- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
I recently saw an article on girlschase (liberals vs conservatives?),where chase as usual gives fresh insight about human psychology ,he references haidt,who is a brilliant sociologist
haidt rejects the gene centric view made famous by Richard Dawkins (who to me is the greatest biologist after Darwin )
Haidt reintroduces the discredited infamous theory of group selection.
Many people see the individual as the unit of selection,and we by default think of an individual as doing whatever will benefit it.
Dawkins insists we should look at the individual only as a vessel and that the unit of selection is actually the gene.in other words,we should think of a gene as having a goal of replicating itself,and it will do everything it can to achieve this goal.
Now there existed a bunch of ecologists and pseudo scientists( and some actual scientists) who saw the unit of selection (especially in social animals)as the group.
They argued that social animals do things to benefit the group ,sometimes at the expense of the individual.
Now This theory has long been discredited,because it is not an evolutionary stable strategy,what this means is in a group of altruistic selfless individuals if a mutant who was selfish arose.he would reap enormous benefits from his naive gullible selfless brethren,his selfish genes would propagate and the end result would be a group made of selfish individuals.
Haidt rightly points out that a group full of selfless ndividuals would prosper more than a group full of selfish ndividuals ,he also rightly points out that human societies have ways of penalizing selfish individuals.
He wrongly concludes that this will then mean that in humans evolution works on the group level,and group selection was unfairly discredited.
Haidts conclusion is wrong because,while it is true that groups compete with other groups,individuals inside the group
Still compete with other individuals.
And natural selection favors the most successful individual not the most successful group.
The most successful group will only ever be selected as a consequence of it having the most successfully individuals.
HAIDTS MISUNDERSTANDING
Haidts mistake is a misunderstanding of the word selfish.
I feel as though all his wrong working out(despite his right conclusions)stem from that one misunderstanding.
When scientists talk about a selfish gene,we obviously know they do not mean that a gene has a brain and goals and selfish behavioral characteristics,
We know that What they mean by a selfish gene is that a gene that has a phenotypic effect as though it had a goal of using any means of surviving and being replicated ,is the gene that will most likely be prevalent in the gene pool.
Now here is where the misunderstanding arises,when we go to the level of the individual this distinction is not really clear.
If we talk about a selfish man(or baboon,or chipmunk)....understandably some people (as haidt no doubt has ) will interpret this to mean a person with selfish behavioral traits,this is because people unlike ends,have actual brains and desires and goals and ambitions and esources at their disposal.
This is why the gene centric view that Dawkins proposes is so elegant,it sidesteps misunderstandings like this,as understandable as they may be.....anyway
Suppose you live in a group,in the group any selfish(refusal to share,cooperate) behavior will result in the group exiling you or socially rejecting you or killing you...in such an environment ,a gene tha fostered cooperation would be more successful than a gene that fostered selfishness...right?....but that gene that prospered in that environment..would it not be a selfish gene?....as far as the gene behaving like it wanted to survive and explicate by any means then yes...it is a selfish gene....a selfish end for unselfishness......now if we try and say the same thing from an individual's point of view we will just get confused ....an individual who is selfish (biologically) by being selfless(behavior)....no wonder why I personally prefer Dawkins insistence on always keeping a gene centric point of view.
As we can now then see...if natural selection is the process by which individuals best suited to survive in a given enviroment are selected for,then..in an environment where being altruistic and selfless(to a point)brings greater chance of reproduction than being callous,aggresive and self centered,then natural selection will favor the relatively selfless individual...but NOT for the good of the group ....but for the good of that specific individual..
It is important to remember that in evolutionary science "environment" defines not just the weather,.....not just the vegetation...not just animals..but everything around you..your fellow humans included...we are quick to grasp...the savanah is a chetetahs environment...but maybe not so quick to realize so is..the lion ...the lion is part of a cheetahs environment..the gazelle is part of the cheetahs environment,the cheetahs litermates are part of the cheetahs environment.....and yes..a migrating group of hobos is also part of a chetteahs enviroment.........so..anyway
In an enviroment..where.... lone rebels had a lower survival chance than conformists then women who prefer conformists would again be selected for.....in an enviroment where women are repulsed by social outcasts and rejects.....individuals who towed the line will be selected for over those individuals who did not.....this is natural ...selection on an individual level ( i prefer the gene centric level)...that it has the effect of making the group superior is a by the way product of natural selection acting on individuals........the scientists of old were right to so stringky discredit group selection ...I hope the theory of group selection rests in peace right next to lamarcks theory and the flat earth theory
haidt rejects the gene centric view made famous by Richard Dawkins (who to me is the greatest biologist after Darwin )
Haidt reintroduces the discredited infamous theory of group selection.
Many people see the individual as the unit of selection,and we by default think of an individual as doing whatever will benefit it.
Dawkins insists we should look at the individual only as a vessel and that the unit of selection is actually the gene.in other words,we should think of a gene as having a goal of replicating itself,and it will do everything it can to achieve this goal.
Now there existed a bunch of ecologists and pseudo scientists( and some actual scientists) who saw the unit of selection (especially in social animals)as the group.
They argued that social animals do things to benefit the group ,sometimes at the expense of the individual.
Now This theory has long been discredited,because it is not an evolutionary stable strategy,what this means is in a group of altruistic selfless individuals if a mutant who was selfish arose.he would reap enormous benefits from his naive gullible selfless brethren,his selfish genes would propagate and the end result would be a group made of selfish individuals.
Haidt rightly points out that a group full of selfless ndividuals would prosper more than a group full of selfish ndividuals ,he also rightly points out that human societies have ways of penalizing selfish individuals.
He wrongly concludes that this will then mean that in humans evolution works on the group level,and group selection was unfairly discredited.
Haidts conclusion is wrong because,while it is true that groups compete with other groups,individuals inside the group
Still compete with other individuals.
And natural selection favors the most successful individual not the most successful group.
The most successful group will only ever be selected as a consequence of it having the most successfully individuals.
HAIDTS MISUNDERSTANDING
Haidts mistake is a misunderstanding of the word selfish.
I feel as though all his wrong working out(despite his right conclusions)stem from that one misunderstanding.
When scientists talk about a selfish gene,we obviously know they do not mean that a gene has a brain and goals and selfish behavioral characteristics,
We know that What they mean by a selfish gene is that a gene that has a phenotypic effect as though it had a goal of using any means of surviving and being replicated ,is the gene that will most likely be prevalent in the gene pool.
Now here is where the misunderstanding arises,when we go to the level of the individual this distinction is not really clear.
If we talk about a selfish man(or baboon,or chipmunk)....understandably some people (as haidt no doubt has ) will interpret this to mean a person with selfish behavioral traits,this is because people unlike ends,have actual brains and desires and goals and ambitions and esources at their disposal.
This is why the gene centric view that Dawkins proposes is so elegant,it sidesteps misunderstandings like this,as understandable as they may be.....anyway
Suppose you live in a group,in the group any selfish(refusal to share,cooperate) behavior will result in the group exiling you or socially rejecting you or killing you...in such an environment ,a gene tha fostered cooperation would be more successful than a gene that fostered selfishness...right?....but that gene that prospered in that environment..would it not be a selfish gene?....as far as the gene behaving like it wanted to survive and explicate by any means then yes...it is a selfish gene....a selfish end for unselfishness......now if we try and say the same thing from an individual's point of view we will just get confused ....an individual who is selfish (biologically) by being selfless(behavior)....no wonder why I personally prefer Dawkins insistence on always keeping a gene centric point of view.
As we can now then see...if natural selection is the process by which individuals best suited to survive in a given enviroment are selected for,then..in an environment where being altruistic and selfless(to a point)brings greater chance of reproduction than being callous,aggresive and self centered,then natural selection will favor the relatively selfless individual...but NOT for the good of the group ....but for the good of that specific individual..
It is important to remember that in evolutionary science "environment" defines not just the weather,.....not just the vegetation...not just animals..but everything around you..your fellow humans included...we are quick to grasp...the savanah is a chetetahs environment...but maybe not so quick to realize so is..the lion ...the lion is part of a cheetahs environment..the gazelle is part of the cheetahs environment,the cheetahs litermates are part of the cheetahs environment.....and yes..a migrating group of hobos is also part of a chetteahs enviroment.........so..anyway
In an enviroment..where.... lone rebels had a lower survival chance than conformists then women who prefer conformists would again be selected for.....in an enviroment where women are repulsed by social outcasts and rejects.....individuals who towed the line will be selected for over those individuals who did not.....this is natural ...selection on an individual level ( i prefer the gene centric level)...that it has the effect of making the group superior is a by the way product of natural selection acting on individuals........the scientists of old were right to so stringky discredit group selection ...I hope the theory of group selection rests in peace right next to lamarcks theory and the flat earth theory
