4 ms·

It's true that "The Selfish Gene" has been a science-based classic of evolutionary biology for over 40 years. But it's also true that in those 40 years a lot o

It's true that "The Selfish Gene" has been a science-based classic of evolutionary biology for over 40 years. But it's also true that in those 40 years a lot of studies have taken aim at the central arguments of the book and in my opinion cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the books conclusions (Or perhaps limit the scope of those views as being a projection of western culture - but not of all cultures on earth, particularly not eastern philosophy, and not the animal kingdom at large) If you have never read any of these counterpoints, but find that the conclusions of Selfish Gene have shaped your world view, please consider reading some of these counterpoints and seeing if they persuade you to consider new perspectives. A particularly thorough book detailing these counterpoints is Matthieu Ricard's book: Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World

andreilys 7y ago
Any chance you can post some of these counterpoints? At first glance I’m not sure how a book on altruism/compassion refutes the gene-centred view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.
crazygringo 7y ago
The book you're recommending seems to be about psychological and spiritual relationships between human beings, from what I can gather from a quick skim on Amazon. But not a single one of the reviews actually describes a single argument the book is making (strange), so it's hard to judge. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is a scientific work about evolutionary selection at the gene level -- I don't recall him touching on psychology at all. (He provides evolutionary explanations for certain altruistic behaviors, but I don't recall him even starting on how they might be expressed via a psychological mechanism or at any conscious level.) I can't quite imagine what either have to do with each other -- they seem to be such different topics. Or what Dawkins' work has to do with "western culture", or culture at all. At heart it's a quite mathematical/statistical argument. I'm curious, what exactly do you see being refuted?
- schaefer 7y ago
  The author is definitely a "spiritual person", he's a Buddhist monk and the french translator for the Dalai Lama. But he is also very scientifically minded. He has a PHD in cellular genetics from the institute pasteur[1]. One of the central themes of the book, and motivators for the author to write, is to address the contrast between other oriented (altruistic) and self oriented (selfish) societies. The author asserts that in the western fields of psychology, theories of evolution, and economics, it's often taken for granted that an individual's deeds, words, and thoughts are motivated by selfishness. To the extent that this assumption has nearly become dogma. The 868 page book, including a massive 160+ pages of notes, and bibliographies systematically lay out the scientific arguments against "the hypothesis of human selfishness". You can read the sections of the book that specifically address "the selfish gene" with the following google search [2]. [1]: https://www.pasteur.fr/en/education/programs-and-courses/doctoral-and-post-doctoral-programs https://www.pasteur.fr/en/education/programs-and-courses/doc... [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1k_2AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=altruism+matthiew+rickard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisx7al6ITjAhWBqp4KHfqfDfIQ6wEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=selfish%20gene&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=1k_2AwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    From the links, it seems like his main criticism of Dawkins is actually merely the word "selfish" in the title of his book, and that the CEO of Enron liked it? Yes, Dawkins is saying that "universal love" does not have an evolutionary component, which seems like a fairly uncontroversial claim. It seems like your criticism of Dawkins is more a criticism of how other people have misunderstood him, rather than any criticism of the arguments in The Selfish Gene itself? If you haven't, I highly suggest you read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". While it's at a popular level, it does a fairly good job at presenting a plausible framework for how moral behavior (like altruism) can emerge from evolutionary principles. [1] Haidt is probably one of the most influential moral psychologists today. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+righteous+mind&qid=1561476127&s=gateway&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...
foldingmoney 7y ago
>Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World Aware that I might be jumping to conclusions but that doesn't sound like the title of an objective, scientific text.
- graphpapa 7y ago
  Perhaps it is a failing of science that we have that perception
black_knight 7y ago
I think as far back as in 1902, some of these topics were treated scientifically by Kropotkin in in his “Mutual aid – a factor in evolution” [0]. His book was based on his observations of animal behaviour in Siberia. [0]: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

andreilys 7y ago

Any chance you can post some of these counterpoints? At first glance I’m not sure how a book on altruism/compassion refutes the gene-centred view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.

crazygringo 7y ago

The book you're recommending seems to be about psychological and spiritual relationships between human beings, from what I can gather from a quick skim on Amazon. But not a single one of the reviews actually describes a single argument the book is making (strange), so it's hard to judge. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is a scientific work about evolutionary selection at the gene level -- I don't recall him touching on psychology at all. (He provides evolutionary explanations for certain altruistic behaviors, but I don't recall him even starting on how they might be expressed via a psychological mechanism or at any conscious level.) I can't quite imagine what either have to do with each other -- they seem to be such different topics. Or what Dawkins' work has to do with "western culture", or culture at all. At heart it's a quite mathematical/statistical argument. I'm curious, what exactly do you see being refuted?

schaefer 7y ago
The author is definitely a "spiritual person", he's a Buddhist monk and the french translator for the Dalai Lama. But he is also very scientifically minded. He has a PHD in cellular genetics from the institute pasteur[1]. One of the central themes of the book, and motivators for the author to write, is to address the contrast between other oriented (altruistic) and self oriented (selfish) societies. The author asserts that in the western fields of psychology, theories of evolution, and economics, it's often taken for granted that an individual's deeds, words, and thoughts are motivated by selfishness. To the extent that this assumption has nearly become dogma. The 868 page book, including a massive 160+ pages of notes, and bibliographies systematically lay out the scientific arguments against "the hypothesis of human selfishness". You can read the sections of the book that specifically address "the selfish gene" with the following google search [2]. [1]: https://www.pasteur.fr/en/education/programs-and-courses/doctoral-and-post-doctoral-programs https://www.pasteur.fr/en/education/programs-and-courses/doc... [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1k_2AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=altruism+matthiew+rickard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisx7al6ITjAhWBqp4KHfqfDfIQ6wEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=selfish%20gene&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=1k_2AwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...
- crazygringo 7y ago
  From the links, it seems like his main criticism of Dawkins is actually merely the word "selfish" in the title of his book, and that the CEO of Enron liked it? Yes, Dawkins is saying that "universal love" does not have an evolutionary component, which seems like a fairly uncontroversial claim. It seems like your criticism of Dawkins is more a criticism of how other people have misunderstood him, rather than any criticism of the arguments in The Selfish Gene itself? If you haven't, I highly suggest you read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". While it's at a popular level, it does a fairly good job at presenting a plausible framework for how moral behavior (like altruism) can emerge from evolutionary principles. [1] Haidt is probably one of the most influential moral psychologists today. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+righteous+mind&qid=1561476127&s=gateway&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

foldingmoney 7y ago

>Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World Aware that I might be jumping to conclusions but that doesn't sound like the title of an objective, scientific text.

graphpapa 7y ago
Perhaps it is a failing of science that we have that perception

black_knight 7y ago

I think as far back as in 1902, some of these topics were treated scientifically by Kropotkin in in his “Mutual aid – a factor in evolution” [0]. His book was based on his observations of animal behaviour in Siberia. [0]: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]