Social semantics: how useful has group selection been

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of evolutionary biology 2008-01, Vol.21 (1), p.374-385
Main Authors: WEST, S.A, GRIFFIN, A.S, GARDNER, A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
altruism
Animal behavior
conflict
cooperation
direct fitness
Evolutionary biology
inclusive fitness
indirect fitness
kin selection
Semantics
Theory
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1010-061X
1420-9101
DOI:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01458.x