Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior

Rating:
Summary: The Invisible [Helping] Hand?
Review: Altruism has always been a problem for evolutionists. How does one explain a creature giving up something for another, sometimes its very life? Why, for example, will a monkey give a warning cry that alerts other members of the troop, but that gives away its own position? How could genes governing such behavior persist in the relentless competition for a place in the genome?

The kinds of reasoning used to explain behavior that is good for the group but perhaps not so good for the individual performing it is as old as Darwin. Until George Williams demolished whole classes of argument in his lovely 1966 book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection", it was common to invoke "group selection" as an analog to individual selection, and explain, in a vague, hand-waving sort of way, how altruistic behavior could arise by enhancing the survival of the herd, or school, or flock. And after Dawkins, both the individual and the group were banished from consideration, and the selfish gene reigned supreme.

Only one category of altruism has been taken as consonant with the unit of replication being the gene, namely "kin selection". This is the favoring of relatives: since relatives share genes, helping a gene-mate helps one's own genes, whether or not it benefits one's self. Yet much altruism in nature goes unexplained by kin selection. Think of the soldier who falls on the hand grenade so his (unrelated) buddies can live. There are many more examples from the lives of many creatures, most of whom never saw a war movie. How does one explain the clear patterns of altruistic behavior in animals at all levels of consciousness and cuddliness? Wilson, a biologist, and Sober, a philosopher, dare to think the unthinkable, or at least the unfashionable: is it possible that individuals or groups really do play a replicator role in evolution? They believe that group selection deserves another chance, but this time more rigorously specified.

I was very impressed with the first half of the book, in which they justify a group-selection model for adaptive evolution that can explain a persistent strain of altruism. What they show is that selection can take place at the level of a group of individuals in many more sorts of situations than were thought possible. (A nice bonus of this approach is that kin selection can be explained more simply using this more general context of the group.) Groups, however ephemeral, do have a role to play in selection.

The second half of the book is less convincing, as it involves psychological and philosophical arguments for "psychological altruism" in humans (that is, you not only behave unselfishly, but "want" to behave unselfishly), which, by its very nature, is hard (or very hard) to tease out in experiments, or to introspect to. However, the authors are reasonably convincing that nature would most likely not employ some Rube Goldberg-type of mental devices that depended on hedonism (pleasure-and-pain-driven behavior) to accomplish important tasks, such as child-rearing, but rather build in directly the mechanism to make a parent care to care for its child. In that way, the care of its child would be a primary motivation, rather than an intrumental one (sorry about the jargon!) on the way to getting pleasure or avoiding pain. Parents will find this convincing, as the desire to take care of one's children seems not to depend on how much we "enjoy" doing it.

This book is detailed, conscientious and well-written, but it covers a lot of ground and many of its arguments, especially in the second part, are subtle. So I recommend reading it more than once: this is contentious material. While the authors do not make anything of the political and social implications of their work, these are always waiting in the wings. Altruism, after all, is in direct opposition to selfishness. Many people see in this a political point, and a social point. Those issues are not properly a part of such a work, but do give great interest to its arguments and conclusions. And whether or not its conclusions finally survive intact, this book's arguments and approach seem exemplary and fruitful.

Rating:
Summary: The Groupies' world
Review: Some American scientists will stretch to amazing extremes in their efforts to overcome Darwin. Gould, one of the worst in this regard, set a tone of erosion of natural selection with "punk eek" or "evolution by jerks." Sober and Wilson, less original than Gould, have attempted to resurrect a long-outdated thesis with this work. As they candidly admit in their Introduction, "group selection" as an evolutionary mechanism, was declared moribund over thirty years ago. However, the remainder of the book is an attempt to revive the corpse. In their view, "altruism", although poorly defined by the authors, shifts natural selection from Darwin's original premise, to group interaction leading to optimal survival. It's a feeble effort, self-refuted on nearly every page.

Sober and Wilson offer two major themes: "Evolutionary Altruism" and "Psychological Altruism". The first part nods to the critics of group selection with some deftly selected quotes made to appear as if surrendering to the notion after all. This is a creationist ploy unexpected in a book purporting to be a serious scientific presentation. The authors attempt to temper the old view of group selection with what they term "multilevel selection theory" which they claim offers "new insights". These insights remain vague or missing altogether. Relying on human-based premises makes it immediately suspect. Using our societal standards to explain the behaviour of insects is not insight - it's misapplication of biology.

The second part, by its very title, shifts the focus to humans alone. Psychology of the remainder of the animal kingdom has so far eluded study. The authors focus on the contrast between "hedonism" and "altruism." These would appear self-explanatory, but in the hands of the authors, you are left in great doubt about their intent. Biologically, they concede these are not absolutes. Hence, we are given thoughts on "desires", "thoughts" and "beliefs" which fail to assemble into anything coherent.

Altruism bothered Darwin. In a world of individual "fitness" within an environment, survival and reproduction seemed the sole driving forces. Although "survival" has taken on a wider definition than in Darwin's day, Sober and Wilson seem to have missed the news. They even go so far as to categorise Darwin as "the first group selectionist"! Although the authors confront the reader with ponderous chapter titles ["Motives As Proximate Mechanisms"], appearing to have deep insights, a moment's reflection would have demonstrated to the authors that their thesis is untenable. No matter how much it bothered Darwin himself, altruism isn't fundamental to evolution's process. Their repeated example, the brain worm, is a prime example instead of kin selection which gives the appearance of altruism [the brain worm sibling group sacrifices one of their number that the remainder can propagate. They are 75% genetically the same].

What is most disturbing about this book is using our species to assess all life. If altruism is an evolutionary issue, why do the authors frame their concept on the human condition? They reveal their secret toward the end of the book in discussing "morality". Sober and Wilson struggle to place "morality" as an issue standing apart from natural selection, yet disclose it lies at the foundation of their presentation. There are many good questions offered for thought in this book, but no valid conclusions to adhere to. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Rating:
Summary: The Groupies' world
Review: Some American scientists will stretch to amazing extremes in their efforts to overcome Darwin. Gould, one of the worst in this regard, set a tone of erosion of natural selection with "punk eek" or "evolution by jerks." Sober and Wilson, less original than Gould, have attempted to resurrect a long-outdated thesis with this work. As they candidly admit in their Introduction, "group selection" as an evolutionary mechanism, was declared moribund over thirty years ago. However, the remainder of the book is an attempt to revive the corpse. In their view, "altruism", although poorly defined by the authors, shifts natural selection from Darwin's original premise, to group interaction leading to optimal survival. It's a feeble effort, self-refuted on nearly every page.

Sober and Wilson offer two major themes: "Evolutionary Altruism" and "Psychological Altruism". The first part nods to the critics of group selection with some deftly selected quotes made to appear as if surrendering to the notion after all. This is a creationist ploy unexpected in a book purporting to be a serious scientific presentation. The authors attempt to temper the old view of group selection with what they term "multilevel selection theory" which they claim offers "new insights". These insights remain vague or missing altogether. Relying on human-based premises makes it immediately suspect. Using our societal standards to explain the behaviour of insects is not insight - it's misapplication of biology.

The second part, by its very title, shifts the focus to humans alone. Psychology of the remainder of the animal kingdom has so far eluded study. The authors focus on the contrast between "hedonism" and "altruism." These would appear self-explanatory, but in the hands of the authors, you are left in great doubt about their intent. Biologically, they concede these are not absolutes. Hence, we are given thoughts on "desires", "thoughts" and "beliefs" which fail to assemble into anything coherent.

Altruism bothered Darwin. In a world of individual "fitness" within an environment, survival and reproduction seemed the sole driving forces. Although "survival" has taken on a wider definition than in Darwin's day, Sober and Wilson seem to have missed the news. They even go so far as to categorise Darwin as "the first group selectionist"! Although the authors confront the reader with ponderous chapter titles ["Motives As Proximate Mechanisms"], appearing to have deep insights, a moment's reflection would have demonstrated to the authors that their thesis is untenable. No matter how much it bothered Darwin himself, altruism isn't fundamental to evolution's process. Their repeated example, the brain worm, is a prime example instead of kin selection which gives the appearance of altruism [the brain worm sibling group sacrifices one of their number that the remainder can propagate. They are 75% genetically the same].

What is most disturbing about this book is using our species to assess all life. If altruism is an evolutionary issue, why do the authors frame their concept on the human condition? They reveal their secret toward the end of the book in discussing "morality". Sober and Wilson struggle to place "morality" as an issue standing apart from natural selection, yet disclose it lies at the foundation of their presentation. There are many good questions offered for thought in this book, but no valid conclusions to adhere to. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Rating:
Summary: Evolutionary break through--why races are at war
Review: This book is a continuation of those books that keep moving us closer to where we came from. After decades of wandering in the jungle of postmodernism, we are finally emerging to find our roots. This book is not for the casual reader. But it is an important contribution in understanding the evolution of groupism, why humans go to war, and why belonging to the human race is not enough to bring forth altruism. Altruism evolved as a means of group consolidation of the ingroup, and genocide towards all other groups. This book should be read along with "Demonic Males" to get a good understanding of how altruism evolved.

Rating:
Summary: Evolutionary break through--why races are at war
Review: This book is a continuation of those books that keep moving us closer to where we came from. After decades of wandering in the jungle of postmodernism, we are finally emerging to find our roots. This book is not for the casual reader. But it is an important contribution in understanding the evolution of groupism, why humans go to war, and why belonging to the human race is not enough to bring forth altruism. Altruism evolved as a means of group consolidation of the ingroup, and genocide towards all other groups. This book should be read along with "Demonic Males" to get a good understanding of how altruism evolved.