M
Michael Ragland
Guest
Note: I have not read the book but since I have an interest
in group selection.individual selection/natural
selection I decided to post these few obscenely
glowing reviews. From what I've read on the web,
however, it seems true most recommend the first half
of the book over the second half.
"Belonging to the human race isn't enough to bring forth
(Darwinian) altruism."
[I thought this was a classic line so quoted it]
Anonymous reviews of Unto Others
The Invisible [Helping] Hand?
Altruism has always been a problem for evolutionists. How
does one explain a creature giving up something for another,
sometimes its very life? Why, for example, will a monkey
give a warning cry that alerts other members of the troop,
but that gives away its own position? How could genes
governing such behavior persist in the relentless
competition for a place in the genome?
The kinds of reasoning used to explain behavior that is good
for the group but perhaps not so good for the individual
performing it is as old as Darwin. Until George Williams
demolished whole classes of argument in his lovely 1966
book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", it was common to
invoke "group selection" as an analog to individual
selection, and explain, in a vague, hand-waving sort of way,
how altruistic behavior could arise by enhancing the
survival of the herd, or school, or flock. And after
Dawkins, both the individual and the group were banished
from consideration, and the selfish gene reigned supreme.
Only one category of altruism has been taken as consonant
with the unit of replication being the gene, namely "kin
selection". This is the favoring of relatives: since
relatives share genes, helping a gene-mate helps ones own
genes, whether or not it benefits ones self. Yet much
altruism in nature goes unexplained by kin selection. Think
of the soldier who falls on the hand grenade so his
(unrelated) buddies can
live. There are many more examples from the lives of many
creatures, most of whom never saw a war movie. How
does one explain the clear patterns of altruistic
behavior in animals at all levels of consciousness and
cuddliness? Wilson, a biologist, and Sober, a
philosopher, dare to think the unthinkable, or at
least the unfashionable: is it possible that
individuals or groups really do play a replicator role
in evolution? They believe that group selection
deserves another chance, but this time more rigorously
specified.
I was very impressed with the first half of the book, in
which they justify a group-selection model for adaptive
evolution that can explain a persistent strain of altruism.
What they show is that selection can take place at the level
of a group of individuals in many more sorts of situations
than were thought possible. (A nice bonus of this approach
is that kin selection can be explained more simply using
this more general context of the group.) Groups, however
ephemeral, do have a role to play in selection. The second
half of the book is less convincing, as it involves
psychological and philosophical arguments for "psychological
altruism" in humans (that is, you not only behave
unselfishly, but "want" to behave unselfishly), which, by
its very nature, is hard (or very hard) to tease out in
experiments, or to introspect to. However, the authors are
reasonably convincing that nature would most likely not
employ some Rube Goldberg-type of mental devices that
depended on hedonism (pleasure-and-pain-driven behavior) to
accomplish important tasks, such as child-rearing, but
rather build in directly the mechanism to make a parent care
to care for its child. In that way, the care of its child
would be a primary motivation, rather than an intrumental
one (sorry about the jargon!) on the way to getting pleasure
or avoiding pain. Parents will find this convincing, as the
desire to take care of ones children seems not to depend on
how much we "enjoy" doing it.
This book is detailed, conscientious and well-written, but
it covers a lot of ground and many of its arguments,
especially in the second part, are subtle. So I recommend
reading it more than once: this is contentious material.
While the authors do not make anything of the political and
social implications of their work, these are always waiting
in the wings. Altruism, after all, is in direct opposition
to selfishness. Many people see in this a political point,
and a social point. Those issues are not properly a part of
such a work, but do give great interest to its arguments and
conclusions. And whether or not its conclusions finally
survive intact, this books arguments and approach seem
exemplary and fruitful.
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish
Behavior > Customer Review #2: Evolutionary break through--
why races are at war
This book is a continuation of those books that keep moving
us closer to where we came from. After decades of wandering
in the jungle of postmodernism, we are finally emerging to
find our roots. This book is not for the casual reader. But
it is an important contribution in understanding the
evolution of groupism, why humans go to war, and why
belonging to the human race is not enough to bring forth
altruism. Altruism evolved as a means of group consolidation
of the ingroup, and genocide towards all other groups. This
book should be read along with "Demonic Males" to get a good
understanding of how altruism evolved.
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish
Behavior > Customer Review #3:
An antidote to what weve been taught about group selection
For more than a generation now, students of evolutionary
biology have been taught that natural selection is a
process that works on individuals. Where there is a
conflict between the good of the individual and the good of
the community, the selfish almost always prevails. There
are good theoretical reasons to believe this should be so.
Most of the work that has been done in the last century to
turn Darwins theory into a quantitative science seems to
point in that direction. Individual selection should be
fast and efficient; group selection slow and unreliable.
Yet the biological world that we see seems to fly in the
face of this conclusion. So much of the adaptation we see
in the natural world looks like it benefits the community
or the species, often at the expense of the individual. So
the pure individual selectionists (99% of evolutionary
biologists today) have had to concoct a series of excuses,
kluges, and workarounds. There are a multitude of reasons!
that what looks like a group adaptation is really an
individual adaptation. Most of our community has
unthinkingly adopted the view that the "selfish gene"
perspective holds a key to understanding the "illusion" of
group selection. Wilson has been working for 20 years to
reform this situation, and to restore common sense. If it
looks like a group adaptation, it probably is a group
adaptation. No surprise here - except to that 99% of the
academic community who has been raised to think that "group
selection" is a dirty word - something like "Lamarckism" or
"Creationism". Wilsons book is just the kick in the pants
that the 99% of us need. It is readable, yet meticulously
documented. He traces the history of our prejudice against
group selection, and exposes the faulty logic in those
kluges and workarounds. Group selection really is necessary
to explain what we observe in nature. Then, he goes on to
offer us the theeoretical foundation we need to make group
selection plausible. There are mechanisms overlooked by the
quantitative theorists that make group selection a far more
viable process than they give it credit for. If youre a lay
person, you may think "of course - whats the big deal." But
if youre an academic evolutionist educated in the last 30
years, you need this book; your thinking about altruism and
fitness of communities will be changed forever. All this is
in the first half of the book. The second half, presumably
contributed by Sober, is much less focused and scientific,
more apt to dwell on definitions and philosophical
distinctions. The attempt to connect the sound conclusions
of the books first half to attitudes about human cultures
is both more speculative and somehow less ambitious and
important than the books first half. Unto Others: The
Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value." Stephen Hawking
in group selection.individual selection/natural
selection I decided to post these few obscenely
glowing reviews. From what I've read on the web,
however, it seems true most recommend the first half
of the book over the second half.
"Belonging to the human race isn't enough to bring forth
(Darwinian) altruism."
[I thought this was a classic line so quoted it]
Anonymous reviews of Unto Others
The Invisible [Helping] Hand?
Altruism has always been a problem for evolutionists. How
does one explain a creature giving up something for another,
sometimes its very life? Why, for example, will a monkey
give a warning cry that alerts other members of the troop,
but that gives away its own position? How could genes
governing such behavior persist in the relentless
competition for a place in the genome?
The kinds of reasoning used to explain behavior that is good
for the group but perhaps not so good for the individual
performing it is as old as Darwin. Until George Williams
demolished whole classes of argument in his lovely 1966
book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", it was common to
invoke "group selection" as an analog to individual
selection, and explain, in a vague, hand-waving sort of way,
how altruistic behavior could arise by enhancing the
survival of the herd, or school, or flock. And after
Dawkins, both the individual and the group were banished
from consideration, and the selfish gene reigned supreme.
Only one category of altruism has been taken as consonant
with the unit of replication being the gene, namely "kin
selection". This is the favoring of relatives: since
relatives share genes, helping a gene-mate helps ones own
genes, whether or not it benefits ones self. Yet much
altruism in nature goes unexplained by kin selection. Think
of the soldier who falls on the hand grenade so his
(unrelated) buddies can
live. There are many more examples from the lives of many
creatures, most of whom never saw a war movie. How
does one explain the clear patterns of altruistic
behavior in animals at all levels of consciousness and
cuddliness? Wilson, a biologist, and Sober, a
philosopher, dare to think the unthinkable, or at
least the unfashionable: is it possible that
individuals or groups really do play a replicator role
in evolution? They believe that group selection
deserves another chance, but this time more rigorously
specified.
I was very impressed with the first half of the book, in
which they justify a group-selection model for adaptive
evolution that can explain a persistent strain of altruism.
What they show is that selection can take place at the level
of a group of individuals in many more sorts of situations
than were thought possible. (A nice bonus of this approach
is that kin selection can be explained more simply using
this more general context of the group.) Groups, however
ephemeral, do have a role to play in selection. The second
half of the book is less convincing, as it involves
psychological and philosophical arguments for "psychological
altruism" in humans (that is, you not only behave
unselfishly, but "want" to behave unselfishly), which, by
its very nature, is hard (or very hard) to tease out in
experiments, or to introspect to. However, the authors are
reasonably convincing that nature would most likely not
employ some Rube Goldberg-type of mental devices that
depended on hedonism (pleasure-and-pain-driven behavior) to
accomplish important tasks, such as child-rearing, but
rather build in directly the mechanism to make a parent care
to care for its child. In that way, the care of its child
would be a primary motivation, rather than an intrumental
one (sorry about the jargon!) on the way to getting pleasure
or avoiding pain. Parents will find this convincing, as the
desire to take care of ones children seems not to depend on
how much we "enjoy" doing it.
This book is detailed, conscientious and well-written, but
it covers a lot of ground and many of its arguments,
especially in the second part, are subtle. So I recommend
reading it more than once: this is contentious material.
While the authors do not make anything of the political and
social implications of their work, these are always waiting
in the wings. Altruism, after all, is in direct opposition
to selfishness. Many people see in this a political point,
and a social point. Those issues are not properly a part of
such a work, but do give great interest to its arguments and
conclusions. And whether or not its conclusions finally
survive intact, this books arguments and approach seem
exemplary and fruitful.
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish
Behavior > Customer Review #2: Evolutionary break through--
why races are at war
This book is a continuation of those books that keep moving
us closer to where we came from. After decades of wandering
in the jungle of postmodernism, we are finally emerging to
find our roots. This book is not for the casual reader. But
it is an important contribution in understanding the
evolution of groupism, why humans go to war, and why
belonging to the human race is not enough to bring forth
altruism. Altruism evolved as a means of group consolidation
of the ingroup, and genocide towards all other groups. This
book should be read along with "Demonic Males" to get a good
understanding of how altruism evolved.
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish
Behavior > Customer Review #3:
An antidote to what weve been taught about group selection
For more than a generation now, students of evolutionary
biology have been taught that natural selection is a
process that works on individuals. Where there is a
conflict between the good of the individual and the good of
the community, the selfish almost always prevails. There
are good theoretical reasons to believe this should be so.
Most of the work that has been done in the last century to
turn Darwins theory into a quantitative science seems to
point in that direction. Individual selection should be
fast and efficient; group selection slow and unreliable.
Yet the biological world that we see seems to fly in the
face of this conclusion. So much of the adaptation we see
in the natural world looks like it benefits the community
or the species, often at the expense of the individual. So
the pure individual selectionists (99% of evolutionary
biologists today) have had to concoct a series of excuses,
kluges, and workarounds. There are a multitude of reasons!
that what looks like a group adaptation is really an
individual adaptation. Most of our community has
unthinkingly adopted the view that the "selfish gene"
perspective holds a key to understanding the "illusion" of
group selection. Wilson has been working for 20 years to
reform this situation, and to restore common sense. If it
looks like a group adaptation, it probably is a group
adaptation. No surprise here - except to that 99% of the
academic community who has been raised to think that "group
selection" is a dirty word - something like "Lamarckism" or
"Creationism". Wilsons book is just the kick in the pants
that the 99% of us need. It is readable, yet meticulously
documented. He traces the history of our prejudice against
group selection, and exposes the faulty logic in those
kluges and workarounds. Group selection really is necessary
to explain what we observe in nature. Then, he goes on to
offer us the theeoretical foundation we need to make group
selection plausible. There are mechanisms overlooked by the
quantitative theorists that make group selection a far more
viable process than they give it credit for. If youre a lay
person, you may think "of course - whats the big deal." But
if youre an academic evolutionist educated in the last 30
years, you need this book; your thinking about altruism and
fitness of communities will be changed forever. All this is
in the first half of the book. The second half, presumably
contributed by Sober, is much less focused and scientific,
more apt to dwell on definitions and philosophical
distinctions. The attempt to connect the sound conclusions
of the books first half to attitudes about human cultures
is both more speculative and somehow less ambitious and
important than the books first half. Unto Others: The
Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value." Stephen Hawking