The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The Group Selection Debate and ALife: Weak Altruism, Strong Altruism, and Inclusive Fitness (abstract)

The Group Selection Debate and ALife: Weak Altruism, Strong Altruism, and Inclusive Fitness (abstract)
The Group Selection Debate and ALife: Weak Altruism, Strong Altruism, and Inclusive Fitness (abstract)
Models of the evolution of social behaviour are often framed in terms of either multi-level selection or inclusive individual fitness theory. Although both of these descriptions correctly predict changes in gene frequency (where group fitness is defined as the average individual fitness of the group members), it is still a hotly contested issue as to which provides a faithful description of the underlying causal processes at work. Furthermore, the type of model analysis used reflects the philosophical bias of the author. It is important for Alife researchers to be aware of this issue when evaluating or presenting models of social evolution, for many authors simply claim as a matter of fact that their model works via multi-level or (inclusive) individual selection, without acknowledging the alternative perspective. In this talk, two particular areas of ongoing contention between multi-level and individual selectionists will be illustrated, using examples from the Alife literature. The first of these concerns the evolution of weakly altruistic traits. These are behaviours that provide a whole-group benefit at some cost to the actor. Crucially, however, the cost to the actor is more than offset by its share of the group benefit, such that the lifetime number of offspring of the actor is increased. In a recent paper West et al. (2007, J. Evol. Biol., 20, p.415) have advocated that the evolution of such traits can be adequately explained in terms of direct fitness benefit, thus avoiding the need to invoke selection at the group level. However, this explanation hides the fact that weak altruists suffer a relative fitness disadvantage within every group. Indeed, the local attractor within any one group is the extinction of weak altruists. Therefore, the behaviour cannot spread unless groups compete and groups with more weak altruists are fitter than those with less. While the individualist methodology correctly predicts if the behaviour will evolve, it obscures the mechanistic explanation. This suggests that models couching the evolution of social behaviour in terms of individual benefit should be analysed to determine whether group structure is playing any causal role in the evolutionary dynamics. The second issue to be addressed by this talk concerns the evolution of strong altruism, i.e., behaviours where there is a reduction in the lifetime number of offspring of the actor. For such behaviours to evolve there must be a correlation in interactions, such that the recipients of an altruist’s help tend to be altruists themselves. This correlation frequently occurs in nature through the limited dispersal of kin, and is usually modelled by inclusive fitness equations that contain no notion of group fitness. However, the underlying mechanism is that kin groups with more altruists outcompete those with less. Once this is realised, it becomes apparent that other assortative group formation mechanisms can in principle produce the same effect. Appealing to kinship is therefore simply invoking one kind of assortative grouping. This talk will further elaborate on these points, including definitions of a group, and consider claims about the strength of group selection.
group selection, inclusive fitness, altruism.
978-0-262-75017-2
796
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Powers, Simon T.
99f673bb-debc-4c1f-90d3-78724a6020bb
Watson, Richard A.
ce199dfc-d5d4-4edf-bd7b-f9e224c96c75
Powers, Simon T.
99f673bb-debc-4c1f-90d3-78724a6020bb
Watson, Richard A.
ce199dfc-d5d4-4edf-bd7b-f9e224c96c75

Powers, Simon T. and Watson, Richard A. (2008) The Group Selection Debate and ALife: Weak Altruism, Strong Altruism, and Inclusive Fitness (abstract) In Artificial Life XI: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., p. 796.

Record type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)

Abstract

Models of the evolution of social behaviour are often framed in terms of either multi-level selection or inclusive individual fitness theory. Although both of these descriptions correctly predict changes in gene frequency (where group fitness is defined as the average individual fitness of the group members), it is still a hotly contested issue as to which provides a faithful description of the underlying causal processes at work. Furthermore, the type of model analysis used reflects the philosophical bias of the author. It is important for Alife researchers to be aware of this issue when evaluating or presenting models of social evolution, for many authors simply claim as a matter of fact that their model works via multi-level or (inclusive) individual selection, without acknowledging the alternative perspective. In this talk, two particular areas of ongoing contention between multi-level and individual selectionists will be illustrated, using examples from the Alife literature. The first of these concerns the evolution of weakly altruistic traits. These are behaviours that provide a whole-group benefit at some cost to the actor. Crucially, however, the cost to the actor is more than offset by its share of the group benefit, such that the lifetime number of offspring of the actor is increased. In a recent paper West et al. (2007, J. Evol. Biol., 20, p.415) have advocated that the evolution of such traits can be adequately explained in terms of direct fitness benefit, thus avoiding the need to invoke selection at the group level. However, this explanation hides the fact that weak altruists suffer a relative fitness disadvantage within every group. Indeed, the local attractor within any one group is the extinction of weak altruists. Therefore, the behaviour cannot spread unless groups compete and groups with more weak altruists are fitter than those with less. While the individualist methodology correctly predicts if the behaviour will evolve, it obscures the mechanistic explanation. This suggests that models couching the evolution of social behaviour in terms of individual benefit should be analysed to determine whether group structure is playing any causal role in the evolutionary dynamics. The second issue to be addressed by this talk concerns the evolution of strong altruism, i.e., behaviours where there is a reduction in the lifetime number of offspring of the actor. For such behaviours to evolve there must be a correlation in interactions, such that the recipients of an altruist’s help tend to be altruists themselves. This correlation frequently occurs in nature through the limited dispersal of kin, and is usually modelled by inclusive fitness equations that contain no notion of group fitness. However, the underlying mechanism is that kin groups with more altruists outcompete those with less. Once this is realised, it becomes apparent that other assortative group formation mechanisms can in principle produce the same effect. Appealing to kinship is therefore simply invoking one kind of assortative grouping. This talk will further elaborate on these points, including definitions of a group, and consider claims about the strength of group selection.

PDF GroupSelectionDebate.pdf - Version of Record
Download (8kB)

More information

Published date: 5 August 2008
Additional Information: Event Dates: 05/08/08 - 08/08/08
Venue - Dates: The Eleventh International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (Alife XI), United Kingdom, 2008-08-05 - 2008-08-08
Keywords: group selection, inclusive fitness, altruism.
Organisations: Agents, Interactions & Complexity

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 265786
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/265786
ISBN: 978-0-262-75017-2
PURE UUID: 7252dc08-092d-4a56-9803-f2a6037ef280

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 May 2008 15:50
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 07:23

Export record

Contributors

Author: Simon T. Powers

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×