Towards a General Theory of Group Selection

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractA widespread claim in evolutionary theory is that every group selection model can be recast in terms of inclusive …tness. Although there are interesting classes of group selection models for which this is possible, we show that it is not true in general. With a simple set of group selection models, we show two distinct limitations that prevent recasting in terms of inclusive …tness. The …rst is a limitation across models. We show that if inclusive …tness is to always give the correct prediction, the de…nition of relatedness needs to change, continuously, along with changes in the parameters of the model. This results in in…nitely many di¤erent de…nitions of relatedness -one for every parameter value -which strips relatedness of its meaning. The second limitation is across time. We show that one can …nd the trajectory for the group selection model by solving a partial di¤erential equation, and that it is mathematically impossible to do this using inclusive …tness. KeywordsGroup selection, inclusive …tness, kin selection, equivalence, social evolution. 1Group selection has always been a controversial issue. It is both advocated as an essential ingredient of human evolution (1-2), and described as a super ‡uous concept, that does not explain any phenomenon we do not already understand with other models (3-5). While there is disagreement concerning the relevance, both sides of the debate have come to agree that group selection models can always be reformulated in terms of inclusive …tness (6-13).The agreement on the equivalence still leaves room to disagree which one of the two is more valuable for understanding how group selection works. One position is that, since both are equivalent, there is no reason to look at group selection models other than through the lens of inclusive …tness (4, 7, 9,(11)(12)(13). Another position is that, even though the two are equivalent, there is value in the alternative way of looking at models, that stresses a balance of within-group selection and between-group selection (1, 2, 8, 10).Because the "mathematical equivalence" is such a central point of consensus, one would expect it to be a well-de…ned mathematical statement with a mathematical proof. There is, however, no such theorem in the literature (see also 6, 14). As a consequence it remains unclear what "mathematical equivalence" means here, and if the claim is correct. In this paper, we will present a class of group sele...

show abstract

“…2 is in line with standard de…nitions in the literature (12,13,(19)(20)(21); see also the Appendix).…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

A simple model of group selection that cannot be analyzed with inclusive fitness

Veelen

Luo

Simon

2014

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These assumptions can be highly specific, applying only to particular biological situations, or broad, applying to a wide range of scenarios. Modeling frameworks that rely on general (yet precise) assumptions have recently emerged as a powerful tool for studying the evolution of populations structured spatially (39)(40)(41)(42), by groups (43), and physiologically (44)(45)(46); the evolution of continuous traits (47)(48)(49); and inclusive fitness theory itself (in cases where fitness effects are additive and other requirements are satisfied) (7,19). Although these frameworks can be used to obtain general results, none of them is universal or assumption-free.…”

Section: Common-sense Approaches To Evolutionary Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of inclusive fitness

Allen

Nowak

Wilson

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until recently, inclusive fitness has been widely accepted as a general method to explain the evolution of social behavior. Affirming and expanding earlier criticism, we demonstrate that inclusive fitness is instead a limited concept, which exists only for a small subset of evolutionary processes. Inclusive fitness assumes that personal fitness is the sum of additive components caused by individual actions. This assumption does not hold for the majority of evolutionary processes or scenarios. To sidestep this limitation, inclusive fitness theorists have proposed a method using linear regression. On the basis of this method, it is claimed that inclusive fitness theory (i) predicts the direction of allele frequency changes, (ii) reveals the reasons for these changes, (iii) is as general as natural selection, and (iv) provides a universal design principle for evolution. In this paper we evaluate these claims, and show that all of them are unfounded. If the objective is to analyze whether mutations that modify social behavior are favored or opposed by natural selection, then no aspect of inclusive fitness theory is needed.social evolution | Hamilton's rule | cooperation | kin selection

show abstract

“…Conflicts between levels of selection are a generalizable theoretical tool, applying to any social dilemma at any level, whether between nations in Europe or between children on a sports team. The evolutionary interactions between levels have been modeled in multiple ways (Frank 1995, Simon et al 2013, and the same formalisms can serve as a general model for cultural change (El Mouden et al 2014). Group-beneficial outcomes are more likely to evolve when migration between groups is low, variation between groups is high, and the individual cost of altruism is relatively low.…”

Section: Cultural Multilevel Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multilevel selection (MLS) theory in biology clarifies evolutionary processes when populations are structured in groups (Okasha 2006, Simon et al 2013. Within groups, selection is driven by differences in fitness between members, or "relative fitness."…”

Section: Cultural Multilevel Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis

Waring¹,

Kline²,

Brooks³

et al. 2015

E&S

106

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Sustainability theory can help achieve desirable social-ecological states by generalizing lessons across contexts and improving the design of sustainability interventions. To accomplish these goals, we argue that theory in sustainability science must (1) explain the emergence and persistence of social-ecological states, (2) account for endogenous cultural change, (3) incorporate cooperation dynamics, and (4) address the complexities of multilevel social-ecological interactions. We suggest that cultural evolutionary theory broadly, and cultural multilevel selection in particular, can improve on these fronts. We outline a multilevel evolutionary framework for describing social-ecological change and detail how multilevel cooperative dynamics can determine outcomes in environmental dilemmas. We show how this framework complements existing sustainability frameworks with a description of the emergence and persistence of sustainable institutions and behavior, a means to generalize causal patterns across social-ecological contexts, and a heuristic for designing and evaluating effective sustainability interventions. We support these assertions with case examples from developed and developing countries in which we track cooperative change at multiple levels of social organization as they impact social-ecological outcomes. Finally, we make suggestions for further theoretical development, empirical testing, and application.

show abstract

Towards a General Theory of Group Selection

Cited by 118 publications

References 31 publications

A simple model of group selection that cannot be analyzed with inclusive fitness

A simple model of group selection that cannot be analyzed with inclusive fitness

Limitations of inclusive fitness

A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About