The return of group selection

In 2010, Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita and Edward O Wilson had their paper The evolution of eusociality published in Nature. They argued that inclusive fitness could not explain eusociality, and that competition between groups was required as an explanatory factor. The anti-group selection forces were quick to mobilise. Apart from the many blog posts and column inches, Nature published a response with 137 signatories defending the concept of inclusive fitness. One paragraph by Carl Zimmer captures (for me) where the argument is at:

Nowak et al respond to all the criticism and don’t budge in their own stand. They claim that their critics have misinterpreted their own argument. And they claim that sex allocation does not require inclusive fitness. Oddly, though, they never explain why it doesn’t, despite the thousands of papers that have been published on inclusive fitness and sex allocation. They don’t even cite a paper that explains why.

Despite the lack of traction for group selection in the evolutionary biology world, there appears to be a resurgence in the social sciences and popular press. For example, Jonathan Haidt, author of the recently released The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, argues that humans have been subject to and shaped by group selection. Haidt is getting plenty of relatively unimpeded coverage in the popular press.

This resurgence is about to hit a new high with the upcoming release of The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O Wilson. While I am sure it will receive a skeptical reaction from most of Wilson’s fellow biologists, it is already getting a welcome reception in parts of the media and from some social scientists. Take this piece by Jonathan Gottschall in the Huffington Post. Gottshall writes:

Of course, it would be a great distortion to suggest that people are — like ants — selfless all of the time. But the vision of rigid selfishness that arose from biology’s rejection of group selection was an equally great distortion. The real picture is more complex. Natural selection occurs at the level of groups and individuals. Between-group competition favors selfless genes while competition inside groups favors selfish genes. As Wilson and a colleague wrote, “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”

My perception is that there is a growing gap between the relative standing of group selection in the social science and evolutionary worlds. This is particularly the case for discussion of the evolution of cooperation and altruism in humans. How wide will this gap grow before a serious response emerges from the evolutionary sciences to the claim that human cooperation is shaped by group selection? There have been some good papers (pdf) on this in the past, but these types of arguments are not getting much column space.

4 thoughts on “The return of group selection

  1. Thanks for that link.  I’m trying to slog through the paper right now. 

    I come at this from psychology, and I am spending more time than I originally thought within social cognition/social psychology.  If you are in this area, the importance of groupiness, and the tendency to be groupy at the drop of a penny (literally – Tajfel’s minimal groups paradigm have used coin tossing to induce group) is incredibly overwhelming. It is also very clear that it is effortful to suppress groupiness in those instances where it is socially undesirable to do so (in the US against those that appear to be of different race.  In Sweden, various immigrants – at least if you are a student), and that people are completely oblivious when they use the same tendencies towards groups where there is no stigma against prejudice (for example the faculties at the Uni, the various high-schools, the rival football team). 

    Group processes, discrimination and prejudice is a huge area of research, and there is a great deal known of, at least, the proximate processes.  Not as much is done when it comes to more ultimate processes.  But, I can absolutely see how some of us would consider multi-level selection (to use David Sloan Wilson’s term) being very….seductive, or plausible.  For humans, groups matter, and matter a great deal. 

    I’m interested in this, but don’t really have a dog in the race either pro or contra (as I have not been schooled in any of them).  I read DS Wilson with interest, as well as Bowles and Gintis and Richerson & Boyd, etc.  But, I guess I have to get more into this, as I want to look at my (for the moment) main interest of the interaction between sender/perceiver in emotion-signalling from an evolutionary perspective. 

    I notice that “Social Evolution Forum” is not in your blogroll, so in case you haven’t discovered that yet, here’s a link.

    The one I copied goes to Peter Turchins discussion on strong reciprocity, which seemed apt.


  2. There is indeed a growing gap between the relative standing of group selection in the social science and evolutionary worlds, which is bad. Human cooperation is indeed shaped by group selection – which has turned out to make all the same predictions as the long-established kin selection framework. So, group selection is not really news for anyone who was up with developments in the 1970s.

    My preferred hypothesis for explaining the “growing gap” is that the social scientists are confused – and don’t understand why most biologists use the kin selection framework. They present the bogus argument that kin selection only applies between genes – whereas in fact kin selection applies to both memes and genes. Evolutionary theory in the social sciences has a sorry history of lethargy and lagging behind the rest of the field. Kin selection vs group selection is a case in point.

Comments welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s