Premium
Social semantics: how useful has group selection been?
Author(s) -
WEST S. A.,
GRIFFIN A. S.,
GARDNER A.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of evolutionary biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.289
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1420-9101
pISSN - 1010-061X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01458.x
Subject(s) - group selection , selection (genetic algorithm) , confusion , kin selection , biology , group (periodic table) , semantics (computer science) , inclusive fitness , order (exchange) , epistemology , evolutionary biology , computer science , artificial intelligence , psychology , chemistry , organic chemistry , programming language , philosophy , finance , psychoanalysis , economics
In our social semantics review ( J. Evol. Biol. , 2007, 415–432), we discussed some of the misconceptions and sources of confusion associated with group selection. Wilson (2007, this issue) claims that we made three errors regarding group selection. Here, we aim to expand upon the relevant points from our review in order to refute this claim. The last 45 years of research provide clear evidence of the relative use of the kin and group selection approaches. Kin selection methodologies are more tractable, allowing the construction of models that can be applied more easily to specific biological examples, including those chosen by Wilson to illustrate the utility of the group selection approach. In contrast, the group selection approach is not only less useful, but also appears to frequently have negative consequences by fostering confusion that leads to wasted effort. More generally, kin selection theory allows the construction of a unified conceptual overview that can be applied across all taxa, whereas there is no formal theory of group selection.