The Origins of Altruism - Edward O. Wilson's Alternate Theory(boston.com)
boston.com
The Origins of Altruism - Edward O. Wilson's Alternate Theory
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/04/17/where_does_good_come_from/?page=full
10 comments
The fundamental criticism seems to be that the authors take kin selection to be a fundamentally different sort of thing from "ordinary" natural selection.
That is indeed a very strange view since the two are really tightly connected logically.
That is indeed a very strange view since the two are really tightly connected logically.
Without any prior knowledge on the subject, it seemed obvious to me that the reason altruism exists is the same reason our bodies' cells don't attack each other. Groups of coöperating individuals have a much higher chance of surviving than groups of naïvely self-serving individuals.
I was surprised to find this is the "alternate" theory:
> 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.
Surely others have thought of this idea before, as it seems to me much simpler than kin selection. Why was it not until the 21st century that this idea has gained even a modicum of traction?
I was surprised to find this is the "alternate" theory:
> 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.
Surely others have thought of this idea before, as it seems to me much simpler than kin selection. Why was it not until the 21st century that this idea has gained even a modicum of traction?
The simple answer in most cases is that group selection is vulnerable to free-riders. A free-rider gene that didnt help out would out-compete altruists and spread.
The group of cells in a body is not a group of unrelated individuals - they are all perfectly related!
Non kin-related altruism usually requires mechanisms of enforcement like reciprocal altruism ("you scratch my back, i scratch yours, and if you dont play along you'll be ostracized").
Historically, naive group selection was commonly held until the 1950's and 60's, when George Williams forcefully argued against it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selectio....
Then Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and other developed mathematical models showing how kin selection and group theoretic models (like a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma) could allow for altruism to evolve even though genes are really "selfish".
E. O. Wilson's late attack on kin selection is odd and misguided, see a response here - http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-... or http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusiv.... There were several replies in Nature as well but of course those are paid.
The group of cells in a body is not a group of unrelated individuals - they are all perfectly related!
Non kin-related altruism usually requires mechanisms of enforcement like reciprocal altruism ("you scratch my back, i scratch yours, and if you dont play along you'll be ostracized").
Historically, naive group selection was commonly held until the 1950's and 60's, when George Williams forcefully argued against it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selectio....
Then Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and other developed mathematical models showing how kin selection and group theoretic models (like a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma) could allow for altruism to evolve even though genes are really "selfish".
E. O. Wilson's late attack on kin selection is odd and misguided, see a response here - http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-... or http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusiv.... There were several replies in Nature as well but of course those are paid.
I wonder why you were initially downvoted? Anyway, to quote from Williams: "I see no reason why a conscious motive need be involved. It is necessary that help provided to others be occasionally reciprocated if it is to be favored by natural selection. It is not necessary that either the giver or the receiver be aware of this. ... Simply stated, an individual who maximizes his friendships and minimizes his antagonisms will have an evolutionary advantage, and selection should favor those characters that promote the optimization of personal relationships."
Robert Trivers expanded this idea and you can read his paper, "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism", here: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pd... Since then the evidence has continued to grow in support of the idea (at least in primates--birds and fish that Trivers suggest don't have as much evidence).
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... is a nice post on why group selection theories tend to be wrong by default and why you shouldn't really pay attention to them when they come up.
For people interested in evolutionary psychology I recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, which does a good job covering the history of the field and offering explanations for a variety of behaviors. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psyc...
Robert Trivers expanded this idea and you can read his paper, "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism", here: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pd... Since then the evidence has continued to grow in support of the idea (at least in primates--birds and fish that Trivers suggest don't have as much evidence).
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... is a nice post on why group selection theories tend to be wrong by default and why you shouldn't really pay attention to them when they come up.
For people interested in evolutionary psychology I recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, which does a good job covering the history of the field and offering explanations for a variety of behaviors. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psyc...
There are free riders and they are in balance with altruism.
I saw footage when some squirrels (or monkeys) ware picking up something tasty out of the shallow water. They had to be careful because there might have been predators in the water.
If individual spotted predator they yelled and whole pack ran to the trees.
But occasionally weaker individuals yelled even when there was no predator to drive away stronger individuals to get some food himself.
So they altruistically warned each other but there was free-rider in who occasionally abused the altruistic system for personal gain. He couldn't do that too much because other individuals would notice and kick his butt. So altruism and free-riding in nature can be in balance and still give obvious advantage in cooperation.
I saw footage when some squirrels (or monkeys) ware picking up something tasty out of the shallow water. They had to be careful because there might have been predators in the water.
If individual spotted predator they yelled and whole pack ran to the trees.
But occasionally weaker individuals yelled even when there was no predator to drive away stronger individuals to get some food himself.
So they altruistically warned each other but there was free-rider in who occasionally abused the altruistic system for personal gain. He couldn't do that too much because other individuals would notice and kick his butt. So altruism and free-riding in nature can be in balance and still give obvious advantage in cooperation.
Maybe whole reason for the altruism is to create opportunity for future occasional free-riding for an individual.
There are many examples in human society when someone shown and loudly encouraged altruism just to free-ride on others where nobody was looking carefully.
There are many examples in human society when someone shown and loudly encouraged altruism just to free-ride on others where nobody was looking carefully.
If all, or even most of the citizens in your empire turn into free riders, the empire collapses. Certain types of groups like nations, startups, and schools of scientific thought, may be be inherently unstable on various time scales, yet that doesn't mean they don't arise, have dominating effects relevant to reproduction during their heyday, and that evolution doesn't need to adapt to the reality of their existence. That is to say, groups are not a unit of selection in the sense of natural selection. They are the context of selection.
Powerful social groups are a fact of life. Powerful enough to decide your fate, choose who you could or could not marry. We see them all around us. We see such organizations form, thrive, and die on a wide variety of scales, both in time and level of influence. If you can't network, you will wither in this and probably every other major society which ever existed. No want wants to partner with, or stay partnered with useless dead weight.
An example of a group of non-necessarily related individuals who share a common goal is an army. Soldiers may be more closely genetically related to many of their foes than they are to many of their comrades. Soldiers may be ordered to their deaths. Armies don't last forever, they don't have to. They exist to defeat other groups of people and impose some collective sanction. If a hypothetical free rider gene resulted in the formation of less effective armies, any population where such a gene predominated would be severely disadvantaged in war, and eventually massacred and/or enslaved.
Powerful social groups are a fact of life. Powerful enough to decide your fate, choose who you could or could not marry. We see them all around us. We see such organizations form, thrive, and die on a wide variety of scales, both in time and level of influence. If you can't network, you will wither in this and probably every other major society which ever existed. No want wants to partner with, or stay partnered with useless dead weight.
An example of a group of non-necessarily related individuals who share a common goal is an army. Soldiers may be more closely genetically related to many of their foes than they are to many of their comrades. Soldiers may be ordered to their deaths. Armies don't last forever, they don't have to. They exist to defeat other groups of people and impose some collective sanction. If a hypothetical free rider gene resulted in the formation of less effective armies, any population where such a gene predominated would be severely disadvantaged in war, and eventually massacred and/or enslaved.
I'm surprised too, especially since -- unless my understanding is very wrong -- something close to group selection is currently the most popular explanation for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in social animals: social groups with small populations of homosexual members benefit from the work contributed by those members, without the expense of additional offspring.
This is in fact an older theory before kin selection dominate the field.
I came up with this idea myself when I was trying to grasp how to connect evolution with altruism between obviously unrelated individuals.
When I was 17 or so.
So I don't think it's new or cunning. I'd like to know why this is stupid. Was the altruism between unrelated individuals never actually observed? Does not cooperative behavior give competitive advantage to groups and individuals?
When I was 17 or so.
So I don't think it's new or cunning. I'd like to know why this is stupid. Was the altruism between unrelated individuals never actually observed? Does not cooperative behavior give competitive advantage to groups and individuals?
Wilson's critics appear to engage in a great deal of uncalled for ad hominem attacks. I hate those kinds of personal insults. As far as kinship not being essential to group cooperation, this seems plausible (though unproven) to me. Dogs are not particularly close genetic relatives to human beings, but they will clearly raise alarm and even risk their lives to protect their human companions. Dogs don't appear to understand that this might not represent an appropriately greedy strategy for propagating their genes. I'm not even sure dogs know what genes are. Dogs and humans appear to be able to socially bond without particular genetic affinity.
Functional systems may be formed from dissimilar parts. Some theorize that eukaryotic cells originated through a fusion of ancient viruses and prokaryotes. Chocolate and peanut butter. Certainly this could be created within a mathematical model. Whether it occurs in nature is a different story. Group selection strikes me as an inadequate label, since particular tribes, kingdoms, nations, corporations, religions, movements emerge and vanish all the time. Human beings are masters of jumping on bandwagons and abandoning sinking ships. The real survival talent is joining and leaving groups when called for, and being valued as group participants. Being esteemed within a group may permit an individual to more readily leverage group powers. Something along the lines of "free riders earn no karma."
This gives rise to a significant individual motive: raising an alarm to warn the herd may simply be a calculated risk, which if successful might raise the actor's standing within the group (or the standing of his kind or lineage, essentially a kinship argument).
As far as the free rider argument goes, it's kind of hard to love a parasite. Being a jerk is somewhat anti-social behavior, and most groups tend to cast out or marginalize people who aren't team players. Ironically, this seems to be what's happening to Wilson. He's not being a team player, so the group is attempting to expel him (from his place within the rarified academic elite).
Selfishness is generally viewed as unattractive, while kindness, loyalty to others and generosity are often cited as desirable traits in a potential mate. That alone would be sufficient to promote specific altruistic traits. Why does sex selection in modern day humans appear to support furtherance of altruistic tendencies, in opposition to the more clear cut, selfish motivations of the individual? Saying, "I'm the most self-centered, greediest, oppportunistic prick out there, how bout a date?" ought to be a more successful pick up line than it is.
Functional systems may be formed from dissimilar parts. Some theorize that eukaryotic cells originated through a fusion of ancient viruses and prokaryotes. Chocolate and peanut butter. Certainly this could be created within a mathematical model. Whether it occurs in nature is a different story. Group selection strikes me as an inadequate label, since particular tribes, kingdoms, nations, corporations, religions, movements emerge and vanish all the time. Human beings are masters of jumping on bandwagons and abandoning sinking ships. The real survival talent is joining and leaving groups when called for, and being valued as group participants. Being esteemed within a group may permit an individual to more readily leverage group powers. Something along the lines of "free riders earn no karma."
This gives rise to a significant individual motive: raising an alarm to warn the herd may simply be a calculated risk, which if successful might raise the actor's standing within the group (or the standing of his kind or lineage, essentially a kinship argument).
As far as the free rider argument goes, it's kind of hard to love a parasite. Being a jerk is somewhat anti-social behavior, and most groups tend to cast out or marginalize people who aren't team players. Ironically, this seems to be what's happening to Wilson. He's not being a team player, so the group is attempting to expel him (from his place within the rarified academic elite).
Selfishness is generally viewed as unattractive, while kindness, loyalty to others and generosity are often cited as desirable traits in a potential mate. That alone would be sufficient to promote specific altruistic traits. Why does sex selection in modern day humans appear to support furtherance of altruistic tendencies, in opposition to the more clear cut, selfish motivations of the individual? Saying, "I'm the most self-centered, greediest, oppportunistic prick out there, how bout a date?" ought to be a more successful pick up line than it is.
Fascinating. Jerry Coyne (quoted in the article) has a blog post about the article:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-bosto...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-bosto...
The actual theory occurs in the middle of article. I was seriously exhausted of digging through long journalist effor to show how "rad" it is.
To spare you the digging:
> 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.
I'm still not sure why this idea is dismissed because I don't see any false statement or inconsistency in it and it seems to lead to apparent altruism.
To spare you the digging:
> 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.
I'm still not sure why this idea is dismissed because I don't see any false statement or inconsistency in it and it seems to lead to apparent altruism.
The reason it is dismissed is that group selection has been proposed and investigated many times in the history of evolutionary theory and found wanting, ironically because the mathematics don't hold up in realistic natural scenarios.
This article doesn't go into enough detail to tell us what is different in this new formulation of group selection. We'll have to read the paper to find out.
This article doesn't go into enough detail to tell us what is different in this new formulation of group selection. We'll have to read the paper to find out.
I think those two theories might be considered as two factors promoting altruism and their should be tested in (unrealistic) simulations to find out how powerful they are in causing altruism.
Realistic, natural scenarios are not good for spotting significance of multiple factors. As with the bike, natural realistic bike just does not fall, and why is that is left for discussion, but when somebody builds a bike that nullifies some probable cause then it can be plainly seen that other factors also might have significant role.
Realistic, natural scenarios are not good for spotting significance of multiple factors. As with the bike, natural realistic bike just does not fall, and why is that is left for discussion, but when somebody builds a bike that nullifies some probable cause then it can be plainly seen that other factors also might have significant role.
I think that altrusim that involves the death of the individual seems very hard to understand. But in general there doesn't seem to be much trouble explaining cooperation. In the paper "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot" by Stephen Jay Gould he states "Kropotkin therefore created a dichotomy within the general notion of struggle – two forms with opposite import: (1) organism against organism of the same species for limited resources, leading to competition; and (2) organism against environment, leading to cooperation." The really interesting thing is that the paper also explains why certain societies are more collective than others e.g. Russians Vs English people. Darwin admitted a second form of struggle "metaphorical" that pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. However Darwin's focus was mainly on the other form of struggle which pitted individual against individual in a gladatorial struggle. The Russians could not understand this "It was foreign to their experience because, quite simply, Russia’s huge land mass dwarfed its sparse population. For a Russian to see an inexorably increasing population inevitably straining potential supplies of food and space required quite a leap of imagination." So their environment influenced their politics which seems natural enough and refreshing to me as it always seems that a more social economy is some kind of artificial thing that is forced on people by intellectuals and goes against our nature as murderous individuals. Of course we are also murderously competitive individuals but the point is that in certain environments you won't survive if you don't cooperate.
Barely related, but I have always been surprised by the rejection of "group selection" -- I actually think our discomfort with it is sort of ideological, and motivated by the fact that we have an individualistically structured society (capitalism) that would be deeply challenged by group selection. Sort of out there, but perhaps worth thinking about.
(EDIT: I am speaking of the hyper-individualistic capitalism popular in America and (I think) Britain, not the lets-have-unions-and-govt-cooperate capitalism of Germany or Japan. Also, I still remember driving for 100 miles with a biologist who told me that group selection violated the basic premises of evolutionary theory, which is basically "selfish gene" only.)
(EDIT: I am speaking of the hyper-individualistic capitalism popular in America and (I think) Britain, not the lets-have-unions-and-govt-cooperate capitalism of Germany or Japan. Also, I still remember driving for 100 miles with a biologist who told me that group selection violated the basic premises of evolutionary theory, which is basically "selfish gene" only.)
While many traits that help an individual also help its group, I take it that "group selection" refers to traits evolving that harm an individual for the benefit of the group.
It's really difficult to get this to work, since the selection pressure at the individual level tends to outweigh the pressure at the group level; every group will eventually produce mutants that don't have the trait; these then come to make up an increasing proportion of the group, since they have higher fitness.
Out discomfort with it is due to this.
It's really difficult to get this to work, since the selection pressure at the individual level tends to outweigh the pressure at the group level; every group will eventually produce mutants that don't have the trait; these then come to make up an increasing proportion of the group, since they have higher fitness.
Out discomfort with it is due to this.
Why the following: "the selection pressure at the individual level tends to outweigh the pressure at the group level".
Also, I wonder if built in variability with social roles (e.g. a human might be a leader or follower for reasons NOT determined by genetics -- debatable, but I/ many others would hold that early childhood and culture might trump DNA in many important cases ) might alter the equations? Perhaps we evolve past genetic determinism in order to allow for larger group structures to feel the selection pressure more than individuals.
If I had another lifetime, I would study evolution enough to know what I am talking about.... Thanks for the interesting comment
Also, I wonder if built in variability with social roles (e.g. a human might be a leader or follower for reasons NOT determined by genetics -- debatable, but I/ many others would hold that early childhood and culture might trump DNA in many important cases ) might alter the equations? Perhaps we evolve past genetic determinism in order to allow for larger group structures to feel the selection pressure more than individuals.
If I had another lifetime, I would study evolution enough to know what I am talking about.... Thanks for the interesting comment
Why the following: "the selection pressure at the individual level tends to outweigh the pressure at the group level".
Because "I had 1.8 viable offspring before I died" is more fit than "I had 1.5 viable offspring before I died", no matter how you slice it. Any trait that moves an individual from the former statement to the latter makes that individual less fit, even if it benefits the group, and since the individual is less fit, that trait is less likely to be passed on, resulting (asymptotically) in more fit individuals massively outnumbering less fit ones, irrespective of the impact those individuals have on group fitness.
Because "I had 1.8 viable offspring before I died" is more fit than "I had 1.5 viable offspring before I died", no matter how you slice it. Any trait that moves an individual from the former statement to the latter makes that individual less fit, even if it benefits the group, and since the individual is less fit, that trait is less likely to be passed on, resulting (asymptotically) in more fit individuals massively outnumbering less fit ones, irrespective of the impact those individuals have on group fitness.
It would be nice to build an evolutionary simulation in which cooperation is beneficial, but cooperation between related individuals are essentially forbidden by the physics of the environment and see if the cooperation genes still arise and prevail.
Kudos to Wilson for taking a different. Right or wrong, it's impressive for someone to challenge orthodoxy twice in a lifetime.
Still, looking at the topic mathematically, it's hard for me to see the models as absolutely opposed.
A behavior of animal could to a degree enhance their kin's survival and enhance their groups' survival. I suspect the two models seen as opposed through the difficulty of modeling such a general selection process.
Still, looking at the topic mathematically, it's hard for me to see the models as absolutely opposed.
A behavior of animal could to a degree enhance their kin's survival and enhance their groups' survival. I suspect the two models seen as opposed through the difficulty of modeling such a general selection process.
I had the impression that precise arguments for each hypothesis are completely not important, and it looks more like being about politics than science.
If we assume that groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators (called 'heresy') as complete and true, we challenge Dawkin's atheism.
If we assume that groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators (called 'heresy') as complete and true, we challenge Dawkin's atheism.
Not sure I follow your last comment. Atheism is not implicitly uncooperative, and regardless Dawkins contends that atheism is correct, not that it's an optimal strategy.
Following the assumption above if you take more benefits belonging to a group, it doesn't matter what you think is correct, in evolutionary sense at least.
I didn't try to say that atheism is uncooperative, rather there are attempts to put some theories in favor of religion in evolutionary biology.
I didn't try to say that atheism is uncooperative, rather there are attempts to put some theories in favor of religion in evolutionary biology.
I understand that they would circle the wagons to repel attacks by the 'ignorant savages' outside of their own group... but to see them behave the same way against 'one of their own' is quite remarkable. I wonder if it is just a knee-jerk reaction they have developed... that anyone who even questions their pet theory is attacked as not knowing what they are talking about. How can someone claim to be 'rational' and yet at the same time be making ad hominem attacks against one of the founders of a field and claiming that he doesn't know what he is talking about? The levels of self deception implicit in that are simply staggering.
I liked the quote in the article that a scientist who can't change his mind isn't much of a scientist at all.