Nick, Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, especially the human variety.
What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than individual selection alone. Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave paintings, whatever you think works. And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to read it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Pieter, > > Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to > respond off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I > think this whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and > historically. The literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so > precisely from post war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the > revanchist academic Reaganism (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's > really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one begins to > understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by which > parents do and dont resemble their children. One of the tools to thinking > straight is to own up to one's hankerings before one dives into the > literature. What are you hoping to find? Post war peace-nikery was > covertly deistic, hoping to find that there was some sort of over > arching regulatory agency that would keep the species and the planet safe. > Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! Success is virtue. And then > evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that whole argument. I recommend > reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not the physicist), Endless forms > most beautiful, and The making of the fittest. It's really hard to take > the whole argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and > multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble > their children. That there is any resemblance at all begins to seem like > some sort of miracle. Or perhaps just momentum. One hankering that > misleads us is naturalism, the idea that we can find some sort of MORAL > guidance in the way things are. Is the opposite hankering, > existentialism? The belief that what makes humans special is their power > to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a philosopher and am, in > fact, an amateur in all things. > > "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. Would > you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick > Thompson? " > > signed, > > ChatNST > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, >> I’m battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful >> mechanism of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand >> individual human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects >> where only the queen has babies. >> >> I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help >> guide me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check >> in with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. >> >> The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, so >> I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but I’ll >> try to keep it going. >> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Pieter, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a >>> journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not >>> committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” >>> perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been of >>> that sort. >>> >>> >>> >>> If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in >>> Dawkins The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of >>> selection. But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made >>> that decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when >>> one looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly the >>> gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the thing >>> that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever level you >>> care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential group success >>> that is driving selection or it is not group selection. And if it is >>> differential group success that is driving selection, then it is group >>> selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a >>> whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing >>> Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful >>> metaphor in there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article >>> that broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the >>> preceding 20 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV >>> >>> >>> >>> Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to >>> the human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), >>> 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 >>> en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 >>> <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >>> Steenekamp >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth >>> trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. >>> >>> So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my >>> 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The gap >>> between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that wide. >>> >>> That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection >>> argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay >>> with that. >>> >>> Here's the question I’m grappling with: >>> >>> Is the following valid? >>> Genes as the Unit of Selection: >>> Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of >>> selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an >>> individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. >>> Group Selection as a Modifier: >>> Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression >>> of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) >>> is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, >>> even if those genes also have individual-level costs. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> >>> >>> I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you >>> are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your >>> paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well >>> written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. >>> >>> >>> >>> However; two points: >>> >>> >>> >>> First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the >>> term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal >>> definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of >>> which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other thing >>> might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a 'model', one >>> that suggests particular points and particular relations that, if my >>> suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the unknown thing. I >>> check them out individually and in combinations and, if substantiated, >>> confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. >>> >>> >>> >>> This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more >>> abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make >>> your ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated >>> differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I >>> would propose the Mormons as a test case. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over >>> District" of western New York. The only one still extant. >>> >>> >>> >>> Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their >>> neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while >>> down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. >>> >>> >>> >>> A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely >>> evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism >>> and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) >>> >>> >>> >>> In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by >>> sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with four >>> or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as well as >>> "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah someone is >>> from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was >>> alive blacks were included in the community and held the >>> priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. >>> Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the >>> suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black >>> priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the >>> Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. >>> >>> >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, >>> >>> Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore >>> Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. It >>> always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me some >>> enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to keep focus >>> on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or cut bait on >>> entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost immediately you-guys >>> started not one but two conversations close to my heart: on the centrality >>> of metaphor to science and on the group selection controversy. >>> >>> A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a >>> paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. >>> There are two things about this paper that make it salient for me. The >>> first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The second is >>> that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach when I wrote it, >>> D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to >>> show that the problem with metaphors is not with their use in scientific >>> thinking: on the contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors >>> need to be worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of >>> poetic exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural >>> selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated >>> seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might >>> have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but >>> meta-arrogant. >>> >>> Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do anything >>> to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply am such a >>> person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope that it will >>> have some value to you within the context of your two discussions. >>> >>> Mumble, >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Attachments:* >>> >>> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
