4 ms·
lukas099 is arguing one of the central points of the book, that altruistic behavior is inherently selfish on a genetic level. You seem to be arguing completely
by mtgex 9y ago
lukas099 is arguing one of the central points of the book, that altruistic behavior is inherently selfish on a genetic level.
You seem to be arguing completely based on the title of the book, which itself makes clear that the title is provocative but not entirely accurate, which makes me think you have not read it.
- Ygg2 9y agoI am aware of that, and I'm arguing, that is a very reductive model of how humans behave. E.g. when given choice, humans tend to help each other much more than a selfish gene model would behave, i.e. help people and strangers you have no connection with.
- mtgex 9y agoBut all of that is discussed at length in the book we're talking about. To pick out the word "selfish" and say that that's the gene model displays to me that you haven't read the book. It's difficult to defend a book's premise from someone who hasn't read it and just wants to debate the meaning of the title.
- Ygg2 9y agoLook, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. Anyway here is the part that I was referencing: The self-selecting process predicted by the selfish-gene model becomes quickly skewed when correlations in reproduction exist which give rise to less than complete mixing of alleles in the gene pool. This may occur through several mechanisms, including mate selection and partial geographic isolation. The gene-centered view, Dr. Bar-Yam points out, can be applied directly only to populations in which sexual reproduction causes complete allelic mixing. (Such populations are called "panmictic" in biology.) Many organisms are part of populations that do not satisfy this condition. Thus, the gene-centered view and the concept of the "selfish gene" does not describe the dynamics of evolution, Dr. Bar-Yam concludes. Source: http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html
- lukas099 9y ago>Look, I'll be honest. I didn't read a book. >But I don't want to debate its title, instead its reductionist view of people nothing more as vehicles for the immortal DNA. The problem is that the book does not expound this reductionist view; it is only your conception of the book (likely based on the title) that does.
- Ygg2 9y agoExcept it absolutely does: We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
- mtgex 9y agoAs lukas099 has said, the book does not take the view that you're saying it takes. Cherry picking quotes out of the context of an entire book can get you to any conclusion you want to come to, especially if you don't know the rest of the contents of the book. I encourage you to read the book before taking a side that you read an article about.
- Ygg2 9y agoYou still are dodging addressing my points, before going into a "READ THE BOOK" mode. I don't have to read the Bible to realize how it was made and why is it flawed... Similarly, I don't need to read the book, to know the inclusive selection theory on which The Selfish Gene was based is flawed, and hasn't lived up to its models. EDIT: Started reading it: The replicators that survived were the ones that built survival machines for themselves to live in... We are all survival machines for the same kind of replicator—molecules called DNA—but there are many... My former quote sure is misinterpreting things /s