Thank you Nick. On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 at 18:27, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pieter, > > > > I seemed to have dropped the thread. I have downloaded a lot of the > references you sent and will work through them as best I can. It’s a very > interesting list. > > > > But I haven’t responded to your list of plain spoken things to say about > group selection. So I will “lard” that below. Lots going on here, health > issues and what, but I want to staty with you on this if only for my own > sanity. > > > > See below. > > > > Nick > > > > *rom:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2025 7:06 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. > > > > I think I’ve got a handle—maybe totally off the mark—on individual and > group selection in human behavioural evolution. Here’s my take: > > What is it? *ChatNST**è** Pieter: you come to me as an “expert” and I > hope you understand that I am not (merely?) trolling when I say that the > question is more interesting than the answer. It reminds me of discussions > about the hard problem of consciousness. Its my “expert” opinion that, as > in that case, the hard problem here is only hard for those people who want > it to be hard. For those who truly want to crack the problem, it is > already answered, or its answer is extremely intricate and may only come > after many years of balanced and careful research working out how both > processes have left their mark. This case may be even harder than the > consciousness case because it is an idiographic question, an attempt to > explain a particularity, an individual historical event, human evolution. > I am not sure it is ever possible to “explain” a particularity, except > insofar as one is unwilling to see it stripped of its uniqueness. So, then, > how thoroughly are we committed to the idea of human uniqueness. So that > is what leads me to ask what hankering leads anyone to see the problem as > hard. I suspect that lying at the bottom of all of this is an ugly tangle > of libertarian, liberal (in the classic sense) and progressive (including, > perhaps some Marxism) thought which, if one is in that tangle, appears to > make the question not only interesting but vital. Working through that > tangle would be interesting but has little to do with the science. > Answering the scientific question is a long boring slog to work out the > details of what we already know to be true.That IS my “expert” opinion and > should be taken with a pound of salt. **ç**ChatNST* > Human behaviour is a deeply complex phenomenon, shaped by two intertwined > evolutionary processes: *ChatNST**è** Please try not to confound > evolution with natural selection. Any more than you would confound the > theory OF anything with the thing it is a theory of. Avoiding this > confusion is not as easy as it sounds. Do things fall because of gravity > or is gravity the fact that things fall? It can of course be either, but > it can’t keep wobbling back and forth in the same discussion. That is the > logical flaw of equivocation. * > > > > *As usual, I speak with such “authority” and conviction because I know > that others (Glen? DaveW? EricS? Russ?) will protect you from me. <== > ChatNST* > > Biological evolution (based in our genes), where the unit of selection is > the individual human. > > Cultural evolution (based in memes), where the unit of selection is > defined at the group level—though “group” can mean different things in > different contexts. > > > > *ChatNST**è** So, what do you take evolution to be apart from its most > famous explainer, the differential replication of alternative heritable > something? Can we really know which iron to choose without knowing where > the green is? **ç**ChatNST* > > > > That’s it, in my simple words. > > > > *ChatNST**è** Ah, if only these words were simple. Thank you thank you > for the report and bibliography. **ç**ChatNST* > > > > Why do I say so? > I asked George to take a deep dive into the topic and produce a report, > which you can view here: https://g.co/gemini/share/b046bfad5cc8 . I buy > into its main argument—not claiming it’s “correct” in the absolute sense, > but in my view it’s the best current explanation for the roots of human > behaviour. > > It draws on the latest research and, in the conclusion, puts it like this > (paraphrased from the report): > > The multilevel selection (MLS) framework, championed by David Sloan > Wilson, integrates individual selection into a broader system of competing > evolutionary forces within a nested hierarchy of genes, individuals, and > groups. Extending this to cultural evolution, MLS offers a two-track > model—genetic and cultural—that better explains human nature. By explicitly > modelling the tension between within-group selfishness and between-group > cooperation, it provides a richer explanation for complex social behaviours > than alternatives like kin selection. The framework has implications beyond > biology—touching religion, politics, and economics—and offers a unified, > evolutionarily grounded lens on human sociality. > > That’s why, for now, I’m hitching my wagon to this model. > > > > References > Works cited > > 1. Why Won't the Group Selection Controversy Go Away?, accessed > August 11, 2025, > https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS575/%CE%86%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/Okasha_Why%20won%27t%20group%20selection%20go%20away.pdf > > 2. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection - PNAS, accessed > August 11, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602530103 > > 3. Evolution "for the Good of the Group" | American Scientist, > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.americanscientist.org/article/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group > > 4. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology, accessed > August 11, 2025, > https://www.uvm.edu/~jfarley/EEseminar/readings/wilson-wilson.Rethinking20Sociobiology.inpress.pdf > > 5. Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending > controversy? - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4850877/ > > 6. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3110649/#:~:text=The%20verdict%20was%20that%20group,%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20exist%E2%80%9D. > > 7. (PDF) Adaptation and Natural Selection revisited - ResearchGate, > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49747596_Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection_revisited > > 8. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology | The > Quarterly Review of Biology: Vol 82, No 4, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/522809 > > 9. Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences - > Cambridge University Press, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/reintroducing-group-selection-to-the-human-behavioral-sciences/634687DF831997525E21E5899B23CC8D > > 10. Group selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection > > 11. David Sloan Wilson's Group Selection Theory of Religion: Analysis > and Possible Christian Responses, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://christianscholars.com/david-sloan-wilsons-group-selection-theory-of-religion-analysis-and-possible-christian-responses/ > > 12. Eight Criticisms Not to Make About Group Selection - ResearchGate, > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51195160_Eight_Criticisms_Not_to_Make_About_Group_Selection > > 13. Multilevel selection on individual and group social behaviour in the > wild - Journals, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2024.3061 > > 14. Multilevel selection on individual and group social behaviour in the > wild - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919500/ > > 15. 3 MEMETIC EVOLUTION - Jack M. Balkin - Yale University, accessed > August 11, 2025, https://jackbalkin.yale.edu/3-memetic-evolution > > 16. Memetics - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics > > 17. Memetics - Principia Cybernetica Web, accessed August 11, 2025, > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html > > 18. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2607340/#:~:text=Genes%20and%20culture%20are%20two,acting%20back%20on%20the%20genome. > > 19. Library: Susan Blackmore: Memetic Evolution - PBS, accessed August > 11, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/l_072_05.html > > 20. The Meme Machine — by Susan Blackmore - Mimetic Theory, accessed > August 11, 2025, > https://mimetictheory.com/the-meme-machine-by-susan-blackmore/ > > 21. Memetics: A dangerous idea - ResearchGate, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292001401_Memetics_A_dangerous_idea > > 22. Dual inheritance theory - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory > > 23. (PDF) Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human ..., > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40886135_Not_By_Genes_Alone_How_Culture_Transformed_Human_Evolution > > 24. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation - PMC, accessed August > 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3279745/ > > 25. The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach Using > Causal Graphs, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axu047 > > 26. Okasha, S. (2016). The Relation between Kin and Multi-level > Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs. British Journal for the - > University of Bristol Research Portal, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/34712898/Equivalence_MLS_and_IF_BJPS.pdf > > 27. The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach ..., > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/bjps/axu047 > > 28. Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical > applications - PNAS, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2218222120 > > 29. Evolution of parochial altruism by multilevel selection - Max Planck > Institute for Evolutionary Biology, accessed August 11, 2025, > http://web.evolbio.mpg.de/~garcia/preprints/07.pdf > > 30. The multilevel economic paradigm | INET Oxford, accessed August 11, > 2025, https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/projects/the-multilevel-paradigm > > 31. Why Multilevel Selection Matters, accessed August 11, 2025, > https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/context/econ/article/1104/viewcontent/Field_Why_Multilevel_Selection_Matters.pdf > > 32. Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality - PMC, > accessed August 11, 2025, > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3048999/ > > > > On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 09:41, Pieter Steenekamp < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Nick (aka ChatNJT), > > Are you still my George in this grand quest to truly “get” group selection? > > A bit of backstory > When I get into a debate, my natural instinct is… well, to stay in my own > head and not listen much at all. I first got called out on it nearly 50 > years ago, back when I was a young engineer in management training. We did > simulated negotiations, the instructor took notes, and the verdict was: > “You didn’t hear a word they said.” > > That kicked off my slow, sometimes painful, self-improvement journey. My > instincts haven’t really changed (old habits die hard), but now I can force > myself to switch gears — to really listen and understand the other person’s > point before I jump in swinging. > > I’ll admit, I lean toward believing in individual selection in human > evolution. But I’m genuinely open to being convinced otherwise — and I want > to really understand group selection before I form my final view. > > I said I’d be spending some time learning with ChatGPT, and you kindly > offered to be my “George” through ChatNJT. I’ve seen you active in this > thread, but I’m not sure if our little backchannel on this is still alive > or quietly drifting into the great beyond. > > And hey, in the spirit of “why have a mind if we can’t change it?” — if > you want to step back from this role, no hard feelings at all. > > > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 at 06:49, Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> > 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/
