That touches on another problem with Midgley, which is that she dismisses the genetic theory of evolution on the basis that genes aren't propagated, only their likenesses. But, persuant to your question, a gene is identified as the type within a population, not the token within the individual. — Kenosha Kid

Right. That business about physical particles, wow. It takes effort to talk genetics without the word "information" once coming into your mind.



I started watching the Aeon video and I like her resistance to a simplistic model of beastly instincts and civilizing reason keeping them under control, and her suggestion that we actually listen to what ethologists say about animal behavior in all its complexity, including social complexity. I think there's lots of rethinking to be done there and she's picked a great starting point. I'm enjoying the discussion of individualism, but she just seems absurdly wrong to drag Dawkins into it.

Still excited about other aspects of her work.

There is no such thing as a selfish gene.
— creativesoul

That is correct.
— Kenosha Kid — creativesoul

Are you saying that DNA is indifferent?

Or is DNA on a mission, and is it entirely committed to that mission? If so then DNA is biased.

A bias is emotional information - an aversion to something, and an attraction to its opposite.

Is Mary Midgely's article indifferent, or is it also on a mission, like DNA?

My point entirely. Bringing genes in the equation does not help much. — Olivier5

:up:

Yes, but that's just anthropomorphism. — Kenosha Kid

Though any criticism using anthropomorphism should lead us to wonder if there is any situation where positing such traits, even when describing 'us', isn't also a fallacy. IOW in the face of determinism and all the possible philosophical assaults on the sense of theire being an 'I' and persistant self and choice, etc.

Unless of course one is looking for an excuse. In this case, bringing genes into the conversation is useful, to be able to say "my genes made me do it".

IOW, one of the reasons some guys here are in awe with Dawkins is that he explained to them that they were not free agents but mere machines. In the book, "Gene the Selfish" controls the human beings he is encased in. Them kids' obsession with determininism was confirmed by some (fake, distorted) biology, so they got all excited.

I've read through Dawkins' response to Midgley (here). It's confused blah. He says "biologists use these words ("altruist", "selfish") in a special way, and then he fails to define the oh-so-special meaning he gives to them... To wit:

When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. We do not even mean the words in
a metaphorical sense. We define altruism and selfishness in purely behaviouristic ways: 'An entity . . . is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way
as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect.

We are left to wonder how a gene could possibly "behave" in the first place, how it could possibly "behave" to increase another gene's "welfare", and even how it could possibly pay for the "expense". As for "the exact opposite" of altruism, what would that be? An entity that behaves to increase its own welfare at the expense of other entities' welfare? How would that happen in the case of a gene? The gene for cholinesterase tells the gene for hemoglobin to get lost because he's taking over it's locus? Or are we talking about alleles, mysteriously undermining the chances of other alleles present in other organisms? The whole conceptual framework is muddy and unhelpful.

To be fair to Dawkins re your last paragraph, "evolutionary altruism" is a different thing from just "altruism" simpliciter.

I wrote an essay on it for a class on moral psychology 13 years ago:
https://geekofalltrades.org/essays/evolutionandaltruism.php

He says "biologists use these words ("altruist", "selfish") in a special way, and then he fails to define the oh-so-special meaning he gives to them... — Olivier5

He immediately defines both words. It seems knowingly misrepresenting people is a genetic trait in genetic theory disavowers.

I ve edited my post for clarity.

We are left to wonder how a gene could possibly "behave" in the first place, how it could possibly "behave" to increase another gene's "welfare", and even how it could possibly pay for the "expense". — Olivier5

You understand he's talking about people here, not genes. The point that you couldn't possibly have an "altruistic" gene is one I made quite a while ago. It doesn't make any sense. A selfish gene -- one that adapts to prolong itself -- is both viable and accurate.

The point that you couldn't possibly have an "altruistic" gene is one I made quite a while ago. It doesn't make any sense. A selfish gene -- one that adapts to prolong itself -- is both viable and accurate. — Kenosha Kid

You cannot have an altruistic gene if you define it the way he does, evidently. A gene can only replicate itself. It's not like it has the capacity to replicate a Mercedes-Benz instead.

You cannot have an altruistic gene if you define it the way he does, evidently. A gene can only replicate itself. It's not like it has the capacity to replicate a Mercedes-Benz instead. — Olivier5

Precisely, therefore you cannot have an altruistic gene full stop. You can have a gene for altruism , which is not a metaphor.

He says himself it's not metaphoric use. It's some "special meanings" of selfish and altruist that he made up entirely, and that don't work. Genes couldn't possibly behave altruistically even if they wanted to, if one defines altruism as Dawkins does. Similarly, genes cannot be described as selfish even by his non-definition of it, since they constantly share pieces of information with one another in a process called recombination. So alleles constantly put their fitness at risk by giving a piece of themselves to the other alleles in the same genome, and receiving a piece in exchange.


Homologous recombination is a type of genetic recombination that occurs during meiosis (the formation of egg and sperm cells). Paired chromosomes from the male and female parent align so that similar DNA sequences from the paired chromosomes cross over each other. Crossing over results in a shuffling of genetic material and is an important cause of the genetic variation seen among offspring.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/homologous-recombination

How did Dawkins set evolutionary theory back by decades? — fdrake

Quite simply because this:

"This is that the basic unit of natural selection is best regarded not as the species, nor as the population, nor even as the individual, but as some small unit of genetic material which it is convenient to label the gene" (The Selfish Gene, p. 50).

is unscientific trash. The rest of the book, including the idea of the selfish gene - built, ironically, upon this elementary 'unit' of unempirical rubbish - is just so much detritus that follows from this. Also, I should say that I said Dawkins set literacy back by an order of decades - in the sense of the pop understanding of evosci. The theory - and the science - has been chugging along quite nicely without - one might say despite - his rubbish. It's a pseudo-biological Platonism that is as every bit pernicious and idealist as philosophical Platonism is.

The whole conceptual framework is muddy and unhelpful. — Olivier5

One of the absolutely bonkers things about reading The Selfish Gene is just how much he has to consistently qualify just how useless and misleading it is to talk about genes in the way he does. Like, every third paragraph is devoted to saying something like 'don't forget, I don't really think genes are selfish, I just want to treat them as if they are'. Literally a third of the book is him self-correcting and qualifying how terrible a metaphor it is, while milking what little use he can of it in the rest of the book. It is incredibly muddled, and it obfuscates far more than it illuminates.

I've read through Dawkins' response to Midgley (here). — Olivier5

Thanks for looking this up and providing a link. It was excellent!

:up:

:clap:

:smirk:

:roll:

He says himself it's not metaphoric use. It's some "special meanings" of selfish and altruist that he made up entirely, and that don't work. — Olivier5

He's not talking about genes in that quote, he's talking about behaviours and it's standard terminology whether you like it or not. Again, there seems to a ubiquitous inability to distinguish between the behaviours of genes and the behaviours of humans manifest as a startling anthropomorphism of dumb chemicals, as well as a total disregard for the difference between metaphor and literal truths. I've never seen such wilful or joyous decisions to be perpetually confused by perfectly simple things.

One of the absolutely bonkers things about reading The Selfish Gene is just how much he has to consistently qualify just how useless and misleading it is to talk about genes in the way he does. — StreetlightX

And yet, according to Midgley and pretty much everyone here, he cannot say it enough for it to sink in.

Literally a third of the book is him self-correcting... — StreetlightX

Oh god, we've abused the word 'metaphor' to death already, let's not kill 'literally' as well.

Not my problem that Dawkins is a shit comminutor and and even shitter science populariser.

Thanks for looking this up and providing a link. It was excellent! — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, a reminder that those with knowledge have the privilege of calm, clarity and facts, while those without require aggression, obfuscation and fiction.

He's not talking about genes in that quote, — Kenosha Kid

He is. You are in denial.

When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes.

I thought you'd like it.

Not my problem that Dawkins is a shit comminutor and and even shitter science populariser. — StreetlightX

One can argue based on the evidence of this thread alone that Dawkins pitched his book at maybe too high a level for a popular science book. Fair enough. But Midgley assumed her readers to be morons and, last time I checked, this thread was meant to be a celebration of Midgley, not an assassination of Dawkins. Midgley's point is not that she was confused by his metaphor, but that he didn't really mean it as one, the main ingredient of her social Darwinism straw man.

Personally I see the value of the metaphor, it has good explanatory power as all good metaphors should. It matters little to me if it's lost on some, especially if they get curiously enraged by it. I thought The Matrix was shit, and Alien much better than Aliens. Someone's always going to miss out.

He is. You are in denial.

When biologists talk about 'selfishness' or
'altruism' we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. — Olivier5

Denial it is... So by your rather peculiar understanding of the English language, he is not talking of animals, human being or genes in that quote.. What IS he talking about then, according to you?

Personally I see the value of the metaphor, it has good explanatory power as all good metaphors should. — Kenosha Kid

It really doesn't: everytime he's pushed to lay out the implications of it, he's forced to dilute it to the point of triviality. Hence why the book is filled with these 'paradoxes' which he then 'solves' which makes lay readers think he's some kind of genius, when in truth, they are puzzles of his own making forced on him by an inadequate conceptual apparatus. It's a rubbish metaphor and Midgley was right in her 'intemperance', and should not have apologized for it.

It is incredibly muddled, and it obfuscates far more than it illuminates. — StreetlightX

:up:

should not have apologized for it. — StreetlightX

Apology is due, not only for the delay but for the impatient tone of my article. One should not lose one’s temper, and doing so always makes for confused argument. My basic objections remain. But I certainly ought to have expressed them more clearly and temperately. — Mary Midgley

Denial it is... So by your rather peculiar understanding of the English language, he is not talking of animals, human being or genes in that quote.. What IS he talking about then, according to you? — Olivier5

It doesn't require explaining, just read the quote carefully.

Hence why the book is filled with these 'paradoxes' which he then 'solves' which makes lay readers think he's some kind of genius, when in truth, they are puzzles of his own making forced on him by an inadequate conceptual apparatus. — StreetlightX

Such as?

It's a rubbish metaphor and Midgley was right in her 'intemperance' — StreetlightX

Again, Midgley is arguing he doesn't mean it metaphorically at all, quite dishonestly.

Yeah, that's the apology she ought not have given.

It doesn't require explaining — Kenosha Kid

He is obviously speaking about the behaviors of genes and animals. What else? The behaviors of lampposts?