Reviews of Unto Others

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:35:51 +0000 (UTC)

Note: I have not read the book but since I have an interest in group
selection.individual selection/natural selection I decided to post these
few obscenely glowing reviews. From what I've read on the web, however,
it seems true most recommend the first half of the book over the second
half.

"Belonging to the human race isn't enough to bring forth (Darwinian)
altruism."

[I thought this was a classic line so quoted it]

Anonymous reviews of Unto Others

The Invisible [Helping] Hand?

Altruism has always been a problem for evolutionists. How does one
explain a creature giving up something for another, sometimes its very
life? Why, for example, will a monkey give a warning cry that alerts
other members of the troop, but that gives away its own position? How
could genes governing such behavior persist in the relentless
competition for a place in the genome?

The kinds of reasoning used to explain behavior that is good for the
group but perhaps not so good for the individual performing it is as old
as Darwin. Until George Williams demolished whole classes of argument in
his lovely 1966 book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", it was common
to invoke "group selection" as an analog to individual selection, and
explain, in a vague, hand-waving sort of way, how altruistic behavior
could arise by enhancing the survival of the herd, or school, or flock.
And after Dawkins, both the individual and the group were banished from
consideration, and the selfish gene reigned supreme.

Only one category of altruism has been taken as consonant with the unit
of replication being the gene, namely "kin selection". This is the
favoring of relatives: since relatives share genes, helping a gene-mate
helps ones own genes, whether or not it benefits ones self. Yet much
altruism in nature goes unexplained by kin selection. Think of the
soldier who falls on the hand grenade so his (unrelated) buddies can
live. There are many more examples from the lives of many creatures,
most of whom never saw a war movie. How does one explain the clear
patterns of altruistic behavior in animals at all levels of
consciousness and cuddliness? Wilson, a biologist, and Sober, a
philosopher, dare to think the unthinkable, or at least the
unfashionable: is it possible that individuals or groups really do play
a replicator role in evolution? They believe that group selection
deserves another chance, but this time more rigorously specified.

I was very impressed with the first half of the book, in which they
justify a group-selection model for adaptive evolution that can explain
a persistent strain of altruism. What they show is that selection can
take place at the level of a group of individuals in many more sorts of
situations than were thought possible. (A nice bonus of this approach is
that kin selection can be explained more simply using this more general
context of the group.) Groups, however ephemeral, do have a role to play
in selection.
The second half of the book is less convincing, as it involves
psychological and philosophical arguments for "psychological altruism"
in humans (that is, you not only behave unselfishly, but "want" to
behave unselfishly), which, by its very nature, is hard (or very hard)
to tease out in experiments, or to introspect to. However, the authors
are reasonably convincing that nature would most likely not employ some
Rube Goldberg-type of mental devices that depended on hedonism
(pleasure-and-pain-driven behavior) to accomplish important tasks, such
as child-rearing, but rather build in directly the mechanism to make a
parent care to care for its child. In that way, the care of its child
would be a primary motivation, rather than an intrumental one (sorry
about the jargon!) on the way to getting pleasure or avoiding pain.
Parents will find this convincing, as the desire to take care of ones
children seems not to depend on how much we "enjoy" doing it.

This book is detailed, conscientious and well-written, but it covers a
lot of ground and many of its arguments, especially in the second part,
are subtle. So I recommend reading it more than once: this is
contentious material. While the authors do not make anything of the
political and social implications of their work, these are always
waiting in the wings. Altruism, after all, is in direct opposition to
selfishness. Many people see in this a political point, and a social
point. Those issues are not properly a part of such a work, but do give
great interest to its arguments and conclusions. And whether or not its
conclusions finally survive intact, this books arguments and approach
seem exemplary and fruitful.

Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior >
Customer Review #2:
 Evolutionary break through--why races are at war

This book is a continuation of those books that keep moving us closer to
where we came from. After decades of wandering in the jungle of
postmodernism, we are finally emerging to find our roots. This book is
not for the casual reader. But it is an important contribution in
understanding the evolution of groupism, why humans go to war, and why
belonging to the human race is not enough to bring forth altruism.
Altruism evolved as a means of group consolidation of the ingroup, and
genocide towards all other groups. This book should be read along with
"Demonic Males" to get a good understanding of how altruism evolved.

Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior >
Customer Review #3:

 An antidote to what weve been taught about group selection
For more than a generation now, students of evolutionary biology have
been taught that natural selection is a process that works on
individuals. Where there is a conflict between the good of the
individual and the good of the community, the selfish almost always
prevails. There are good theoretical reasons to believe this should be
so. Most of the work that has been done in the last century to turn
Darwins theory into a quantitative science seems to point in that
direction. Individual selection should be fast and efficient; group
selection slow and unreliable. Yet the biological world that we see
seems to fly in the face of this conclusion. So much of the adaptation
we see in the natural world looks like it benefits the community or the
species, often at the expense of the individual. So the pure individual
selectionists (99% of evolutionary biologists today) have had to concoct
a series of excuses, kluges, and workarounds. There are a multitude of
reasons! that what looks like a group adaptation is really an individual
adaptation. Most of our community has unthinkingly adopted the view that
the "selfish gene" perspective holds a key to understanding the
"illusion" of group selection. Wilson has been working for 20 years to
reform this situation, and to restore common sense. If it looks like a
group adaptation, it probably is a group adaptation. No surprise here -
except to that 99% of the academic community who has been raised to
think that "group selection" is a dirty word - something like
"Lamarckism" or "Creationism". Wilsons book is just the kick in the
pants that the 99% of us need. It is readable, yet meticulously
documented. He traces the history of our prejudice against group
selection, and exposes the faulty logic in those kluges and workarounds.
Group selection really is necessary to explain what we observe in
nature. Then, he goes on to offer us the theeoretical foundation we need
to make group selection plausible. There are mechanisms overlooked by
the quantitative theorists that make group selection a far more viable
process than they give it credit for. If youre a lay person, you may
think "of course - whats the big deal." But if youre an academic
evolutionist educated in the last 30 years, you need this book; your
thinking about altruism and fitness of communities will be changed
forever. All this is in the first half of the book. The second half,
presumably contributed by Sober, is much less focused and scientific,
more apt to dwell on definitions and philosophical distinctions. The
attempt to connect the sound conclusions of the books first half to
attitudes about human cultures is both more speculative and somehow less
ambitious and important than the books first half.
 
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value."
Stephen Hawking

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilsons "bombshell" on the reality of group
    ... selection -- and the same seems to hold true for humans. ... inclusive fitness concept has always been organism group centric (group ... revolutionary poly-centric argument for the evolution of "altruism" ... argument is argued to be gene centric. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... Trait groups composed of altruistic animals can outcompete ... frequency of altruism may rise in the population as a whole. ... The thing is, when most people think of group selection, they ... Monogamy *is* subject to cheaters. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... Trait groups composed of altruistic animals can outcompete ... frequency of altruism may rise in the population as a whole. ... The thing is, when most people think of group selection, they ... Monogamy *is* subject to cheaters. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hamiltons rule
    ... >> Her theory predicts that selection will have virtually no influence when: ... > slightly higher fitness (unless maybe the environment is different ... cooperation and altruism ... > might happen to secrete substances that are beneficial ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Temporary, pack based altruism as an ESS supported by niche isolation
    ... selection etc. ... become dependent upon pack strength to survive. ... The temporary altruism will therefore become ... Altruistic behavioural traits evolving as an ESS but without the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading