's survival. This is not sufficiently explained by contrived constructs like "indirect reciprocal altruism" particulary when the group is made up mostly of unrelated individuals.
Can I ask a question here? If you think that the individual has a loyalty to the group, and that does not benefit them, what are you saying the loyalty is for then? Surely if the group benefits by staying as a group, each member benefits?
Originally posted by no1marauderTitre du document / Document title
Usually but not always. Some times the individual must do things, including sacrificing his life or limb, to maximize the group's survival. This is not sufficiently explained by contrived constructs like "indirect reciprocal altruism" particulary when the group is made up mostly of unrelated individuals.
Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
NOWAK M. A. (1) ; SIGMUND K. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Zoology University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, ROYAUME-UNI
(2) Institut für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Strudlhofgasse 4, 1090 Wien, AUTRICHE
Résumé / Abstract
Darwinian evolution has to provide an explanation for cooperative behaviour. Theories of cooperation are based on kin selection (dependent on genetic relatedness)[1,2], group selection[3-5] and reciprocal altruism[6-9]. The idea of reciprocal altruism usually involves direct reciprocity: repeated encounters between the same individuals allow for the return of an altruistic act by the recipient[10-16]. Here we present a new theoretical framework, which is based on indirect reciprocity[17] and does not require the same two individuals ever to meet again. Individual selection can nevertheless favour cooperative strategies directed towards recipients that have helped others in the past. Cooperation pays because it confers the image of a valuable community member to the cooperating individual. We present computer simulations and analytic models that specify the conditions required for evolutionary stability[18] of indirect reciprocity. We show that the probability of knowing the 'image' of the recipient must exceed the cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act. We propose that the emergence of indirect reciprocity was a decisive step for the evolution of human societies."
" Title: The evolution of cooperation and altruism - a general framework and a classification of models
Author(s): Lehmann L (Lehmann, L.), Keller L (Keller, L.)
Source: JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 19 (5): 1365-1376 SEP 2006
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Cited References: 84 Times Cited: 17 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: One of the enduring puzzles in biology and the social sciences is the origin and persistence of intraspecific cooperation and altruism in humans and other species. Hundreds of theoretical models have been proposed and there is much confusion about the relationship between these models. To clarify the situation, we developed a synthetic conceptual framework that delineates the conditions necessary for the evolution of altruism and cooperation. We show that at least one of the four following conditions needs to be fulfilled: direct benefits to the focal individual performing a cooperative act; direct or indirect information allowing a better than random guess about whether a given individual will behave cooperatively in repeated reciprocal interactions; preferential interactions between related individuals; and genetic correlation between genes coding for altruism and phenotypic traits that can be identified. When one or more of these conditions are met, altruism or cooperation can evolve if the cost-to-benefit ratio of altruistic and cooperative acts is greater than a threshold value. The cost-to-benefit ratio can be altered by coercion, punishment and policing which therefore act as mechanisms facilitating the evolution of altruism and cooperation. All the models proposed so far are explicitly or implicitly built on these general principles, allowing us to classify them into four general categories. "
But there is an evolutionary reason.