Talk:The Selfish Gene/Archive 1

Odds and ends
In terms of the physical laws which result in natural selection occuring, Dawkins does mention the tendency of matter to move to the most stable configuration it can have in its current environment. Not only is there much evidence in terms of thermodynamics that stable states tend to prevail over unstable ones, but it prevents me (v. much a layperson) from being overly influenced by Dawkins' anthropomorphic language. --Edhinton 14:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

--- However, the view that selection on other levels such as organisms and populations almost never opposes selection on genes is increasingly viewed as extreme.

How do you know it is extreme?


 * If there is no evidence, it should be removed. I know there are multi-level selection models, but species selction has never made a comeback, so the sentence should be modified. - JeffBurdges 22:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--- I'm wondering, Do books like the selfish gene actually make the world a better place to live? To be honest, it is quite depressing...
 * Sure it does, its wonderful. If memetics is really true, it allows us to discover how to really make the world a better place. The truth is almost always beautiful and inspirining. - JeffBurdges 14:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to be so pragmatic about truth. Truth can be ugly as well. Linking truth to morality, touchy-feeliness, or whatever isn't science. Let the facts speak for themselves. Cursif 03:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It gives you knowledge and promotes lots of thinking. Like, whether your want to fight your own selfish genes by deciding not to breed. (As listed in the article) Made me laugh and then i thought about it... The genes are part of you. And they are selfish. How strange. Fierywindz 10:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the first chapter (Digital river) and the third chapter (God's utility function) in River out of Eden for answers. Fred Hsu 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut this sentence:
 * Instead of thinking in terms of evolution shaping organisms to reproduce more effectively, it is more accurate to think in terms of those genes which are replicated more effectively being selected.

I see the problems Vicki Rosenzweig saw in the earlier version and while I aprpeciate her efforts, I just don't thin it is salvagable.

First, I think the first sentence of the article is much much clearer, and sufficient. Second, this sentence is obfuscatory, because it reintroduces the issue of evolution. In standard Darwinian theory, evolution acts on species, and natural selection acts on organisms. According to this theory, it is the gene, and not the organism, that natural selection acts on. Very interesting and very clear. The question is, does this change the way evolution itself acts? This is the subject of the second (now deleted) sentence. But I do not think sociobiology requires a radical reformulation of evolutionary theory (beyond the reformulation of natural selection); it does suggest that a different understanding of natural selection helps us understand evolutionary trends, and I think the rest of the article is clear about that.

So it just seems to me that the simplest solution is to get rid of the sentence. Do others agree with me that the article makes sense without it? SR
 * Yes. I'm still concerned about NPOV--is this idea generally accepted by biologists? (The article states it as a given, not one of several competing hypotheses--if that's the case, cool.) Vicki Rosenzweig

I didn't see much resemblance in this article to the book at all, so I thought it deserved a major rewrite. Did any of you folks actually read the book? --Lee Daniel Crocker


 * I did, and I think the article is decent. I just threw in a reference to ESS's, because that's an important focus in the book.  Zensufi 00:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not me. But I always loved the title. It implies via metaphor that the gene has a desire, as if it had intelligence. I enjoy the delicious irony of imputing intelligence to a gene while denying it to God.

Don't worry, I'm not going to wreak havoc in this article. It's very NPOV as it is. User:Ed Poor


 * This is a major improvement -- good job! I don't see any major NPOV issues; I think most biologists accept the notion that the gene is the object of natural selection, and I think the article does a good job of presenting the arguments.


 * I do see one problem in this sentence:
 * Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or will--only that the results of their actions can be described as if they do.
 * Genes do not "act," at least not in the same way as people (I suppose you could say they "act" in the same way as reagents do). I wouldn't make a big deal of this except for the context, which is a sentence that specifically aims to de-anthropomorphize the concept.  The predicate of the sentence therefore has to steer clear of any language that could suggest intentionality.  So I am changing 'actions" to "effects," although I invite LDC to come up with another solution.  SR

You're right, that's what the sentence was trying to do and your wording is better. --LDC

-

I wrote the version that this edit is being based on, and FWIW I have read the book and I have a genetics degree.

This rewrite is an improvement, especially in dealing separately with genetic determinism, but it's still not ideal.

The problem is that the article comes too close to implying that "selfish gene" is Dawkins' provocative spin on evolution and is nothing more than a useful way of looking at the problem.

In fact, the central point of the idea, that the gene is the unit of selection, is a more accurate recasting of evolution than Darwin. Darwin couldn't have explained natural selection in these terms because the basic mechanisms of genetics weren't understood at the time.

To say "most of the time the gene and the organism share common goals" and to treat the selfish gene as explaining certain additional phenomena is understating the case.

What I was groping for is a clear statement that if the selfish gene idea is true, an organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness - the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

As far as NPOV goes, I think the selfish gene idea is accepted as a central tenet of neo-Darwinism. Any mathematical geneticist will view things in terms of inclusive fitness. I know that Gould doesn't accept it, but he is the exception.

So basically, I think we need an article that pushes the importance of the concept more strongly than the current one does.


 * The sentence about the gene and the organism having "common goals" really needs to be changed. One reason why philosophers have picked on Dawkins is this sort of sloppy thinking (mainly, to be fair, from disciples rather than Dawkins himself) about "goals" and "aims" and so on.  Genes don't have goals, the process of evolution will tend to select particular genes - talk about "goals" implies that the genes want to be selected, or act with the intention of being selected.  Organisms, even ones which operate on a very basic mental level, have goals and intentions even if they are driven by instinct rather than rationality, but genes don't.  This is rather like saying "water wants to flow into the sea" - water flows into the sea because of gravity and topology, not because it has the goal of flowing into the sea.  Dawkins protests vigorously that he doesn't impute motives to genes, while using this sort of language which does impute motives, and the article ought to back off from this.  I'll try to think of another way of putting it. --Andrew Norman 14:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * He very clearly says he is using that language merely for convenience, in a way to make it more accessible to laypeople. Unfortunately it seems like his plan backfires and the laypeople take it literally.  :-) - Omegatron 15:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the problem - he spends a lot of time getting himself out of the hole he's dug himself with his use of language (and most of the intemperate attacks, in the seventies in particular, were due to people feeling he had intentionally not dug himself out completely). The Wikipedia article, as it stands, doesn't make it clear that the "selfish" gene isn't literally selfish, and it needs to do that.  As I said, I'll have a think unless someone else comes up with a better way of putting things.--Andrew Norman 16:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've improved the wording somewhat - and I think it's important to put in links to Fisher and Williams, because Dawkins himself would admit that the book is almost entirely based on their theories and research. One thing puzzling me (and I can't find my copy to check) - does the selfish gene theory actually explain "junk DNA"? Surely, if the DNA doesn't express itself, it can't be selected and is therefore not involved in evolution?--Andrew Norman 19:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * pp 44-5 in my edition (1989): "Sex is not the only apparent paradox that becomes less puzzling the moment we learn to think in selfish gene terms. For instance, it appears that the amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: a large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein.  From the point of view of the individual organisms this seems paradoxical.  If the 'purpose' of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing.  Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing.  But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.  The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less.  The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by other DNA."  There is also a mention of it on page 182 and an interesting rebuttal to Gould's argument in the endnotes on page 275.  There is, according to this, a more full discussion of this "junk DNA" in The Extended Phenotype on pp. 156-164.  Finally, Andrew, it seems to me that in Dawkins' explanation, genes need not have an effect on the phenotype.  "Junk DNA" is a specific kind of selfish gene that happens to not have an effect on the phenotype.  They survive, because they have properties which tend to them not being broken up or changed as they pass from one generation to the next. Zensufi 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading it lately (very slowly). Are there common criticisms of the notion? Include if so. - Omegatron 23:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Critique / Clarification
Removed the clarification of the theory as an indeterminist model of causality. The notion of an "indeterminist model of causality" seems oxymoronic.

Also, has anybody ever encountered any critique of the Selfish Gene model? I haven't had time to educate myself fully on the theory, but something about it is making my Spidey sense tingle--it just seems intuitively "off," and I wondered if there was any critical analysis out there.

--Pariah 03:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the book, the alternative theories are things like group selection and species selection, as opposed to "gene selection" which can also be called kin selection. - Omegatron 04:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Omegatron. I suppose there's a certain explanatory value in a gene or kin selection theory, for talking about certain self-sacrificial behaviours.  Something still doesn't sit right about it--my pseudo-science detectors are very suspicious.  I guess I'll have to read the book.  So many books, so little time...  --Pariah 09:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it all "explanatory value"? Yes, I recommend the book.  Do you know of any "opposing" viewpoints that would be in similar books that I could read? - Omegatron 19:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to look at kin selection, and memorise Hamilton's rule. As a trained biologist, I baulk at the idea of group selection.  Adaptation and Natural Selection is quite readable; Dawkins does go over the top a bit sometimes (and most of the book does go into trying to explain what a chromosome is...).  A critique of adaptationism can be found in Not in Our Genes! by Lewontin, Rose and ... (but I'm an unavowed adaptationist).  The big advocate of group selection was V.C. Wynne-Edwards who has a couple of books.  Group selection is generally ignored unless there are high extinction rates of small groups, and there are a few examples, SIV I think is one, but they are few and far between.  Nature is red in tooth and claw.  Dunc|&#9786; 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not even an amateur biologist. I am just telling what I know of the book. - Omegatron 06:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gene-centered view of evolution
This could be merged with the above, since it's not just about a book but an idea. --Erauch 00:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a bad idea. You might as well try to merge Adaptation and Natural Selection, which predates this book by 10 years, or even The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection which is even older.  The book is also significant in terms of memetics and the history of popular science writing. Dunc|&#9786; 11:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. But some of the material not specific to the book or its presentation would fit better in an article on the idea rather than the book. --Erauch 14:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Segregation Distortion
I'm not a biologist but I read up a bit on this. Neither the Wikipedia article or any of the items I read support the position that a Segregation Distortion gene is bad for the host. Anyone want to explain why this is the case (assuming it is true)? If it is not true let's remove it from the article. Robertbrockway 18:49 May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never seen segregation distortion arise in any context other than as very bad genetic disorders, but I'm no biologist either. Your clearly correct that they don't *inherently* harm the animal; getting all your mitochondria from your mother isn't bad for you.  However, it is true that selection pressures act diffrently on any genetic material which cheats, so its much easier for such material to become a disorder.  I've seen people suggest that mitochondrial DNA probably does try to bias towards female children, but that presumably germ line DNA just fights back & is much more powerful.  I've also seen people suggest geneticallly engenering segregation disorders to destroy various populations of pests, say by creating a Y chromosome for a pest which ensured that all sperm would contain the Y, release it into the wild, and watch the species drift towards extinction. - JeffBurdges 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"philosophical and moral questions"
I removed the following sentence from the article:
 * Another criticism of the book is that it attempts to answer philosophical and moral questions that are beyond the scope of the biological arguments presented therein.

First, this sentence not only asserts that the criticism is made, but also that it is valid (in my reading at least). Second, I don't believe that this is a frequent criticism of the book, though I'm open to being corrected. So I'd be happy to see a similar statement included if someone could cite a published criticim using this argument, and reword the assertion to make it clear that the article neither supports nor opposes it. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 00:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--- Lots of critiques are based on Dawkins' philosophical conclusions. For example,  and indeed anything by Mary Midgeley (even though she is a bit too verbose) e.g. sure I can find a lot more people if you need more examples that this is a common criticism. I'd also be surprised to find a philosopher who would believe that it is not valid to criticise somebody for using science to make moral judgements. In fact Dawkins often goes to great pains to refute this by appealing against religion - but this is a straw man imho. cheers, Brendanurbanwarrior 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brendanurbanwarrior that it's a fairly common criticim of Dawkins, so I've readded the sentence, with a link to Mary Midgley. I've changed the wording of the sentence slightly, so I hope that you think it's NPOV- obviously feel free to change it, but I think it needs to be kept in the article. --G Rutter 21:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed a chunk of stuff relating to this. It's downright dishonest to pretend that Midgley wants Dawkins's views "silenced because they may have moral implications" - her point is precisely that the science does not help us with morality, and that Dawkins makes this link despite claiming that he agrees with her (see is-ought problem, which also impacts on the question of whether psychological, game-theoretic or genetic discoveries about behaviour of humans or other animals have anything to say about morality). Midgley's off-course some of the time when she writes about Dawkins, but she does have a very real point and it's one that Dawkins and some of his supporters don't have enough philosophical background to be able to grasp. I count myself as a supporter of Dawkins in many areas, by the way, but he got into a real muddle about the moral implications of genetics when he wrote the introduction to TSG, and he hasn't shown much sign of understanding what the problem is, let alone dealing with it. Midgley's intemperate and occasionally stupid criticisms haven't helped, of course. Fundamentalist Christians don't like evolution and SG theory not because of alleged moral implications, but because the theories disagree with biblical literalism. "Intelligent design" tends to be touted by Christians who aren't fundamentalist in that sense - the types who accept that the world is more than a few thousand years old and was not created by God in seven days, but who still want to get a "god of the gaps" in the rapidly diminishing gaps. It doesn't help to combat ignorance if you confuse different types of ignorance. --ajn (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First, the intelligent design movement internal-ish propoganda quite clearly claims that science like evolution is weakening the moral fiber of the nation. Seems quite clearly parallel to Midgley's critisism.   Actually it seems *more* thought out than Midgley's critisism, although also more incorrect.  Second, I'm not sure I really grasp the point where Dawkins gets into "moral implications".  Yes, many people object tot he fact that he "used the word selfish and had to dig himself out of a hole."  Is that what you mean?  His other major foray into philosophical thought is that understanding the selfish replicators, and the iterated prisoner's dilemma, is necissary if you want to correct flaws in human society.  This idea comes with an extremely high pedigree from serious philosophers, read A Darwinian Left by Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton.  - JeffBurdges 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I should confess that I've never really understood quite why so much ado was made over the is-ought problem. Popper's extremely restrictive definition of science, the ruling out of bad hypotheses, seems to provide just as good a model for transitioning from "is" to "ought" as science. And philosophers actually seem to do this under the name of consequentialism, or consequence utilitarianism. Now I don't really believe that science is exactly as Popper described it, but a pretty useful over simplification, and consequentialism seems similarly useful for a number of serious philosophers. - JeffBurdges 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence for your first sentence? It quite clearly is not parallel to Midgley's criticism, as you'd know if you had read any of her books.  She's very strongly pro-science, but not in favour of scientists making philosophical claims they don't have any grounds for (it's a pity she doesn't take her own advice sometimes, as her own knowledge of science is woefully poor in some areas).  Much of Beast and Man (published in 1980) anticipates Singer's call for a left which takes Darwinian reality into account.  Regarding Dawkins, here is a Desert Island Discs transcript in which he says much the same thing as he does in the introduction to TSG - "You can expect no help from biological nature if you want to be nice and unselfish and generous so we have got to work at being nice, unselfish and generous."  Now he's spent half of the last quarter-century saying that sort of thing (which goes directly against all the work that has been done on game theory, some of which was reported in TSG and more particularly in The Extended Phenotype), and the other half denying that he has ever said that sort of thing.  Here's the Wikipedia article: "Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms."  See the problem?  Where Midgley is spot-on is in identifying this as a conceptual problem with reductionism - things do work differently at different levels, and you have to be extraordinarily careful if you're using the same word to describe different concepts at different levels of organisation.  Dawkins says "genes don't act altruistically towards other genes, so organisms don't naturally act altruistically towards other organisms".  Then he says "I never said that".  --ajn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, they even call it the wedge strategy. I didn't mean parallel in terms of positive/negative views of science, but on wanting it out of philosophy, but I see your point, she doesn't want it out, she just doesn't want philosophy treated naively.  I never really bought "how" Dawkins phrased that stuff about being nice, unselfish, etc., but I always took "we have to work at being nice" to mean, "we have to figure out how to change the game to keep human nature in check".  What else could it mean if your talking about using the IPD to create positive social change (as I believe Dawkins does)?  - JeffBurdges 20:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes as per comments
I read through these comments and implemented some of the contents changes, plus some of my own, and a bunch of language fixes. Mostly, I tried to add some examples and tone down the NPOV portions and unsupported claims. If you have comments about the content changes, it's probably safer to make them here before doing any heavy edits. Alienus 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

AN's revert
Andrew Norman, You have reverted two of my constructive edits, claimed you would justify them on the talk page, and did not do so. Please explain? I'm willing to discuss whether ID should be mentioned around Mary Midgley, but your flat wrong and have not read the book if you think Dawkins "argued for" memetics. At that point in the book, he was quite clearly only making conjecture, and not even claiming to believe it himself. - JeffBurdges 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did justify the reversion, here and amended here. You could try checking the talk page history before flinging these accusations around.  I've read the book several times, thanks.  I've no quarrel with toning down the discussion of memes (though my recollection is that he's at best ambiguous about whether memes could be explained by a "selfish" theory).  Your point about conjecture is interesting, as it's one of Midgley's criticisms of Dawkins and others - a book of solid science, bookended by conjecture and claims which go beyond the arguments as presented, and it's the lurid conjecture which lay readers pick up on as the important ideas, not the science.  --ajn (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'll respond about to that one. Dawkins conjecture about memes is literally "genes may not be the only selfish replicatiors, ideas may be self replicatiors too," and follows the section on another replicator being responcible for the creation of life.  So, yes, it is definitely about a selfish theory.  Its as a negative conjecture about excessive gJKJKJenetic exuberance, which is a valid warning to scientists, and need not be taken to have any philosophical content.  - JeffBurdges 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Iterated prisoner's dilemma
The iterated prisoner's dilemma clearly diserves mention in the 2nd to last paragraph, as it is a major theme of the non-Dawkins philosophical thought which ID and M.M. attacking Dawkins over. I vaguely recall it also being mentioned in the book, in the same hopeful (vaguely pro-but-post Marxist) light where its mentioned everywhere. - JeffBurdges 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. In my last change, I hinted towards the IPD in mentioning that selfish genes can lead to altruistic organisms, but I never did spell out how iteration leads to a more optimial solution to the PD. Someone should do it.  If necessarily, I'll give it a try, but I'd like to step back from this topic for a bit to let others contribute.  I've liked the changes made since mine. Alienus 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Brains and Computers
From Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0192860925; p. 276—Brains and Computers.


 * Note to p. 49 Brains may be regarded as analogous in function to computers. They are analogous in that both types of machines generate complex patterns of output, after analysis of complex patterns of input, and after reference to stored information.


 * Statements like this worry literal-minded critics. They are right, of course, that brains differ in many respects from computers. Their internal methods of working, for instance, happen to be very different from the particular kind of computers that our technology has developed. This in no way reduces the truth of my statement about their being analogous in function. Functionally, the brain plays precisely the role of on-board computer—data processing, pattern recognition, short-term and long-term data storage, operation coordination, and so on.

Yesselman 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Added headers into the article, and a comment
I split the article into secitons to try and make it a little easier to digest when reading. I think the article as it stands is very well written - bravo to the editors! I have read the book and am a great fan, and overall the article represents it well.

My one, if only gripe would be that there is a great deal of explanation given to the criticisms of the book, but not really any mention of the book's popularity. I'd like to see, for instance that it has sold more than a million copies and been translated into over 25 languages - I think that would give the layman a better idea of the impact the book originally made 30 years ago? Thoughts, please! Thanks. Mushintalk 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody replied, so I've carried out the edits myself. Mushintalk 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seminal?
I've removed the "seminal" addition - Dawkins himself admits in the book that most of what's in it came from Williams, Hamilton and others. It's a popularisation and summary, not a piece of wholly original theory (which doesn't mean it's a bad book, far from it - but The Extended Phenotype is more about Dawkins's own ideas). The article probably needs to make that plainer. --ajn (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Blind Watchmaker now, that has more of a claim, although again Dawkins reasonably drew on the shoulders of giants to produce it. Origin of Species, the sequel.  Midgley 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unit of selection
The article Unit of selection seems to have major Gould? POV inspired errors, conflaits individual & gene level selection, etc. JeffBurdges 11:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an older more correct vresion, but its also very short, and significantly overstated Dawkins contributions. JeffBurdges 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

removed info about band
I've removed a brief paragraph about a band from Madison, WI named The Selfish Gene (after this book). I don't believe they are of more than local interest - please see WP:MUSIC. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mushintalk 00:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I changed the wording in the title section to Although accepted by biologists as somewhat mainstream now, it was considered quite controversial when it was first published in 1976. The original version stated that it is a somewhat controversial book.

This has now been changed back.

Most biology and evolutionary books can be considered controversial to at least some people, specifically religious people. But in terms of the The Selfish Gene when it was first published the relevant (to evolution/biology)aspect of it’s controversy was that it promoted a gene-centric view of evolution during a time when thinking in this field was dominated by individual and group selection arguments.

However as Dawkins' arguments are no longer new and have been integrated into current evloutionary boiology (most evolutionists now think in terms of a combination of individual, kin and group selection in with a view to how they are affected by genes) I don't think it's fair to say the book IS a very controversial one.

Thus my revision made clear that what WAS a controversial theory when it was first published is now considered less so. Whereas the original merely states the book IS controversial without saying who it's controversial to and why. - GB

80.195.35.180 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that selfish gene theory should not really be considered controversial any more, but the fact remains that it does still arouse controversy all these years on. Thank you for your input. Laurence Boyce 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)