Group selection has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 10, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "Multilevel selection theory" E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson are confused. This needs clarification. Two examples:
"Wilson and Sober's work revived interest in multilevel selection. In a 2005 article,[35] E. O. Wilson argued ..." The Co-author of Sober is David Sloan Wilson
"not requiring Hamilton's original assumption of direct genealogical relatedness, is used, as proposed by E. O. Wilson himself.[40]" Reference points to David Sloan Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46C1:E200:ED69:28B1:12AB:B1CF ( talk) 07:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Group 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a major revision of this page to explain some of the controversy that is associated with the idea of group selection. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, please let me know to discuss it before reverting.
Thanks and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Chiswick Chap but I'm not sure why you put them on my Talk page rather than on the Talk page for the page that is being edited. If there is a reason that you put them on my talk page, please let me know if this is a breach of courtesy. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep the comments here. Wcrea6 ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Copied from user:wcrea6 Talk page:
I will try to address these questions, so please let me know if my response doesn't address your issues.
For the first comment:
The above sentence is a summary comment about the following section, which I considered to be unclear and hard to understand. In addition to being strictly referenced, a Wikipedia article should be readable and understandable to a layman. If the summary or paraphrase is unacceptable, let me know and let me know exactly what part of the sentence you find objectionable.
Comment 2:
You are correct with this comment. I will have to search longer to find where it came from. I may have lost the reference in a copy and paste. For the moment, I've deleted it from the text.
Comment 3:
You are correct with this comment. I deleted it, as I don't have a reference at the moment.
Thanks for your feedback, and thanks for not reverting my edits on the basis of these three comments. Wcrea6 ( talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Anthropologists have worked on an alternative explanation to kin selection from studies of human culture that involves nurture kinship. Holland's Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship [1] discusses biological inclusive fitness theory. The expression of social traits in primates and humans doesn't necessarily depend on conditions of genetic relatedness. For the vast majority of social mammals—including primates and humans—the formation of social bonds (and the resulting social cooperation) are based on familiarity from an early developmental stage. Genetic relatedness is not necessary for the attachment bonds to develop, and it is the performance of nurture that underlies such bonds and the enduring social cooperation that typically accompanies them. The nurture kinship perspective leads to the synthesis of evolutionary biology, psychology, and socio-cultural anthropology on the topic of social bonding and cooperation, without reductionism or positing a deterministic role to genes or genetic relatedness in the mechanisms through which social behaviors are expressed. [1]
The 'nurture kinship' perspective does not necessarily mean that human non-blood relationships such as the relationships based on nurturing are more important than the ones based on blood-kinship. Herbert Gintis, in his review of the book Sex at Dawn, critiques the idea that human males were unconcerned with parentage, "which would make us unlike any other species I can think of". [2]
(end copy) Wcrea6 ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Starsandwhales ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. If there's anything that I need to comment on, it's at the end of the review.
starsandwhales (
talk) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Everything looks good! This was a really interesting article, and I learned quite a bit. starsandwhales ( talk) 17:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to change the section now titled "Criticism" to "Reception" and add the following from this article by Wilson: "A 2014 survey of anthropologists from PhD granting departments found that the majority accepted group selection as an important force in human cultural evolution". Do you agree or disagree? AndrewOne ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
In the paragraph explaining inclusive fitness, the article says
Something is wrong with this sentence. I don't know enough to be able to fix it. AxelBoldt ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not a biologist or particularly familiar with bees, but shouldn’t the “possible” in the following part of the second paragraph be “impossible”?
“social insects like honeybees (in the Hymenoptera), where kin selection was possible.“ 2601:646:9B00:3BF0:1475:BC5B:9D17:98 ( talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This source looks like a good one to integrate into this article: Yaworsky W, Horowitz M, Kickham K. 2014. Gender and Politics Among Anthropologists in the Units of Selection Debate. Biological Theory:1-11. Posting here in the hopes that someone else might beat me to it and/or for discussion. - Pengortm ( talk) 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have added a "new" reference to the text book Animal Behavior by John Alcock (11th edition) as a citation what is the consensus on group selection rather do such synthesis ourselves. Apparently this warrants discussion. I have quoted it at length so all can read it rather than take my word for it. Cheers. Mvolz ( talk) 14:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The following does not clearly relay what was done, why, and how: "An experiment by William Muir compared egg productivity in hens, showing that a hyper-aggressive strain had been produced through individual selection, leading to many fatal attacks after only six generations; by implication, it could be argued that group selection must have been acting to prevent this in real life." Please compare to: "A Curious Study Regarding Chicken Breeding:
"Box 13-7 Cooperation or Competition? The Chicken and the Egg. 'Chicken breeders did an interesting experiment that sheds some light on the cooperation versus competition question. The goal of the chicken breeders was to increase egg production in chickens. They used two approaches, each beginning with nine cages of full of hens. In the first approach, the breeders selected the most productive hen from eachof the nine cages, then used these hens to produce enough chickens to fill another nine cages. In the second approach, the breeders selected the cage that produced the most eggs, and used these hens to produce enough chickens to to fill another nine cages. They continued the experiment for six generations. Which approach resulted in the greatest increase in egg production? As it turned out, the experiment was truncated after six generations because the treatment using the most productive hen from each cage could no longer produce enough hens to fill nine more cages. Many of the individual hens were the most productive because they bullied the other hens into underproduction. The breeders were selecting for the hen version of psychopathic bullies. The cooperative hens, in the meantime, had doubled egg production.' D. Wilson, Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives New York: Delacorte Press, 2007", as quoted in Daly, Herman E. & Farley, Joshua Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, Washington DC, Island Press 2011. "
Or compare to: "In the context of artificial selection, Muir (1996) and Craig and Muir
(1996) show how yields of intensive chicken farming increase when
chickens are selected based on group rather than individual traits.
Systematically selecting and reproducing individual chickens based on
their egg mass - a feature desirable to farmers - does not maximize the
overall egg mass of a group of chickens (Muir 1996). This is due to the
fact that other individual-level traits can appear, which reduce the
desired outcome at the group level (Griffing 1967). In intensive chicken
farming, individual-level cannibalism appears (Craig 1982), bringing
down the egg mass at the group level. Selecting chicken groups with
higher egg mass therefore procures more success than selecting in-
dividual chickens based on their egg mass." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106838" Briancady413 ( talk) 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Group selection has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 10, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "Multilevel selection theory" E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson are confused. This needs clarification. Two examples:
"Wilson and Sober's work revived interest in multilevel selection. In a 2005 article,[35] E. O. Wilson argued ..." The Co-author of Sober is David Sloan Wilson
"not requiring Hamilton's original assumption of direct genealogical relatedness, is used, as proposed by E. O. Wilson himself.[40]" Reference points to David Sloan Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46C1:E200:ED69:28B1:12AB:B1CF ( talk) 07:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Group 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a major revision of this page to explain some of the controversy that is associated with the idea of group selection. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, please let me know to discuss it before reverting.
Thanks and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Chiswick Chap but I'm not sure why you put them on my Talk page rather than on the Talk page for the page that is being edited. If there is a reason that you put them on my talk page, please let me know if this is a breach of courtesy. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep the comments here. Wcrea6 ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Copied from user:wcrea6 Talk page:
I will try to address these questions, so please let me know if my response doesn't address your issues.
For the first comment:
The above sentence is a summary comment about the following section, which I considered to be unclear and hard to understand. In addition to being strictly referenced, a Wikipedia article should be readable and understandable to a layman. If the summary or paraphrase is unacceptable, let me know and let me know exactly what part of the sentence you find objectionable.
Comment 2:
You are correct with this comment. I will have to search longer to find where it came from. I may have lost the reference in a copy and paste. For the moment, I've deleted it from the text.
Comment 3:
You are correct with this comment. I deleted it, as I don't have a reference at the moment.
Thanks for your feedback, and thanks for not reverting my edits on the basis of these three comments. Wcrea6 ( talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Anthropologists have worked on an alternative explanation to kin selection from studies of human culture that involves nurture kinship. Holland's Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship [1] discusses biological inclusive fitness theory. The expression of social traits in primates and humans doesn't necessarily depend on conditions of genetic relatedness. For the vast majority of social mammals—including primates and humans—the formation of social bonds (and the resulting social cooperation) are based on familiarity from an early developmental stage. Genetic relatedness is not necessary for the attachment bonds to develop, and it is the performance of nurture that underlies such bonds and the enduring social cooperation that typically accompanies them. The nurture kinship perspective leads to the synthesis of evolutionary biology, psychology, and socio-cultural anthropology on the topic of social bonding and cooperation, without reductionism or positing a deterministic role to genes or genetic relatedness in the mechanisms through which social behaviors are expressed. [1]
The 'nurture kinship' perspective does not necessarily mean that human non-blood relationships such as the relationships based on nurturing are more important than the ones based on blood-kinship. Herbert Gintis, in his review of the book Sex at Dawn, critiques the idea that human males were unconcerned with parentage, "which would make us unlike any other species I can think of". [2]
(end copy) Wcrea6 ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Starsandwhales ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. If there's anything that I need to comment on, it's at the end of the review.
starsandwhales (
talk) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Everything looks good! This was a really interesting article, and I learned quite a bit. starsandwhales ( talk) 17:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to change the section now titled "Criticism" to "Reception" and add the following from this article by Wilson: "A 2014 survey of anthropologists from PhD granting departments found that the majority accepted group selection as an important force in human cultural evolution". Do you agree or disagree? AndrewOne ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
In the paragraph explaining inclusive fitness, the article says
Something is wrong with this sentence. I don't know enough to be able to fix it. AxelBoldt ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not a biologist or particularly familiar with bees, but shouldn’t the “possible” in the following part of the second paragraph be “impossible”?
“social insects like honeybees (in the Hymenoptera), where kin selection was possible.“ 2601:646:9B00:3BF0:1475:BC5B:9D17:98 ( talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This source looks like a good one to integrate into this article: Yaworsky W, Horowitz M, Kickham K. 2014. Gender and Politics Among Anthropologists in the Units of Selection Debate. Biological Theory:1-11. Posting here in the hopes that someone else might beat me to it and/or for discussion. - Pengortm ( talk) 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have added a "new" reference to the text book Animal Behavior by John Alcock (11th edition) as a citation what is the consensus on group selection rather do such synthesis ourselves. Apparently this warrants discussion. I have quoted it at length so all can read it rather than take my word for it. Cheers. Mvolz ( talk) 14:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The following does not clearly relay what was done, why, and how: "An experiment by William Muir compared egg productivity in hens, showing that a hyper-aggressive strain had been produced through individual selection, leading to many fatal attacks after only six generations; by implication, it could be argued that group selection must have been acting to prevent this in real life." Please compare to: "A Curious Study Regarding Chicken Breeding:
"Box 13-7 Cooperation or Competition? The Chicken and the Egg. 'Chicken breeders did an interesting experiment that sheds some light on the cooperation versus competition question. The goal of the chicken breeders was to increase egg production in chickens. They used two approaches, each beginning with nine cages of full of hens. In the first approach, the breeders selected the most productive hen from eachof the nine cages, then used these hens to produce enough chickens to fill another nine cages. In the second approach, the breeders selected the cage that produced the most eggs, and used these hens to produce enough chickens to to fill another nine cages. They continued the experiment for six generations. Which approach resulted in the greatest increase in egg production? As it turned out, the experiment was truncated after six generations because the treatment using the most productive hen from each cage could no longer produce enough hens to fill nine more cages. Many of the individual hens were the most productive because they bullied the other hens into underproduction. The breeders were selecting for the hen version of psychopathic bullies. The cooperative hens, in the meantime, had doubled egg production.' D. Wilson, Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives New York: Delacorte Press, 2007", as quoted in Daly, Herman E. & Farley, Joshua Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, Washington DC, Island Press 2011. "
Or compare to: "In the context of artificial selection, Muir (1996) and Craig and Muir
(1996) show how yields of intensive chicken farming increase when
chickens are selected based on group rather than individual traits.
Systematically selecting and reproducing individual chickens based on
their egg mass - a feature desirable to farmers - does not maximize the
overall egg mass of a group of chickens (Muir 1996). This is due to the
fact that other individual-level traits can appear, which reduce the
desired outcome at the group level (Griffing 1967). In intensive chicken
farming, individual-level cannibalism appears (Craig 1982), bringing
down the egg mass at the group level. Selecting chicken groups with
higher egg mass therefore procures more success than selecting in-
dividual chickens based on their egg mass." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106838" Briancady413 ( talk) 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)