Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth trying to respond meaningfully on this topic.
So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The gap between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that wide. That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay with that. Here's the question I’m grappling with: Is the following valid? Genes as the Unit of Selection: Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. Group Selection as a Modifier: Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, even if those genes also have individual-level costs. On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick, > > I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you > are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your > paper. > > I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well > written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. > > However; two points: > > First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the > term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal > definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of > which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other thing > might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a 'model', one > that suggests particular points and particular relations that, if my > suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the unknown thing. I > check them out individually and in combinations and, if substantiated, > confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. > > This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more > abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. > > Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make your > ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated > differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I > would propose the Mormons as a test case. > > One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over > District" of western New York. The only one still extant. > > Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their > neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while > down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. > > A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely > evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism > and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) > > In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by > sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with four > or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as well as > "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah someone is > from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) > > Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was > alive blacks were included in the community and held the > priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. > Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the > suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black > priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the > Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. > > davew > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, > > Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore > Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. It > always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me some > enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to keep focus > on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or cut bait on > entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost immediately you-guys > started not one but two conversations close to my heart: on the centrality > of metaphor to science and on the group selection controversy. > > A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a > paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. > There are two things about this paper that make it salient for me. The > first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The second is > that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach when I wrote it, > D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to > show that the problem with metaphors is not with their use in scientific > thinking: on the contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors > need to be worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of > poetic exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural > selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated > seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might > have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but > meta-arrogant. > > Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do anything > to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply am such a > person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope that it will > have some value to you within the context of your two discussions. > > Mumble, > > Nick > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > *Attachments:* > > - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf > - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
