Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:36:43.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Notion of ‘Group’ and Tests of Group Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ayelet Shavit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the empirical aspect of the debates over group selection. I argue that specific narrow readings of the notion of ‘group’ result in a deficient experimentation of the group selection process. Criteria for empirical testability are presented and used to reexamine two well-known experiments of group selection. I argue that the former holds a narrow image of ‘group’ that does not distinguish group selection from selection at other levels; while the latter holds a multifaceted image of ‘group’ that offers a way to achieve substantive progress in the debate. However, most supporters and opponent of group selection maintain a narrow and restricted image of ‘group’, which implicitly undermines informative details regarding population dynamics and population structure. These details may improve our understanding of the evolution of altruism and the evolution of sociality. To conclude, adopting a wide-ranging meaning of ‘group’ may empirically advance the group selection debates.

Type
Topics in Evolutionary Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1052 - 1063
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. (1992), “Punishment Allows the Evolution of Cooperation (or Anything Else) in Sizable Groups”, Punishment Allows the Evolution of Cooperation (or Anything Else) in Sizable Groups 13:171–195.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Dan, and Eshel, Ilan (1976), “On the Founder Effect and the Evolution of Altruistic Traits”, On the Founder Effect and the Evolution of Altruistic Traits 10:276–302.Google ScholarPubMed
Craig, D. M. (1982) “Group Selection versus Individual Selection: An Experimental Analysis”, Group Selection versus Individual Selection: An Experimental Analysis 36:271–282.Google ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee A. (1997), Cooperation among Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee A., and Mesterton-Gibbons, Michael (1996), “Cooperation among Unrelated Individuals: Reciprocal Altruism, Byproduct Mutualism, and Group Selection in Fishes”, Cooperation among Unrelated Individuals: Reciprocal Altruism, Byproduct Mutualism, and Group Selection in Fishes 37:19–30.Google Scholar
Grafen, Allen (1984), “Natural Selection, Kin Selection, and Group Selection”, in Krebs, J. R. and Davis, N. B. (eds.), Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell, 62–84.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (1998), “The Case for Epigenetic Inheritance in Evolution”, The Case for Epigenetic Inheritance in Evolution 11:193–200.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (2000a), “Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance”, Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance 67:348–368.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (2000b), “The Units of Evolutionary Transition”, The Units of Evolutionary Transition 1:67–80.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R., and Wade, Michael J. (2000), “Population Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulation Level”, Population Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulation Level 15:1–17.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William. D. (1975), “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics”, in Fox, Robin (ed.), Biosocial Anthropology. New York: Halsted Press, 133–155.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Individuality and Selection 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Kerr, Benjamin, and Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2002), “Individualist and Multi-level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations”, Individualist and Multi-level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations 17:477–517.Google Scholar
Kukuk, P., and Sage, G. (1994), “Reproductivity and Relatedness in a Bommunal Halictine Bee Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) hemichalceum”, Reproductivity and Relatedness in a Bommunal Halictine Bee Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) hemichalceum 41:443–455.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1970), “The Units of Selection”, The Units of Selection 1:1–17.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elizabeth A. (1994), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elizabeth A. (2001), “Units and Levels of Selection: An Anatomy of the Units of Selection Debates”, in Singh, Rama S., Krimbas, Costas B., Paul, Diane B., and Beatty, John (eds.), Thinking about Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elizabeth A. (2005), “Why the Gene Will Not Return”, Why the Gene Will Not Return 72:287–310.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987a), “How to Model Evolution”, in Dupré, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–131.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987b), “Reply to Sober”, in Dupré, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 147–149.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John, and Szathmáry, Eörs (1995), The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Michod, Richard E. (1999), Darwinian Dynamics, Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin A., and Sigmund, Karl (1998), “Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring”, Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring 393:573–576.Google ScholarPubMed
Okasha, Samir (2001), “Why Won’t the Group Selection Controversy Go Away?”, Why Won’t the Group Selection Controversy Go Away? 52:25–50.Google Scholar
Rissing, Steven W., Pollock, Gregory B., and Higgins, Mark R. (1996), “Fate of Ant Foundress Associations Containing ‘Cheaters’”, Fate of Ant Foundress Associations Containing ‘Cheaters’ 83:182–185.Google Scholar
Rissing, Steven W., Pollock, Gregory B., Higgins, Mark R., Hagen, Robert H., and Smith, Deborah Roan (1989), “Foraging Specialization without Relatedness or Dominance among Cofounding Ant Queens”, Foraging Specialization without Relatedness or Dominance among Cofounding Ant Queens 338:420–422.Google Scholar
Shavit, Ayelet (2001), “Diversity of Selection Processes in the Evolution of Cooperation”, Diversity of Selection Processes in the Evolution of Cooperation 2:223–236.Google Scholar
Shavit, Ayelet (2004) “Shifting Values Partly Explain the Debate over Group Selection”, Shifting Values Partly Explain the Debate over Group Selection 35:697–720.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Lewontin, Richard C. (1982), “Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selecion”, Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selecion 49:157–180.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan (1998), Unto Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traniello, James F. A., Fujita, Marty S., and Bowen, Rhus V. (1984), “Ant Foraging Behavior: Ambient Temperature Influences Prey Selection”, Ant Foraging Behavior: Ambient Temperature Influences Prey Selection 15:65–68.Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert (1971), “The Evolution of Altruism”, The Evolution of Altruism 46:35–57.Google Scholar
Uyenoyama, M., and Feldman, M. W (1980), “Theories of Kin and Group Selection: A Population Genetics Perspective”, Theories of Kin and Group Selection: A Population Genetics Perspective 17:380–414.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1976), “Group Selection among Laboratory Populations of Tribolium”, Group Selection among Laboratory Populations of Tribolium 73:4604–4607.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1977), “An Experimental Study of Group Selection”, An Experimental Study of Group Selection 31:134–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1980), “An Experimental Study of Kin Selection”, An Experimental Study of Kin Selection 34:844–855.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1985), “Soft Selection, Hard Selection, Kin Selection, and Group Selection”, Soft Selection, Hard Selection, Kin Selection, and Group Selection 125:61–73.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J., and Griesemer, James R. (1998), “Population Heritability: Empirical Studies of Evolution in Metapopulations”, Population Heritability: Empirical Studies of Evolution in Metapopulations 151:135–147.Google Scholar
Williams, George C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, David Sloan (1983), “The Group Selection Controversy: History and Current Status”, The Group Selection Controversy: History and Current Status 14:159–187.Google Scholar
Wilson, David Sloan, and Sober, Elliott (1989), “Reviving the Superorganism”, Reviving the Superorganism 136:337–356.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, David Sloan, and Sober, Elliott (1994), “Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences”, Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences 17:585–654.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1997), “Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristics for Finding Emergence”, Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristics for Finding Emergence 67 (Proceedings): S372–S384.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall (1945), “Tempo and Mode in Evolution: A Critical Review” (review of Tempo and Mode in Evolution by George. G. Simpson), Ecology 26:415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar