Samuel Pufendorf took over this metaphor in a modern context, meaning something similar, but no longer assuming that philosophy was man's natural perfection. His use, and that of many writers after him, "refers to all the ways in which human beings overcome their original barbarismand through artifice, become fully human.
Max Gerber] I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans.
Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes.
In this essay, I'll explain why I think that this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history.
The problem is that it also obfuscates evolutionary theory by blurring genes, individuals, and groups as equivalent levels in a hierarchy of selectional units; Most importantly, it has placed blinkers on psychological understanding by seducing many people into simply equating morality and culture with group selection, oblivious to alternatives that are theoretically deeper and empirically more realistic.
Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin?
If so, does the theory of natural selection have to be revamped to designate "groups" as units of selection, analogous to the role played in the theory by genes? Several scientists whom I greatly respect have said so in prominent places. And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition.
Wilson explains, "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals.
They suggest that evolution has equipped humans to solve tragedies of the commons also known as collective action dilemmas and public goods gamesin which actions that benefit the individual may harm the community; familiar examples include overfishing, highway congestion, tax evasion, and carbon emissions.
And they have drawn normative moral and political conclusions from these scientific beliefs, such as that we should recognize the wisdom behind conservative values, like religiosity, patriotism, and puritanism, and that we should valorize a communitarian loyalty and sacrifice for the good of the group over an every-man-for-himself individualism.
I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. Why does this matter?
|If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions? | Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life||Do you Have to be Christian to Go to Heaven? Since there are so many religions, which one is right?|
|An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.||Mar 15, Failure to understand and respond appropriately to the normative cultural values of patients can have a variety of adverse clinical consequences: To succeed in this challenge, clinicians must keep in mind that variations occur between cultural subgroups just as individuals subscribe to group norms to varying degrees.|
|Support Us||Interdependence Cultures differ in how much they encourage individuality and uniqueness vs.|
|What's Related||Article Archives Cultural Aspects of Death and Dying While the end of life experience is universal, the behaviors associated with expressing grief are very much culturally bound. Though difficult to ask, there are crucial questions that need to be part of conversations between doctors and nurses and families.|
|Comparing the beliefs of different religions and faith groups||Gregorio Billikopf University of California To all who took the proxemics survey between December and June a warm thank you!|
I'll try to show that it has everything to do with our best scientific understanding of the evolution of life and the evolution of human nature.
And though I won't take up the various moral and political colorings of the debate here I have discussed them elsewhereit ultimately matters for understanding how best to deal with the collective action problems facing our species.
The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion. People invoke it to refer to many distinct phenomena, so casual users may literally not know what they are talking about. I have seen "group selection" used as a loose synonym for the evolution of organisms that live in groups, and for any competition among groups, such as human warfare.
Sometimes the term is needlessly used to refer to an individual trait that happens to be shared by the members of a group; as the evolutionary biologist George Williams noted,"a fleet herd of deer" is really just a herd of fleet deer. And sometimes the term is used as a way of redescribing the conventional gene-level theory of natural selection in different words: In this essay I'll concentrate on the sense of "group selection" as a version of natural selection which acts on groups in the same way that it acts on individual organisms, namely, to maximize their inclusive fitness alternatively, which acts on groups in the same way it acts on genes, namely to increase the number of copies that appear in the next generation; I will treat these formulations as equivalent.
Modern advocates of group selection don't deny that selection acts on individual organisms; they only wish to add that it acts on higher-level aggregates, particularly groups of organisms, as well. For this reason, the theory is often called "multilevel selection" rather than "group selection.
I don't think it makes sense to conceive of groups of organisms in particular, human societies as sitting at the top of a fractal hierarchy with genes at the bottom, with natural selection applying to each level in parallel ways.
First I'll examine the idea that group selection is a viable explanation of the traits of human groups such as tribes, religions, cultures, and nations. Then I'll turn to group selection as an explanation of the traits of individual humans, that is, the intuitions and emotions that make it possible for people to learn their culture and coexist in societies.
No one denies that such faculties exist. Finally I'll examine the empirical phenomena that have been claimed to show that group selection is necessary to explain human altruism. Group selection as an explanation of the traits of groups.
Natural selection is a special explanatory concept in the sciences, worthy, in my view, of Daniel Dennett's designation as "the best idea that anyone ever had.
The core of natural selection is that when replicators arise and make copies of themselves, 1 their numbers will tend, under ideal conditions, to increase exponentially; 2 they will necessarily compete for finite resources; 3 some will undergo random copying errors "random" in the sense that they do not anticipate their effects in the current environment ; and 4 whichever copying errors happen to increase the rate of replication will accumulate in a lineage and predominate in the population.
After many generations of replication, the replicators will show the appearance of design for effective replication, while in reality they have just accumulated the copying errors that had successful replication as their effect.
What's satisfying about the theory is that it is so mechanistic. The copying errors mutations are random more accurately, blind to their effects. The outcome of interest is the number of copies in a finite population.Feb 14, · • Categorized under Language,Words | Difference Between Compare and Contrast compare vs contrast Compare and contrast are words that are often used to talk about the similarities and differences between two things or objects/5(6).
Culture (/ ˈ k ʌ l tʃ ər /) is the social behavior and norms found in human leslutinsduphoenix.come is considered a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of phenomena that are transmitted through social learning in human societies. Cultural universals are found in all human societies; these include expressive forms like art, music, dance, ritual, religion, and technologies like.
Review of Rick Grunder. Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source. Layfayette, New York: Rick Grunder—Books, 2, pp. On CD-ROM. Discovering parallels is inherently an act of comparison.
Through comparison, parallels have been introduced frequently as proof (or evidence) of different issues within Mormon studies. Despite this frequency, very few investigations provide a theoretical or.
The #1 New York Times bestseller, now in paperback. From thought leader Dr. Brené Brown, a transformative new vision for the way we lead, love, work, parent, and educate that teaches us . Failure to understand and respond appropriately to the normative cultural values of patients can have a variety of adverse clinical consequences: reduced participation in preventive screenings, delayed immunizations, inaccurate histories, use of harmful remedies, non-compliance, and decreased satisfaction with care to name a few.
A Comparision of the Western and African Concepts of Time From a web page by Bert Hamminga For the Westerner, there is past, present and future.