5 ms·

"I've always enjoyed contemplating the inverse of this theory; what if we gained appreciation for music and other collective rituals because by acting out these

"I've always enjoyed contemplating the inverse of this theory; what if we gained appreciation for music and other collective rituals because by acting out these rituals (as individuals), our collective tribe benefited. These rituals cause us individuals to 'tune' ourselves as a collective and as a result, the tribe has increased chances of survival." This is called group selection. It's ironic that you mention it in response to this interview; Dawkins became famous by explaining the fact that group selection doesn't exist, and why theories like the one you've just suggested violate very fundamental principles of evolution. More: http://amzn.com/0199291152 http://amzn.com/0199291152

Jach 16y ago
Well said. Even more (no need to get a book out): http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism...
- aptsurdist 16y ago
  thanks for the tips - I've been meaning to check out 'The Selfish Gene'. I checked out the lesswrong.com article - I'm not sure that my argument is the same as what they are trying to disprove - it sounds like their models are based on individuals that collude or act altruistically in order to benefit collectively. I don't think that 'intention' is a good concept for understanding evolution in the first place. Also, from checking out the Wikipedia article on group selection, it doesn't sound like there is scientific agreement that this concept is disproved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection I'll go and read The selfish Gene before I write more, but one more pesky comment about the experiment in the lesswrong.com article: I am suspicious of their conclusion that their case study disproves group selection. This does not seem to respect the vast scope of evolutionary time scale. Maybe group selection is like quantum tunneling - with large clusters of individuals, the chances of it happening are infinitesimal - you won't see it in the laboratory. But on an evolutionary time scale, infinitesimal chances do happen occasionally - and if they yield advantageous results, they will shape life's future. Maybe our love for music came about from freak genetic mutations that in fact didn't serve much purpose for individual survival, but this collective activity caused individuals to synchronize their behavior. Maybe this synchronization helps low-advantage/individual traits 'tunnel' probabilistically and exist long afterward because the same traits are high-advantage/collective traits. (?)
- cma 16y ago
  That math doesn't work out the same if the trait doesn't have an appreciable cost to the organism (the case he considered has one of the most extreme costs).
jules 16y ago
No, it's plausible that the rituals also benefit the individual. Group selection is nearly impossible if the thing that's good for the group is bad for the individual, but it's not clear that that's the case here. But group selection is certainly not impossible. If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out.
- goodside 16y ago
  "If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out." Organism selection isn't a counterexample to the non-existence of group selection, because organism selection doesn't exist either. Selection pressure doesn't operate on species, populations, organisms, or even cells. It operates on genes. What appears to be organism selection is actually gene selection operating in the special circumstance that all of your cells were created by the same genome. This is also why bees, which will gladly commit suicide to sting you and protect the hive, aren't an example of group selection. The bees that sting you are sterile. The reproductive potential of their genes lies entirely outside of their bodies, so they're disposable. Their gonads are quite literally somewhere else. So, I'll add the caveat that music could be adaptive in the sense originally described, conditional on a demonstration that people who enjoy similar music are sterile identical clones produced in bulk by the same mother.
  - jules 16y ago
    I don't see how picking a small part of what I said and nitpicking on the wording helps here. But if you insist I will reword it for you: > If you view a human as a population of cells, then GENES THAT ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN cancer cells will tend to be group selected out. And as I said it is also entirely possible that being good at music/rituals improves an individual's chances of survival, as well as the chances of survival of the tribe. In this case the arguments against group selection don't apply. Group selection is definitely an effect, but is a small effect compared to individual selection. So if traits that are good for the group are at odds with traits that are good for the individual then the traits that are good for the individual are likely to "win".

Jach 16y ago

Well said. Even more (no need to get a book out): http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism...

aptsurdist 16y ago
thanks for the tips - I've been meaning to check out 'The Selfish Gene'. I checked out the lesswrong.com article - I'm not sure that my argument is the same as what they are trying to disprove - it sounds like their models are based on individuals that collude or act altruistically in order to benefit collectively. I don't think that 'intention' is a good concept for understanding evolution in the first place. Also, from checking out the Wikipedia article on group selection, it doesn't sound like there is scientific agreement that this concept is disproved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection I'll go and read The selfish Gene before I write more, but one more pesky comment about the experiment in the lesswrong.com article: I am suspicious of their conclusion that their case study disproves group selection. This does not seem to respect the vast scope of evolutionary time scale. Maybe group selection is like quantum tunneling - with large clusters of individuals, the chances of it happening are infinitesimal - you won't see it in the laboratory. But on an evolutionary time scale, infinitesimal chances do happen occasionally - and if they yield advantageous results, they will shape life's future. Maybe our love for music came about from freak genetic mutations that in fact didn't serve much purpose for individual survival, but this collective activity caused individuals to synchronize their behavior. Maybe this synchronization helps low-advantage/individual traits 'tunnel' probabilistically and exist long afterward because the same traits are high-advantage/collective traits. (?)
cma 16y ago
That math doesn't work out the same if the trait doesn't have an appreciable cost to the organism (the case he considered has one of the most extreme costs).

jules 16y ago

No, it's plausible that the rituals also benefit the individual. Group selection is nearly impossible if the thing that's good for the group is bad for the individual, but it's not clear that that's the case here. But group selection is certainly not impossible. If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out.

goodside 16y ago
"If you view a human as a population of cells, then cancer cells will tend to be group selected out." Organism selection isn't a counterexample to the non-existence of group selection, because organism selection doesn't exist either. Selection pressure doesn't operate on species, populations, organisms, or even cells. It operates on genes. What appears to be organism selection is actually gene selection operating in the special circumstance that all of your cells were created by the same genome. This is also why bees, which will gladly commit suicide to sting you and protect the hive, aren't an example of group selection. The bees that sting you are sterile. The reproductive potential of their genes lies entirely outside of their bodies, so they're disposable. Their gonads are quite literally somewhere else. So, I'll add the caveat that music could be adaptive in the sense originally described, conditional on a demonstration that people who enjoy similar music are sterile identical clones produced in bulk by the same mother.
- jules 16y ago
  I don't see how picking a small part of what I said and nitpicking on the wording helps here. But if you insist I will reword it for you: > If you view a human as a population of cells, then GENES THAT ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN cancer cells will tend to be group selected out. And as I said it is also entirely possible that being good at music/rituals improves an individual's chances of survival, as well as the chances of survival of the tribe. In this case the arguments against group selection don't apply. Group selection is definitely an effect, but is a small effect compared to individual selection. So if traits that are good for the group are at odds with traits that are good for the individual then the traits that are good for the individual are likely to "win".