From a Darwinian standpoint rape advantages the rapist, but evidently not his victim — Olivier5
Said more crudely, a book making more or less the same Hamiltonian case about how our social behavior might have some evolutionary background rather than be pure 'nurture', but titled "The Altruistic Gene" would not have sold so well in the late seventies. — Olivier5
Alltruisitic behavior can benefit the speciies, the clan, the tribe - which means that genes in the group continue, and since other people in your group will also take care of you, your genes benefit. S, genes in your body, genes that are the same as yours or close in other bodies, and your species all benefit. Social mammals were all doing extremely well until one social mammal - us - got out of hand and started killing most of the others that they were not raising for food.Extending Dawkins' metaphor, an altruistic gene would be a gene that sacrificed itself for the sake of another gene. Such a gene could then not be passed down to future generations. It makes no sense, so apparently the attraction to the idea is emotive, not scientific. — Kenosha Kid
Alltruisitic behavior can benefit the speciies, the clan, the tribe - which means that genes in the group continue, and since other people in your group will also take care of you, your genes benefit. — Coben
From a genetic standpoint, the rapist benefits iff there are viable offspring iff the victim benefits too. — Pfhorrest
The dislike for the idea of a gene behaving as if it were selfish, even though that is a useful metaphor for the actual behaviour, — Kenosha Kid
Not just. It could be a gene that 'collaborates' with other genes for an optimal outcome... A gene that works as part of a whole, like each player in an orchestra. Or it could be a metaphor for a gene (or set of alleles to be precise) that induces some capacity to empathy and altruism. Or it could mean that some of our collaborative and positive traits have been selected as efficacious, somehow, for the survival of the group.an altruistic gene would be a gene that sacrificed itself for the sake of another gene. — Kenosha Kid
And the interesting thing is that various species use quite different approaches, some could be labelled altruistic (individual to individual), some could be labeled selfish. — Coben
Her point -- and I think it is correct -- is precisely that it is NOT a useful metaphor. That a better metaphor would be that the genes are strong (i.e. efficacious). — Olivier5
Interesting... What pedagogic power, may I ask?Well it is a useful metaphor, insofar as it has pedagogical power — Kenosha Kid
She makes a series of points, to be fair. One is that indeed Dawkins is ambiguous on the metaphor thing. Another points is that even if it was just a metaphor (which it's not), the 'selfish genes' idea would be a luridly simplistic and misleading metaphor, that it misrepresents the scientific knowledge about ethology and evolution. Yet another point is that doing so is immoral, as it leads Dawkins' readers to either rationalise and amplify their most selfish behaviors (if they are 'winners' in the economic game, their genes deserve it), or to fatalism (if they are 'losers' in this game, that's because they have losers genes).Also, that was not her point. Her point rests on pretending that the metaphor is not a metaphor, such that she can construct the straw man that the selfish gene idea is some kind of social Darwinism and attack that straw man.
Interesting... What pedagogic power, may I ask? — Olivier5
One is that indeed Dawkins is ambiguous on the metaphor thing — Olivier5
Another points is that even if it was just a metaphor (which it's not) — Olivier5
the 'selfish genes' idea would be a luridly simplistic and misleading metaphor, that it misrepresents the scientific knowledge about ethology and evolution — Olivier5
Yet another point is that doing so is immoral, as it leads Dawkins' readers to either rationalise and amplify their most selfish behaviors (if they are 'winners' in the economic game, their genes deserve it), or to fatalism (if they are 'losers' in this game, that's because they have losers genes). — Olivier5
So, apparently, if we want to study (say) dances, we should stop asking what dances do for people and should ask only what they do for themselves. We shall no longer ask to what particular human tastes and needs they appeal, how people use them, how they are related to the other satisfactions of life, what feelings they express or what needs cause people to change
them. Instead, presumably, we shall ask why dances, if they wanted a host, decided to parasitize people rather then elephants or octopuses.
And where is the selfishness coming from? It's in the eye of the beholder. A better metaphor would be: alleles that survived were historically better at 'propagating themselves' [metaphorically] than those that didn't survive. That says nothing about their inherent selfishness or altruism. It's a good scientific metaphor. Much better though less dramatic than some Chicago mafioso metaphor, so less appealing to the kids.Thus metaphorically genes are adapting to propagate themselves. ... This is a useful metaphor. — Kenosha Kid
Midgley quotes a few.I recall no such instruction from Dawkins' book to cease taking genetic selfishness metaphorically, do you? — Kenosha Kid
that it misrepresents the scientific knowledge about ethology and evolution — Olivier5
What part of "it misrepresents the scientific knowledge about ethology and evolution" did you fail to understand?No. That's treating the metaphor as being literal. You do understand what a metaphor is, right? — Kenosha Kid
It does not, for instance, eradicate the view that humans themselves are intrinsically altruistic. — Kenosha Kid
And where is the selfishness coming from? It's in the eye of the beholder. — Olivier5
Midgley quotes a few. — Olivier5
What part of "it misrepresents the scientific knowledge about ethology and evolution" did you fail to understand? — Olivier5
Why, I think it does, by saying that any altruism in transactional, a desguised selfishness. — Olivier5
When we describe this behaviour as "selfish" metaphorically, it does not make sense to ask where this selfishness came from as if it were a literal thing. Do you understand? — Kenosha Kid
What I understand is that the metaphor of "selfish gene" maps to itself, it has no content, nothing that it is alluding to other than itself. — Olivier5
Okay so it means "natural selection works on genes, eliminates the weak ones, and keeps the strong". Fair enough.
The Strong Gene, then. — Olivier5
Thus metaphorically genes are adapting to propagate themselves. Even if the biological characteristic is altruistic, such as human altruism, the genes responsible for that altruism are individually adapting to increase their own longevity. — Kenosha Kid
And that's anthropomorphism, an inability to reconcile the literal fundamental altruism of humans and the metaphorical selfishness of genes. Genes aren't people. Metaphors aren't literally true. — Kenosha Kid
The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in our genes is ruthless selfishness. . . Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish (pp. 2-3, my italics). — Midgeley quoting Dawkins
And because genes are not literally selfish, we are not born selfish. — unenlightened
Metaphors aren't literally true. The world is not literally highly competitive, and this does not entitle us to expect certain qualities in our genes, like ruthless selfishness, because it's a metaphor, and so genes are not literally ruthless or selfish. And because genes are not literally selfish, we are not born selfish. — unenlightened
The world is not literally highly competitive, — unenlightened
Now I wonder, who could play the part if it was made in a movie? Vin Diesel? Jean-Claude Van Damme? — Olivier5
GENE THE SURVIVOR
(episode MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMCCCCLXXXIV) — Olivier5
What does it take in order for something to be metaphorically selfish? — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.