not yet - I've been meaning to

It is a good case for group selection

I’m currently reading his first book and a lot of people don’t address his and David Wilson’s claims directly. They usually strawman

Which is understandable cause if you accept group selection for humans people are going to start looking at Kevin Macdonalds work more

Does it have the math showing how genes promoting group selection spread through a population?

Been a while since I read a population genetics book, but have vague memory the numbers for group selection didn’t work out

That specific book doesn’t I don’t believe. I can look through David Sloan Wilson’s paper at the top and see what he has to say though. He makes a good case

I’ll type out a quote and tell me what you think. A lot of it still evades me

The
rejection of group selection was based largely on
theoretical plausibility arguments (5, 11), which made it
seem that between-group selection requires a delicate
balance of parameter values to prevail against within-group
selection. These early models were published at a time when
D. S. Wilson and E. O. Wilson 8
the desktop computing revolution, complexity theory, and
appreciation of such things as social control (12) and
cultural transmission (13, 14) were barely on the horizon.
It therefore means something when group selection has become
more plausible, according to more recent theoretical models.
All of the early models assumed that altruistic and
selfish behaviors are caused directly by corresponding
genes, which means that the only way for groups to vary
behaviorally is for them to vary genetically. Hardly anyone
regards such strict genetic determinism as biologically
realistic today. And in fact it was assumed in the models
primarily to simplify the mathematics. Yet, when more
complex genotype-phenotype relationships are built into the
models, the balance between levels of selection can be
easily and dramatically altered (15).

Their models are getting more accurate and certain assumptions which are faulty are being overturned. I can give you another example from the paper of how if, within a population of bacteria, to many cheaters reproduce the population will fail. So once again composition of groups can determine a "shared fate" for groups

Although this isn't a human example, it is at least one example for bacteria.

Some of the best recent evidence for group selection comes from microbial organisms, in part because they are such efficient systems for ecological and evolutionary research spanning many generations.

The "wrinkly spreader" (WS) strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens evolves in response to anoxic conditions in unmixed liquid medium, by producing a cellulosic polymer that forms a mat on the surface. The polymer is expensive to produce, which means that nonproducing "cheaters" have the highest relative fitness within the group.

As the cheaters spread, the mat deteriorates and eventually sinks to the bottom. WS is maintained in the total population by between-group selection, despite its selective disadvantage within groups, exactly as envisioned by multilevel selection theory (Rainey and Rainey 2003)

he's saying that we weren't calculating for polygenetic traits back when their theory was first proposed, and that current computer models show that their theory is plausible

ya as their models get more accurate it'll be exciting to see what happens

that isn't true by the way - the infinitesimal model has been around for ages

as for bacteria, they are almost clones of each other

What do you mean?

What isnt true

he is saying that critics were criticizing their theory by saying 1 trait = 1 gene, and that we know now that many genes affect a trait

but in the infinitesimal model it is assumed that an infinite number of alleles affect a trait

The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

This is also a good read my friends. I think I’ve posted this elsewhere I forget. It is about ethnocentrism dominating all other strategies

In this simulation model

Ethnocentrism is a robust strategy and worked in other models also and under other initial variables so researchers determine this is not a “knife-edge effect” but, once again, a robust evolutionary stable strategy. Methinks if whites don’t adopt it soon we won’t be able to compete.

@Myndrian great article

Molyneux just tweeted about this topic, can't find it. anyone else see it?

Which topic? Ethnocentrism?

yes

i feel like i just saw him tweet about this

specifically wrt evolutionary success vs. "diversity"

isn't that what the article is about?

I think this one is “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentrism”

right

Errr ethnocentric cooperation. But he is right and is probably referring to the same thing

i think moly tweeted in direct and explicit reference to it

i'll try to find it

Ok sweet I’m to lazy sorry I’ll

Lol

"sorry I'll lol" lol wut