Talk:Kin selection

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Decasg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

aside darwin, why not move fisher/haldane/hamilton to a "history" section?
darwin needs to be in the introduction...

but why not moving fisher/haldane/hamilton to a "history" section immediately following the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the situation is slightly different from that. The lead (introduction, overview) is supposed to be max 4 paragraphs, and only to summarize what is written in the rest of the article, so it does not need (aka should not have) references and should not therefore say anything doubtful.


 * From this, it's clear that this article does not exactly have a lead section at all - it is more of a historical introduction. I'd be happy with renaming it "Introduction" or "Overview" (not sure if it's exactly a "History" - that might mean turning it into 2 new sections ? - and then (someone) writing a new lead section to precis the article. If you feel like working on that, go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk)


 * I agree that the lead is too inaccessible and this is partly due to the involvement of overly-specialised editors who tend to remove any elementary expressions that provide a historical overview. It should certainly incorporate the historic refinements to evolutionary theory that go from Darwinian ideas of competition and survival of the fittest which produces the apparent paradox of altruism to the reconciliation that kin selection provides by incorporating the concept of genes (or smaller units) being the specific replicating units being selected for. Shyamal (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. All right, I'll be bold and draft a new lead, renaming the existing one to "Historic overview" (to combine the idea of history and current affairs, more or less, agree it's a bit klunky but anyone can improve it). Please improve my efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
This section badly needs to be rewritten as it hardly can be seen as NPOV (no matter if the factual information is right or wrong).


 * OK, I've copy-edited it for neutrality. It seems to report fairly plainly what happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Curtd59 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) In the context of intellectual history, this section reflects a postmodern cum marxist, cum cosmopolitan advocacy of pseudoscience as part of the postmodern attempt to displace the study of Darwin (See Macdonald, See Hicks). All creatures in all cases, demonstrate kin selection, meaning limits to transfers, and decreasing cooperation with genetic distance. All human societies no matter how mixed demonstrate this behavior except on the margins where mating across groups produces status benefits, or provides access to superior out-group mates (white males and asian females for example). And applies equally within group to social classes. Cross mating increases with the adoption of the nuclear family structure (fragmentation) and declines with the retention of the traditional family. Furthermore, there is no conflict between kin selection and multi-level selection, since both occur for different reasons. The fact that we must constantly defend the knowledge economy against mysticism is one thing. The fact that we must defend it against politically motivated advocacy of pseudoscience is somehow worse.


 * All that is interesting and as may be, but this is not a forum for discussing the science or other matters. Our only interest here (as on all article talk pages) is to establish what the article should cover, using reliable sources. If you are familiar with the work of Macdonald and Hicks then why not edit the section and cite them as needed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

How related are we?
Article says "If you save a grandchild or a nephew, the advantage is only two and a half to one. If you only save a first cousin, the effect is very slight."

Yet even cats share 90% of our genes, which are rather more distant relatives than a cousin. How does the math of "shared genes" really work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.27 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kin 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/20070928003342/http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pdf/West_etal_06_altruism.pdf to http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pdf/West_etal_06_altruism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928145433/http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/coev/pdf/charpentier/Charpentier%20et%20al%2008%20Int%20J%20Primatol.pdf to http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/coev/pdf/charpentier/Charpentier%20et%20al%2008%20Int%20J%20Primatol.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211032629/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v154/ai_21156998 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v154/ai_21156998
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803214955/http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF to http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF

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) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What is kin selection?
The first sentence states that kin selection is an evolutionary strategy. I think this is incorrect - Kin selection is a mechanism of evolution in the same way as natural selection. Kin selection operates when interacting individuals are related, and the phenotype of one individual affects the direct fitness of other individuals.

In all realistic populations interacting individuals are positively related because dispersal is limited, and individuals in the same area should have some recent common ancestor. All cooperative and competitive phenotypes will be shaped by kin selection, which makes kin selection the most general mechanism of evolution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk Tasmania (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Human materials
I've grouped the 'Human' materials in the article under 3 subsection headings. However, too much of it consists of uninterpreted primary research reports, i.e. A studied X, B studied Y, C studied Z: all basically close to useless and unencyclopedic. What we need is 'Hypothesis H is supported by A's study of X', etc. The article already has a substantial 'theory' section but it's only weakly connected to the many post-Hamilton studies, so the article's structure as a connected argument is, well, weak and rambling. We need the evidence to support (or refute) the theory, not go on about who worked on what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

derivation
Please define all variables. What is p? What do the subscripts mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.11.194 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Mm, you're talking about the unintroduced and uncited "Derivation" section. You are correct, those variables aren't defined or explained. Actually, at least 10 derivations have been made in the literature, see Nowak et al, 2017 (its refs 1 to 10 each offer their own distinct derivation). The uncited example of a derivation is WP:OR at worst, random editorial selection from the field at best. If editors feel that a section on derivations is justified, then it must tour the field, cite the major papers, and cite secondary (review) articles that compare and contrast the different derivations. Nowak et al, by the way, is not neutral as it seeks to reject Hamilton's rule altogether, a 1% minority view among biologists. I've removed the derivation as hopelessly unbalanced and uncited, without prejudice to the creation of a suitable section as outlined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)