Social semantics: how useful has group selection been?

  title={Social semantics: how useful has group selection been?},
  author={S A West and Ashleigh S. Griffin and Andy Gardner},
  journal={Journal of Evolutionary Biology},
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… 
Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?
It is argued that the two theories can offer complementary approaches to the study of social evolution: kin selection approaches usually focuses on the identification of optimal phenotypes and thus on the endresult of a selection process, whereas multilevel selection approaches focus on the ongoing selection process itself.
A defense of sociobiology.
  • K. Foster
  • Biology, Psychology
    Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology
  • 2009
It is argued that semantic precision is required in discussing terms such as kin selection, group selection, and altruism, but once care is taken, the objections to the unity of theoretical sociobiology largely evaporate.
It is concluded that the theory of natural selection should be invoked in its rigorous sense of the differential representation of replicators across generations, and that “group selection” is a pernicious concept in evolutionary psychology, guaranteed to confuse.
Evolutionary Restraints: The Contentious History of Group Selection
From its origins in Darwin's own thinking, this debate about group selection remains relevant and alive to this day, Mark E. Borrello reminds us in "Evolutionary Restraints".
Supplementary Information for “ The evolution of eusociality ”
Kin selection theory based on the concept of inclusive fitness is often presented as a general approach that can deal with many aspects of evolutionary dynamics. Here we show that this is not the
Multilevel and kin selection in a connected world
It is argued that the evolution of reduced virulence can be understood from the perspective of inclusive fitness, obviating the need to evoke group selection as a contributing causal factor, and that the cause of reducedvirulence resides in the opposition of two processes: within-group and among-group selection.
Social niche construction : evolutionary explanations for cooperative group formation
It is argued that not only can population structure drive the evolution of cooperation, as in classical models, but that the benefits of greater cooperation can in turn drive the Evolution of population structure - a positive feedback process that is called social niche construction.
How to measure group selection in real-world populations
Here, the presence of a Simpson’s Paradox is illustrated in a simple individual-based model of bacterial biofilm growth and various complicating factors in moving from theory to practice of measuring group selection are discussed.


Group Selection
The reason for the vehemence with which Williams (1966, 1975), Ghiselin (1974), Lack (1966) and other opponents of group selection have argued their case is, I think, their conviction that group selection assumptions, often tacit or unconscious, have been responsible for the failure to tackle important problems.
Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection
The aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation, and to emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours.
Group selection and kin selection: Two concepts but one process
In a recent paper, Traulsen and Nowak use a multilevel selection model to show that cooperation can be favored by group selection in finite populations [Traulsen A, Nowak M (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci
How to Make a Kin Selection Model
A ‘‘direct fitness’’ formulation of inclusive fitness which often has a more straightforward derivation is proposed, and is illustrated first in a homogeneous population, with examples of group competition and partial dispersal behaviour, and then in a class-structured population.
The evolution of helping and harming on graphs: the return of the inclusive fitness effect
It is shown that it is possible to translate evolutionary graph theory models into classical kin selection models without disturbing at all the mathematics describing the net effect of selection on helping, and that costly helping evolves on graphs through limited dispersal and overlapping generations.
A Method for Analyzing Selection in Hierarchically Structured Populations
Individual fitness depends on the particular ecological, genetic, and social contexts in which organisms are found. Variation in individual context among subunits of a population thus raises
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I.
The Evolution and Ecology of Cooperation - History and Concepts
This work provides a summary of the foundational theory, including Hamilton's rule, neighbor- modulated fitness, inclusive fitness, and levels of selection; discusses the classification and semantics of social behaviors; and gives a brief overview of the various mecha- nisms that have been invoked to explain cooperation.
Altruism and Related Phenomena, Mainly in Social Insects
With better knowledge of heredity and with more facts regarding the social insects to draw upon, Weismann recognized the possible conflict between intergroup and intragroup selection in the evolution of worker attributes.
Is Sociality Driven by the Costs of Dispersal or the Benefits of Philopatry? A Role for Kin‐Discrimination Mechanisms
The role of ecological constraints in promoting sociality is shown to depend on the kin‐discrimination mechanisms underlying social interactions using a direct‐fitness approach and to affect social evolution in species in which restricted cognitive abilities, large group size, and/or limited period of associative learning force investments to be made on the basis of spatial cues.