[lit-ideas] Group Selection and its detractors

From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:06:35 -0700
Continuing in Nicholas Wade's, The Faith Instinct, How Religion Evolved and
Why it Endures, "Here is how Darwin said group selection would work: 

"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives
but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over
the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of
well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will
certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe
including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of
patriotism, fidelity, obedience , courage, and sympathy, were always ready
to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would
be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and
as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of
morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to
rise and increase."

Further down Wade writes, "The most serious objection to group selection has
to do with the balance between the forces favoring people with altruistic
genes and the forces opposing them. A hunter gatherer group with many
self-sacrificing, altruistic heroes might, as Darwin suggested, destroy a
group less fortunately constituted, and genes for altruism in the population
as a whole would increase. But within the victorious group, as time went on,
the nonaltruists would devote their resources to their own families, raising
more children and the genes for altruism would become less common. Skeptics
of group selection say the second process, the within-group selection
against altruistic behavior, will always proceed faster than the
between-group process favoring it and hence will overwhelm it.

"The proponents of group selection agree that the balance between the two
forces is the crux of the issue. "Selfishness beats altruism within groups.
Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary," say
David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson in a recent article."

Wade then offers arguments (from the two Wilsons) that strengthen the "group
selection" view: "There are two significant behaviors that may have made
humans far more strongly affected by group selection than are most other
species. One was the fierce conformist pressures within hunter gatherer
groups that reduce the heavy disadvantages of altruism. The other was
intense warfare between groups that accelerated the rate of group selection.

A major point made by the two Wilsons is that selfishness within groups is
likely to have been limited by a crucial event in human evolution- the
emergence of egalitarianism in early hunter gatherer societies. . .
Successful hunters are forced to share their catch with everyone else. They
cannot resist sharing, and cannot put on airs, because stinginess and
bragging are the two behaviors that incur the most opprobrium in hunter
gatherer communities.

Hunter gatherer egalitarianism was no mere principle; it was rigorously
applied. And the conformity that ensued would have greatly reduced the
natural variability in human social behavior. The mighty hunters, the power
seekers, the philanderers and any who stood out and made themselves a
subject of gossip, all found it difficult to thrive. If everyone had to
behave alike, within-group variation would have been suppressed and
differences between groups would have taken over as the principal driver of
evolutionary change, at least in terms of social behavior.

Wade, Nicholas (2009-10-27). The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and
Why It Endures (Kindle Locations 1171-1211). Penguin Group US. Kindle
Edition.

Comment:  Back in the 50s when I first began reading about these matters,
there was an ongoing debate between those who believed that our
hunter-gatherer ancestors were peaceful scavengers who ate what was left
after such predators as lions, leopards, hyenas and wild dogs were done with
a kill.  Since those days evidence has mounted that man was not only a
hunter, but the very best hunter of all the predators.  

If man was merely a scavenger then perhaps group evolution wouldn't be
necessary, but if man hunts, and not only hunts but competes with other
hunting tribes (which seems to be the prevailing view today) then group
evolution would favor the best and most cohesive tribes; which is what Wade
believes (and what Darwin in his autobiography asserted).  The best hunting
tribes would have eventually (using the Chimpanzee parallel) defeated the
rival tribes, and consequently their gene pools.  Thus, these successful
hunters wouldn't need to put too fine a point to getting their individual
genes perpetuated.  It would have been plain for them to see that if they
were superior hunters, they would get more game and feed their tribe better.
Also, if they were better warriors they would be able to defeat rival tribes
and take they females, thus satisfying their concern about passing on their
individual genes - if they indeed thought in those terms.  There would
therefore have been a distinct advantage to tribes who put the good of the
tribe above their own good.

Wade uses the term "free loaders" to describe those who "steal" from the
productive members of society in the various ways thieves have.  This
includes those who place their own safety (cowards) above that of the tribe.
Tribes winnowed their cowards.  They couldn't afford them.  If they wouldn't
fight and hunt and instead robbed those who did fight and hunt then the
tribe killed or banished them.  Today, interestingly we have great numbers
of such "thieves," not ashamed of mantras like "hell no, we won't go."  But
we are a wealthy "tribe" and can afford them.  If ever times got tough we
would no doubt find means to get rid of them, but as for now we don't really
care.   Thanks to technology we have enough of those willing to fight and as
to "hunting" thanks to modern agriculture and animal husbandry we no longer
need it.  As societies we seem more concerned about the "free loaders" who
won't work.  What should we do about them?  Well, not much, but they seem to
be a by-product of wealth.  Their hands are out to those who do work (in a
manner of speaking) to rob them (in the form of a dole) of a bit of their
wealth.

Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in 1994 published The Bell Curve,
Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.  I read it about then and
so probably don't remember it vividly, but among other things it argued that
"since" freeloaders (and they weren't so much interested in them as
freeloaders but as being of deficient intelligence) were being supported by
the dole, and since women on the dole had greater numbers of children than
those who were not, society was in effect giving an evolutionary advantage
to the dumb.  

I don't know where the controversy between Murray (Herrnstein avoided most
of the controversy by dying) and his detractors stands.  After reading their
book I lost interest when I noticed that their most voluble detractors had
not.  Murray and Herrnstein emphasized "intelligence-classes," assuming that
greater intelligence was better for society then less intelligence.  It was
noticed, and still seems obvious that the smarter people do the more
complicated jobs.  It doesn't sound outrageous to me the be told that
college professors, lawyers, doctors, engineers and the like are, on average
smarter than garbage collectors, fast-food workers, checkout counter clerks,
etc.,  and those who can't find or don't want jobs.  However, their
detractors were quick to substitute "race" for "intelligence" and cast
Herrnstein and Murray (figuratively) into political outer darkness. 

But to be fair Wade isn't interested in current evolutionary trends (at
least not as far as I've read) but in the effects we have inherited as a
result of 2,000 generations of group selection in our hunter-gatherer
ancestors.  We are still killers, for example, but only in a good,
group-supportive way.

Lawrence
[lit-ideas] Group Selection and its detractors

Other related posts:
