Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, I’m battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful mechanism of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand individual human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects where only the queen has babies.
I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help guide me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check in with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, so I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but I’ll try to keep it going. On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Pieter, > > > > Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a > journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not > committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” > perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been of > that sort. > > > > If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in Dawkins > The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of selection. > But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made that > decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when one > looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly the > gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the thing > that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever level you > care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential group success > that is driving selection or it is not group selection. And if it is > differential group success that is driving selection, then it is group > selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a > whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing > Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful > metaphor in there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article > that broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the > preceding 20 years. > > > > Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV > > > > Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to the > human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), > 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 > en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 > <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. > > > > Nick > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. > > > > 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/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
