The Selfish Gene

[tracer]

In Cecil’s column on memes, at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040213.html, he writes:

I venture to say the notion of the selfish gene is now the accepted scientific view.

Au contraire! The talk.origins jargon file states:

“Selfish gene
(n) 1. A theory proposed by Richard Dawkins that states that the unit of selection is the gene, not the organism. The theory’s rejection of the role of the organism in the selection process is currently viewed as incorrect.”

However, another another talk.origins FAQ says:

“The way Dawkins put it, as evidenced by the title The Selfish Gene, was wrongly interpreted to mean that organisms are irrelevant. More informed analysis developed the view that if evolution-by-selection is generalised, then using Dawkins’s own distinction between replicators and vehicles (or Hull’s refinement, interactors), then selection can occur at levels above the gene, or even above the organism.”

So the hypothesis hasn’t been rejected out of hand, but it sounds to me like the matter isn’t settled, either.

[Cecil_Adams]

I knew someone was going to hassle me about this, and consequently am pleased to note a discussion of just this point in H. Allen Orr’s review of Richard Dawkins’s new book, A Devil’s Chaplain, in the New York Review of Books, February 26, 2004. Having described the controversy over Dawkins’s concept of the selfish gene, Orr writes, “Most evolutionists now accept that natural selection can in principle act at any level in the biological hierarchy. Dawkins admits as much … [But] the selfish gene view has been exceptionally fertile, providing unexpected insight into [etc.] Indeed, selfish gene thinking is now orthodox in evolutionary biology and, among many evolutionists, represents a near reflex … [W]hile many of us suspect that higher-level selection occurs, the evidence for it is, so far, frustratingly weak.”

That was my impression prior to writing my column, and I am gratified to have it confirmed.

[Cervaise]

Waitasecond. The Perfect Master posts, and nobody responds? What on earth is this board coming to? I mean, at the very least tracer could have come back and groveled a little, or, possibly, if he was feeling his oats, actually argued with Mr. Adams.

I’m sorry I don’t have anything of substance to add here, but it would hardly be the first time that happened.

[Shrinking_Violet]

IWell, I read this forum daily, and this is the first I’ve seen of this illustrious thread.

Wonder if a bug kept it hidden away for a few days? Very odd!

Bows to The Master and backs slowly out of the room.

[Psifireus]

Originally posted by Cecil Adams, Perfect Master:

I knew someone was going to hassle me about this, and consequently am pleased to note a discussion of just this point in H. Allen Orr’s review of Richard Dawkins’s new book, A Devil’s Chaplain, in the New York Review of Books, February 26, 2004. Having described the controversy over Dawkins’s concept of the selfish gene, Orr writes, “Most evolutionists now accept that natural selection can in principle act at any level in the biological hierarchy. Dawkins admits as much … [But] the selfish gene view has been exceptionally fertile, providing unexpected insight into [etc.] Indeed, selfish gene thinking is now orthodox in evolutionary biology and, among many evolutionists, represents a near reflex … [W]hile many of us suspect that higher-level selection occurs, the evidence for it is, so far, frustratingly weak.”

That was my impression prior to writing my column, and I am gratified to have it confirmed

WOW, you really do exist…So I guess that means Santa and the talking M&M candies are real as well. Cool!

[hawthorne]

If people are wondering where Dawkins “admits as much”, you can see it clearly on p. 186 (and the related note on p. 321) of the considerably revised 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene.

He says

Note incidentally that, although a population of cheats may be more likely to go extinct than a population of grudgers, this in no way affects its status as an ESS [Evolutionary Stable Strategy]. If a population arrives at an ESS that drives it extinct, then it goes extinct, and that is just too bad. (186)

There can therefore be a kind of higher-level, ‘between ESS’, selection in favour of reciprocal altruism. This can be developed into an argument in favour of a kind of group selction that, unlike most theories of group selection, might actully work. (321)

[t-keela]

@Cervaise

Waitasecond. The Perfect Master posts, and nobody responds? What on earth is this board coming to? I mean, at the very least tracer could have come back and groveled a little, or, possibly, if he was feeling his oats, actually argued with Mr. Adams.

I’m sorry I don’t have anything of substance to add here, but it would hardly be the first time that happened.

I think UncaC basically ignored us for the better part of last year. He posted only one time on the board between May 5th of last year and January 19th of this year. The lack of HIS presence instills doubt within the teeming millions. Expectations that the Master will check on his flock at least periodically have been dismissed. The past couple of months have seen HIS resurrection, there have been several threads in which he did appear. Yet, very few members even bothered to notice.

'tis a sad reality WE must face. Much like Nietzsche’s revelation that “God is dead”, I’m afraid that we too must admit to ourselves. Cecil Adams is truly gone. They (the powers that be) have attempted to slip in a “substitute” but this NEW CECIL just doesn’t command the respect that the OLD CECIL did.
His countenance appears diminished. The smiting bow used in battle against ignorance is red and bloodied. The strength or POWER, nay call it Wisdom once bestowed upon has yet to conquer. The great sword of justice broken. The scales used by all to balance fiction and fact now sit in darkness.
The pale horse cometh (the ignorant masses) Who will stand against the tide we now face?

Nothing of value or substance did you say, Cervaise?
You found a recent thread with Unca Cece as the last poster for well over a week.
That’s pretty miraculous IMHO

[megatrollificus]

In regards to the ‘consensus’ on any selfish gene, I think it is a more sophisticated understanding of what is meant. A clarification, from Dawkins and Pinker:

(quote Dawkins and Pinker)
But here’s how it could be misread: the theory says that one can make powerful predictions about the process of natural selection by imagining that the gene has a selfish motive to make copies of itself. Of course no one ever thought that a gene has real motives in the sense that people have motives, but it this is a valuable way to gain insight about the subtleties of natural selection, especially when it comes to social interactions, and it leads to many correct predictions.

Here is the distortion. People think that genes are our deepest hidden self, our essence, so if our genes are selfish, that means that deep down we’re selfish.
(/quote)

For a couple of decades after The Selfish Gene came out, there were concerted, ideologically-driven attacks on the idea as misrepresented in the second part of the above quote.

But as it’s a valuable predictive and conceptual tool, it would seem there is a pretty general acceptance nowadays.

[RM_Mentock]

@megatrollificus

But as it’s a valuable predictive and conceptual tool, it would seem there is a pretty general acceptance nowadays.

Predictions, huh? And we’re not talking about postdictions, right?

[HumptysHamhole]

OK – Again as I pointed out in my post on “More on Memes,” Cecil has done great disservice to his readers by engaging in lazy research and sloppy science. Listed below are just a few of many contemporary criticisms of the Selfish Gene theory by some of the leaders in science today. I believe that the theory has some real value but Cecil’s representation of the theory as the standard in biological and social science is just simply wrong. Articles like this one and the one on memes show that Cecil is well versed in pop-science but he lacks depth in his investigations into certain matters. He also has a serious problem in recognizing that other educated people can hold ontological views that differ from his – he almost always ignores those views.

Frans de Waal (Emory University, director of studies of primate evolution) Good Natured, 1996. “. . .the selfish gene metaphor says nothing, either directly or indirectly, about motivation, emotion, or intention.” De Waal suggests in this book that the concept of the selfish gene is just inadequate in describing behavioral evolution.

Georg Bruer (Sociobiologist) Sociobiology and the Human Dimension, 1981. Also suggests that Dawkins’s concept is misleading, “Dawkins’ presentation is not balanced. It is not a mere coincidence that it creates misunderstandings in the head of the reader.” Also, “. . . the idea is no more than a startling hypothesis. Whether it really can explain the observed facts remains to be proved.”

Daniel G. Freedman (Developmental Psychologist, Professor Emeritus, U Chicago) Human Sociobiology, 1979, on the selfish gene, “Such traits are obviously not determined by single genes, and the model is wrong at its inception.”

Arthur L. Caplan (Professor of Bioethics, U Penn) Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture, 1980. “[Dawkins’] situations simply do not square with known biological reality. . . it is wrong to portray natural selection as consisting of forces that can ‘see through’ phenotypes to act directly upon the genotypic variants present in a population.”

Michel Denton (Geneticist) Nature’s Destiny, 1998. “Dawkin’s claim . . . is unrealistic not only because of the functional constraints problem, but also because there are several cases where there are biophysical barriers to particular transformations, and in such cases, no matter how many intermediates we might like to propose, there is simply no gradual route across.” And “. . . biologists have remained unconvinced [of the selfish gene theory] finding the ‘explanations’ offered either implausible to some degree or too vague and general to be subjected to critical detailed scrutiny.”

Again – the theory has some merit but Cecil proves lazy in his inability to look deeper into this issue and find the real opinion of the scientific community. Some scientists like the selfish gene theory but many do not. Cecil has mischaracterized this issue. I can provide dozens of other examples if we had more space here. Please Cecil, stop oversimplifying complex issues.

[mythago]

I was surprised nobody referenced the “cooperative gene” theory.