My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures).
In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done.
Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken?
Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.
I recently re-read it and didn't find it dated. I suppose if you've taken in its lessons, then it over-emphasises its point a bit, but consider that (as Pinker points out) "its main point still needs to be made 40+ years later. Most journalists, psychologists, and intellectuals commenting on natural selection still write as if it acts for the good of the group or the species, without even realizing they have said anything problematic or contentious."
Also, the stuff on evolutionary stable strategies is very insightful and lucidly explained.
In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61)
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...
I would not venture such strong criticism of a great scientist were I not in good company. The Wilson thesis is based on a 2010 paper that he published jointly with two mathematicians, Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita. When this paper appeared in Nature it provoked very strong criticism from more than 140 evolutionary biologists, including a majority of the most distinguished workers in the field. They include Alan Grafen, David Queller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Michod, Eric Charnov, Nick Barton, Alex Kacelnik, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Geoffrey Parker, Steven Pinker, Paul Sherman, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Stephen Emlen, Malte Andersson, Stuart West, Richard Wrangham, Bernard Crespi, Robert Trivers and many others. These may not all be household names but let me assure you they know what they are talking about in the relevant fields.
I was in a closely related field, and I'm familiar with the work of Cosmides, Tooby, Pinker and a few others. I also knew their students and saw how the sausage is made.
In my experience, Wilson is right. Many of these labs were not doing science. They were doing advocacy, and it showed in the way they designed studies and shelved data.
Not long after I was in school, major labs pushing this approach at Harvard and Yale had major data manipulation scandals.
Independently of this, they also had an animus against statistics that I don't think is befitting of an empirical science.
I haven't read the Wilson, Nowak, and Tarnita paper so I can't comment on it.
But from what I saw of this camp, I would be very skeptical of an appeal to authority.
FWIW, the author of the quoted paper addresses the "appeal to authority" in the very next paragraph:
> I’m reminded of the old Punch cartoon where a mother beams down on a military parade and proudly exclaims, “There’s my boy, he’s the only one in step.” Is Wilson the only evolutionary biologist in step? Scientists dislike arguing from authority, so perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the 140 dissenting authorities. But one can make a good case that the 2010 paper would never have been published in Nature had it been submitted anonymously and subjected to ordinary peer-review, bereft of the massively authoritative name of Edward O Wilson. If it was authority that got the paper published, there is poetic justice in deploying authority in reply.
The bit I quoted is, and it's not trying to hide the fact. It's saying these prominent researchers disagree with the paper. I don't see any problem with that.
But that's just one part of his response, and the rest isn't just an appeal to authority.
The critics argue that Nowak and his colleagues make an unwarranted distinction between inclusive fitness and natural selection theory, and assert that inclusive fitness has been quite valuable. They stress that inclusive fitness ideas have helped yield insights into many biological phenomena, such as why social insects have skewed sex ratios. "Their announcement of the demise of inclusive fitness is wrong," says STRI's William Wcislo. "They've done a service in a sense: [Their paper] forced people to again rethink something, and it's quite clear that the evidence in favor of Hamilton's theory is quite convincing."
You can spare me the snark next time, but thanks. I'd assumed it didn't exist as, from what I can tell, Dennett isn't usually one for that kind of thing.
I try not to be snarky, but only because it invites downvotes. Your "pity" comment came across as sententious.
What do you mean by "that kind of thing"? Searching for " conversation with Daniel dennett" returns more appearances, on podcasts, with Dawkins, with W.V.O. Quine, with Sam Harris. Dennett is a big self-promoter even by the standards of academic celebrities.
Dennett and Pinker are both massively overrated and past their sell-by dates IMO. But instead of having a substantive discussion that might enrich this thread you seem to be intent on low-effort idle speculation about what kinds of public appearance Dennett might or might not be keen on. It is exasperating.
The nature paper is not a rebuttal, it just says "hey look we did some studies, didn't they read those studies? We studied lots of things and came to conclusions."
There's no modeling of the Wilson argument that is then proven to be wrong.
I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.
Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia.
> I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.
Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and what is informing that sentiment.
Whether he's truly a gladly or not, you have to appreciate a guy who's self-aware enough about such opinions that he listed this quip first on the back cover of his latest book (from memory, mind you) —
>The trouble with Taleb isn't that he's an asshole—he is an asshole. The trouble with Taleb is that he is right.
Do you think his central thesises around Black Swan events, tail risks, hedging, and skin-in-the-game principle for evaluating advice/statements, are not relevant to scopes beyond options trading?
Note, I am not stating he is not a gadfly. He is, absolutely. But is he wrong?
Well, it would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that he is only, or even primarily, a pop-science writer. If you take a look at his CV you see that he is clearly an expert in his field with plenty of work directed at scientific audience:
In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done.
Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken?
Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.