Just to be obtuse (maybe belligerent); Perhaps biologists have little, if anything, useful to say about human "group selection" or "social evolution."
I tried to make this kind of argument to Nick, years ago at physical FRIAM at St. Johns and he refused to give any credence to the idea. Nevertheless: biological evolution 1- the environment changes — creating "hostility" or "opportunity" 2- organisms adapt in order to avoid elimination or to thrive in new context 3- this adaptation is biological, and often/usually requires multiple generations to take effect. 4- although the actual adaptation is instantiated in individuals, might there be forces that allow individuals in one identifiable subgroup to adapt easier/faster/in fewer generations than individuals in another identifiable subgroup? a- coyotes, as individuals and as a group, are far more successful in their adaption to human environmental change than wolves. Are there species level traits (omnivorous/carnivorous, scavenger/predator) that might account for this? b- adaptations in fruit flies occur much easier than in elephants, simply because of differential reproduction rate—but is that an individual or a group "force?" cultural evolution 1- a radical alternative to biological evolution emerges as soon as a species acquires the ability to use tools and to communicate between/among individuals. 2- tool use and communication ability provide a means/mechanism for adaption (instead of growing fur it is borrowed from a passing bear), far faster than multi-generational genetic adaptation, and very amenable to expansion and elaboration. 3- call this force/means/mechanism "culture." 4- Since the advent of culture, 99% (?) of human evolution—adaption to rapidly changing environments, often our our own creation—has been cultural, not biological. 5- only by understanding culture and cultural traits can we account for differential "success" among human groups. davew On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, at 11:49 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > Nick, thanks for the document, I have downloaded it and will read it. > > Next point, you do ask a lot of questions, Nick — and not the easy kind > either. But fine, let’s dance. > > "What is your hankering?" > I’m a simple creature. I just want to get a grip on what “group selection” > really means for humans — simple enough to explain without a headache, but > not so simple that it’s wrong. And, ideally, I’d like a reason to actually > believe it exists. > > "Where do you hope this will all come out?" > Same answer, really. I trust my brain enough to think I can untangle > complicated stuff… eventually. My hope is just to reach that magical “ohhh, > that’s what it means” moment. > > "What would group selection look like in human beings?" > Now you’re hitting the nerve. I can’t answer that — which is exactly why I’m > here poking at the question. > Right now, it feels at odds with the simple elegance of evolution, which (as > ChatGPT put it) goes like this: > > Evolution is the gradual change of replicators — things that make copies of > themselves — over time. Sometimes the replicator exists inside a temporary > form (like an organism, idea, or machine) that competes with others. > Variations that help it succeed in making more copies become more common, > shaping the system over time. > > And here’s my snag: I see humans as one big messy group, not a bunch of > smaller competing groups. So where’s the competition? Clearly I’m missing a > big chunk of the story — and I want to find it. > > "Would you approve or disapprove?" > I’m not here to pass moral verdicts. I just want to figure it out before > deciding whether to even have an opinion. > > "What is a group? Is a species a group? Is a race a group? Is a village a > group?" > And there’s the heart of my confusion. Right now, my brain says: “Well, all > humans are one group, right?” — which doesn’t fit neatly with my current > picture of evolution. So the plan is simple: swap ignorance for > understanding, and hopefully keep the coffee hot while I do it. > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 23:52, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Great Peiter,____ >> __ __ >> But you didnpt answer my question. I know it’s the hardest kind of question >> to answer, but give it a go. What is your hankering? Where do you hope >> this will all come out? What would group selection look like in human >> beings? Would you approve of it or disapprove of it? What is a group, >> after all? Is a species a group? Is a race a group? Is a village a group? >> Etc. ____ >> __ __ >> DS Wilson I think lost interest in the question that most interested me >> (what are the elemental forces that led to the evolution of complex >> organisms) and became more interested in in the forces that lead to human >> groupish behavior. To me human groupishness seems wildly overdetermined. >> Its like asking why is the pope a Christian. But that’s a wildly >> unsatisfying answer to some one who is genuinely surprized to find that the >> pope is indeed a Christian. ____ >> __ __ >> Lets go back and forth like this for a few more exchanges.____ >> __ __ >> Meantime, I enclose a short article in BBS that reprises a much larger >> article by W and S. I have a pdf of the larger article on my hard drive >> and will send it to you when I figure out how to bypass friam’s restrictions >> on large files.____ >> __ __ >> But please don’t let that get in the way of you taking a shot at answers to >> the questions I posed.____ >> __ __ >> Nick____ >> . ____ >> __ __ >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp >> *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor.____ >> __ __ >> Nick, >> >> Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, >> especially the human variety. >> >> What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group >> selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than >> individual selection alone. >> >> Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave paintings, >> whatever you think works. >> >> And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to read >> it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun.____ >> >> __ __ >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote:____ >>> Hi, Pieter, ____ >>> __ __ >>> Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to respond >>> off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I think this >>> whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and historically. The >>> literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so precisely from post >>> war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the revanchist academic Reaganism >>> (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's really hard to take the whole >>> argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and multi >>> layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble their >>> children. One of the tools to thinking straight is to own up to one's >>> hankerings before one dives into the literature. What are you hoping to >>> find? Post war peace-nikery was covertly deistic, hoping to find that >>> there was some sort of over arching regulatory agency that would keep the >>> species and the planet safe. Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! >>> Success is virtue. And then evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that >>> whole argument. I recommend reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not >>> the physicist), Endless forms most beautiful, and The making of the >>> fittest. It's really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one >>> begins to understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by >>> which parents do and dont resemble their children. That there is any >>> resemblance at all begins to seem like some sort of miracle. Or perhaps >>> just momentum. One hankering that misleads us is naturalism, the idea that >>> we can find some sort of MORAL guidance in the way things are. Is the >>> opposite hankering, existentialism? The belief that what makes humans >>> special is their power to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a >>> philosopher and am, in fact, an amateur in all things. ____ >>> __ __ >>> "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. Would >>> you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick >>> Thompson? "____ >>> __ __ >>> signed, ____ >>> __ __ >>> ChatNST____ >>> __ __ >>> __ __ >>> __ __ >>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp >>> <[email protected]> wrote:____ >>>> 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/____ >>>> >>> ____ >>> >>> --____ >>> >>> 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/____ >>> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> 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/
