3 ms·

Without any prior knowledge on the subject, it seemed obvious to me that the reason altruism exists is the same reason our bodies' cells don't attack each other

Without any prior knowledge on the subject, it seemed obvious to me that the reason altruism exists is the same reason our bodies' cells don't attack each other. Groups of coöperating individuals have a much higher chance of surviving than groups of naïvely self-serving individuals. I was surprised to find this is the "alternate" theory: > Under certain circumstances, groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators, thereby ensuring that their genes — including the ones that predispose them to cooperation — are handed down to future generations. Surely others have thought of this idea before, as it seems to me much simpler than kin selection. Why was it not until the 21st century that this idea has gained even a modicum of traction?

Mgccl 16y ago
This is in fact an older theory before kin selection dominate the field.
pessimist 16y ago
The simple answer in most cases is that group selection is vulnerable to free-riders. A free-rider gene that didnt help out would out-compete altruists and spread. The group of cells in a body is not a group of unrelated individuals - they are all perfectly related! Non kin-related altruism usually requires mechanisms of enforcement like reciprocal altruism ("you scratch my back, i scratch yours, and if you dont play along you'll be ostracized"). Historically, naive group selection was commonly held until the 1950's and 60's, when George Williams forcefully argued against it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selectio.... Then Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and other developed mathematical models showing how kin selection and group theoretic models (like a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma) could allow for altruism to evolve even though genes are really "selfish". E. O. Wilson's late attack on kin selection is odd and misguided, see a response here - http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-up-about-kin-selection/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-... or http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusive-fitness-nowak-wilson-2010.html http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusiv.... There were several replies in Nature as well but of course those are paid.
- Jach 16y ago
  I wonder why you were initially downvoted? Anyway, to quote from Williams: "I see no reason why a conscious motive need be involved. It is necessary that help provided to others be occasionally reciprocated if it is to be favored by natural selection. It is not necessary that either the giver or the receiver be aware of this. ... Simply stated, an individual who maximizes his friendships and minimizes his antagonisms will have an evolutionary advantage, and selection should favor those characters that promote the optimization of personal relationships." Robert Trivers expanded this idea and you can read his paper, "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism", here: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pdf http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pd... Since then the evidence has continued to grow in support of the idea (at least in primates--birds and fish that Trivers suggest don't have as much evidence). http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... is a nice post on why group selection theories tend to be wrong by default and why you shouldn't really pay attention to them when they come up. For people interested in evolutionary psychology I recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, which does a good job covering the history of the field and offering explanations for a variety of behaviors. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996 http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psyc...
- scotty79 16y ago
  There are free riders and they are in balance with altruism. I saw footage when some squirrels (or monkeys) ware picking up something tasty out of the shallow water. They had to be careful because there might have been predators in the water. If individual spotted predator they yelled and whole pack ran to the trees. But occasionally weaker individuals yelled even when there was no predator to drive away stronger individuals to get some food himself. So they altruistically warned each other but there was free-rider in who occasionally abused the altruistic system for personal gain. He couldn't do that too much because other individuals would notice and kick his butt. So altruism and free-riding in nature can be in balance and still give obvious advantage in cooperation.
  - scotty79 16y ago
thaumaturgy 16y ago
I'm surprised too, especially since -- unless my understanding is very wrong -- something close to group selection is currently the most popular explanation for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in social animals: social groups with small populations of homosexual members benefit from the work contributed by those members, without the expense of additional offspring.
scotty79 16y ago
I came up with this idea myself when I was trying to grasp how to connect evolution with altruism between obviously unrelated individuals. When I was 17 or so. So I don't think it's new or cunning. I'd like to know why this is stupid. Was the altruism between unrelated individuals never actually observed? Does not cooperative behavior give competitive advantage to groups and individuals?

Mgccl 16y ago

This is in fact an older theory before kin selection dominate the field.

pessimist 16y ago

The simple answer in most cases is that group selection is vulnerable to free-riders. A free-rider gene that didnt help out would out-compete altruists and spread. The group of cells in a body is not a group of unrelated individuals - they are all perfectly related! Non kin-related altruism usually requires mechanisms of enforcement like reciprocal altruism ("you scratch my back, i scratch yours, and if you dont play along you'll be ostracized"). Historically, naive group selection was commonly held until the 1950's and 60's, when George Williams forcefully argued against it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_and_Natural_Selectio.... Then Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and other developed mathematical models showing how kin selection and group theoretic models (like a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma) could allow for altruism to evolve even though genes are really "selfish". E. O. Wilson's late attack on kin selection is odd and misguided, see a response here - http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-up-about-kin-selection/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-... or http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusive-fitness-nowak-wilson-2010.html http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/theory/inclusiv.... There were several replies in Nature as well but of course those are paid.

Jach 16y ago
I wonder why you were initially downvoted? Anyway, to quote from Williams: "I see no reason why a conscious motive need be involved. It is necessary that help provided to others be occasionally reciprocated if it is to be favored by natural selection. It is not necessary that either the giver or the receiver be aware of this. ... Simply stated, an individual who maximizes his friendships and minimizes his antagonisms will have an evolutionary advantage, and selection should favor those characters that promote the optimization of personal relationships." Robert Trivers expanded this idea and you can read his paper, "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism", here: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pdf http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pd... Since then the evidence has continued to grow in support of the idea (at least in primates--birds and fish that Trivers suggest don't have as much evidence). http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... is a nice post on why group selection theories tend to be wrong by default and why you shouldn't really pay attention to them when they come up. For people interested in evolutionary psychology I recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, which does a good job covering the history of the field and offering explanations for a variety of behaviors. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996 http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psyc...
scotty79 16y ago
There are free riders and they are in balance with altruism. I saw footage when some squirrels (or monkeys) ware picking up something tasty out of the shallow water. They had to be careful because there might have been predators in the water. If individual spotted predator they yelled and whole pack ran to the trees. But occasionally weaker individuals yelled even when there was no predator to drive away stronger individuals to get some food himself. So they altruistically warned each other but there was free-rider in who occasionally abused the altruistic system for personal gain. He couldn't do that too much because other individuals would notice and kick his butt. So altruism and free-riding in nature can be in balance and still give obvious advantage in cooperation.
- scotty79 16y ago

thaumaturgy 16y ago

I'm surprised too, especially since -- unless my understanding is very wrong -- something close to group selection is currently the most popular explanation for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in social animals: social groups with small populations of homosexual members benefit from the work contributed by those members, without the expense of additional offspring.

scotty79 16y ago

I came up with this idea myself when I was trying to grasp how to connect evolution with altruism between obviously unrelated individuals. When I was 17 or so. So I don't think it's new or cunning. I'd like to know why this is stupid. Was the altruism between unrelated individuals never actually observed? Does not cooperative behavior give competitive advantage to groups and individuals?