Talk:Group selection

Confusion between Wilson and Wilson
In "Multilevel selection theory" E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson are confused. This needs clarification. Two examples:

"Wilson and Sober's work revived interest in multilevel selection. In a 2005 article,[35] E. O. Wilson argued ..." The Co-author of Sober is David Sloan Wilson

"not requiring Hamilton's original assumption of direct genealogical relatedness, is used, as proposed by E. O. Wilson himself.[40]" Reference points to David Sloan Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46C1:E200:ED69:28B1:12AB:B1CF (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Group selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040203194251/http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/60/bbs00000460-00/bbs.wilson.html to http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/60/bbs00000460-00/bbs.wilson.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715062538/http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html to http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Major Revision on May 2018
I'm working on a major revision of this page to explain some of the controversy that is associated with the idea of group selection. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, please let me know to discuss it before reverting.

Thanks and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a major copyright violation, which has been removed and flagged by another editor. The main additions were too-detailed quotations from various authors, substantially from a single article. Both the opinions mentioned and the copyvio source were in fact already in the article, so little of substance was added to the article. The controversy, too, is already described historically. If you still feel, despite all this, that anything further is needed, please present a brief summary of what you mean to do and obtain consensus before proceeding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was obviously too overzealous in doing a major revision. I'm communicating with the other editor, and I sent a query letter to the Edge Foundation about the copyright status.  However, I still think that there are major parts of this article that badly need a rewrite.  To mention a few items, why is the reference to Darwin's "Descent of Man" only in the section about #Implications in Population Biology?  The last paragraph in this same section has 3 sentences that start with "However".  The section on #Other Arguments isn't clear about what the other arguments are. In the #Criticism section, the quote from Jerry Coyne doesn't have any rebuttal or balance.  In my opinion, the controversy about the theory isn't covered in nearly enough detail, including not covering in detail the issues with the definition of a group, and the relevant discussion about altruism or punishment, which are notable in their own right since several have their own Wikipedia pages.  That is why I added a section on Discussions.  With your permission, I will fix some of these problems one at a time. User:wcrea6  —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there are no further comments, I will make revisions to correct some of these problems, without causing the same copyright issues.Wcrea6 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments on ongoing revisions, July 2018
Thanks for your comments, Chiswick Chap but I'm not sure why you put them on my Talk page rather than on the Talk page for the page that is being edited. If there is a reason that you put them on my talk page, please let me know if this is a breach of courtesy. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep the comments here.Wcrea6 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)   Copied from user:wcrea6 Talk page:


 * Hi, I notice you have made substantial edits to Group selection, without always making clear which claim came from which source. The effect has been to loosen the structure of a fully-cited article, not exactly a desirable direction of travel. I have accordingly marked up three 'citation needed' points in the text. I note also that the new text is in places more contentious than the carefully encyclopedic text that it replaces; I considered a full revert but have decided to hold off for now. I would be grateful if you could copy-edit your additions, considering carefully if each claim or implication is fully justified by the source(s) it is cited to. The uncited sentences should either be removed or be cited to sources which again fully cover the claims made. Any claims that represent your personal opinion rather than a cited source are not allowed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I will try to address these questions, so please let me know if my response doesn't address your issues.

For the first comment:


 * "Group selection on the level of the species is flawed because it is difficult to see how selective pressures would be applied to competing/non-cooperating individuals."

The above sentence is a summary comment about the following section, which I considered to be unclear and hard to understand. In addition to being strictly referenced, a Wikipedia article should be readable and understandable to a layman. If the summary or paraphrase is unacceptable, let me know and let me know exactly what part of the sentence you find objectionable.


 * "Once Darwinism had been accepted, animal behavior was glibly explained with unsubstantiated hypotheses about survival value, which was largely taken for granted. The naturalist Konrad Lorenz had argued loosely in books like On Aggression (1966) that animal behavior patterns were "for the good of the species", without actually studying survival value in the field; Richard Dawkins noted that Lorenz was a "'good of the species' man" so accustomed to group selection thinking that he did not realize his views "contravened orthodox Darwinian theory". "


 * I replaced this "citation needed" with a reference to Dawkins "Selfish Gene" since he covers this issue in Chapter 1. I'm not sure whether to keep the two references to "Selfish Gene", since the 7th reference includes specific page numbers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment 2:


 * "In a strict interpretation of the kin selection theory, a statistical association of related genes (present in the interactions of close genetic relatives) is understood as a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for the evolutionary emergence of certain traits relating to social cooperation."

You are correct with this comment. I will have to search longer to find where it came from. I may have lost the reference in a copy and paste. For the moment, I've deleted it from the text.

Comment 3:


 * "However, such a marker would also allow other individuals to recognize these marked individuals to take advantage of them in competition."

You are correct with this comment. I deleted it, as I don't have a reference at the moment.

Thanks for your feedback, and thanks for not reverting my edits on the basis of these three comments.Wcrea6 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You have replied at great length. All that needs to be said is that we evidently agree that all claims must be reliably cited. I'll hold off reverting for a little while longer. I've marked up (more) places where citations are required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Nurture Kinship page with minor editing:
Anthropologists have worked on an alternative explanation to kin selection from studies of human culture that involves nurture kinship. Holland's Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship discusses biological inclusive fitness theory. The expression of social traits in primates and humans doesn't necessarily depend on conditions of genetic relatedness. For the vast majority of social mammals—including primates and humans—the formation of social bonds (and the resulting social cooperation) are based on familiarity from an early developmental stage. Genetic relatedness is not necessary for the attachment bonds to develop, and it is the performance of nurture that underlies such bonds and the enduring social cooperation that typically accompanies them. The nurture kinship perspective leads to the synthesis of evolutionary biology, psychology, and socio-cultural anthropology on the topic of social bonding and cooperation, without reductionism or positing a deterministic role to genes or genetic relatedness in the mechanisms through which social behaviors are expressed.

The 'nurture kinship' perspective does not necessarily mean that human non-blood relationships such as the relationships based on nurturing are more important than the ones based on blood-kinship. Herbert Gintis, in his review of the book Sex at Dawn, critiques the idea that human males were unconcerned with parentage, "which would make us unlike any other species I can think of".

(end copy)Wcrea6 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure why you should have copied this here (suggest we remove it as inappropriate, please). On the additions to the article, these appear very weak, only tangentially relevant to this article (there may be better targets in other articles), and non-neutral, based heavily and at excessive length (WP:UNDUE) on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) favouring one side and supported by editorialising rather than reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). I've therefore removed the contributions; I'm sorry to do that so directly but the additions simply weaken and unbalance the article, which has up to now taken great pains to be fair all round. Additions, especially on extremely controversial matters like relevance to human society, must be supported by the best sources, which means review articles in top journals, not primary or popular sources of any kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems like you have the point of view that evolution doesn't apply to humans, nor that cultures evolve.Wcrea6 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No and no, actually, and kindly don't make personal remarks whether attacks or not. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

On "Criticism" section
I would like to change the section now titled "Criticism" to "Reception" and add the following from this article by Wilson: "A 2014 survey of anthropologists from PhD granting departments found that the majority accepted group selection as an important force in human cultural evolution". Do you agree or disagree? AndrewOne (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * On the title, perhaps it's not very important, but the theory's "reception" has definitely been rich in "criticism" so it's not badly named right now. On the paper by D. S. Wilson (there's another famous Wilson in the article also), it has nothing to do with the reception of Group selection as a theory of biological (genetic, population biology) evolution and does not belong here; it concerns Cultural evolution and would be better placed in that article in, er, its "Criticism" section. (Seems that "Criticism" is a bit of, er, a Meme ..... ;-) ). Cheers, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentence about inclusive fitness needs fixing
In the paragraph explaining inclusive fitness, the article says
 * This behavior could emerge under conditions such that the statistical likelihood that benefits accrue to the survival and reproduction of other organisms whom also carry the social trait.

Something is wrong with this sentence. I don't know enough to be able to fix it. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wording regarding honeybee kin selection
I am not a biologist or particularly familiar with bees, but shouldn’t the “possible” in the following part of the second paragraph be “impossible”?

“social insects like honeybees (in the Hymenoptera), where kin selection was possible.“ 2601:646:9B00:3BF0:1475:BC5B:9D17:98 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's correct, it's very possible, indeed easy to envisage, in honeybees because the workers and the queen are unusually closely related. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggested source to integrate - Yaworsky et al 2014
This source looks like a good one to integrate into this article: Yaworsky W, Horowitz M, Kickham K. 2014. Gender and Politics Among Anthropologists in the Units of Selection Debate. Biological Theory:1-11. Posting here in the hopes that someone else might beat me to it and/or for discussion. -Pengortm (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose it's just about worth a brief mention, done. We're at risk of straying a long way down a rabbit-hole with this sort of thing. In general we should not feel we have to name every primary research paper that has some small bearing on the subject, indeed some would say we should stick to reliable secondary sources...... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"New" reference
Hello, I have added a "new" reference to the text book Animal Behavior by John Alcock (11th edition) as a citation what is the consensus on group selection rather do such synthesis ourselves. Apparently this warrants discussion. I have quoted it at length so all can read it rather than take my word for it. Cheers. Mvolz (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm very busy at the moment. I was actually more concerned about inserting emotive language into the lead section; this article has seen its fair share of contention, so it is essential that things are extremely neutrally written, specially up there in the lead, and attributed to reliable secondary sources; Alcock is fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem. I appreciate that it causes trouble but that's because a few loud people champion it and overwhelming majority of behavioural ecologists don't buy it (per the textbook I quoted). It's our job as an encyclopedia to accurately represent the state of science, not be a platform for a loud majority to push WP:FRINGE theories. The textbook citation should really be the end of it. Perhaps "discredited" seems harsh but removing it makes it seems as if it's accepted theory if the person doesn't read any further. Maybe "controversial" but even that seems like missing the point. Mvolz (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. See if you can find a quiet polite way to put it without using the c- or d-words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Multi-Level Selection Theory section
The following does not clearly relay what was done, why, and how: "An experiment by William Muir compared egg productivity in hens, showing that a hyper-aggressive strain had been produced through individual selection, leading to many fatal attacks after only six generations; by implication, it could be argued that group selection must have been acting to prevent this in real life." Please compare to: "A Curious Study Regarding Chicken Breeding: "Box 13-7 Cooperation or Competition? The Chicken and the Egg. 'Chicken breeders did an interesting experiment that sheds some light on the cooperation versus competition question. The goal of the chicken breeders was to increase egg production in chickens. They used two approaches, each beginning with nine cages of full of hens. In the first approach, the breeders selected the most productive hen from eachof the nine cages, then used these hens to produce enough chickens to fill another nine cages. In the second approach, the breeders selected the cage that produced the most eggs, and used these hens to produce enough chickens to to fill another nine cages. They continued the experiment for six generations. Which approach resulted in the greatest increase in egg production? As it turned out, the experiment was truncated after six generations because the treatment using the most productive hen from each cage could no longer produce enough hens to fill nine more cages. Many of the individual hens were the most productive because they bullied the other hens into underproduction. The breeders were selecting for the hen version of psychopathic bullies. The cooperative hens, in the meantime, had doubled egg production.' D. Wilson, Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives New York: Delacorte Press, 2007", as quoted in Daly, Herman E. & Farley, Joshua Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, Washington DC, Island Press 2011.		 " Or compare to: "In the context of artificial selection, Muir (1996) and Craig and Muir

(1996) show how yields of intensive chicken farming increase when

chickens are selected based on group rather than individual traits.

Systematically selecting and reproducing individual chickens based on

their egg mass - a feature desirable to farmers - does not maximize the

overall egg mass of a group of chickens (Muir 1996). This is due to the

fact that other individual-level traits can appear, which reduce the

desired outcome at the group level (Griffing 1967). In intensive chicken

farming, individual-level cannibalism appears (Craig 1982), bringing

down the egg mass at the group level. Selecting chicken groups with

higher egg mass therefore procures more success than selecting in-

dividual chickens based on their egg mass." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106838" Briancady413 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)