It's about having theories that explain/predict altruism, in the same way you'd have theories which explain/predict chemical reactions, electrons or the motion of blocks on slopes. You start with some basic assumptions and derive (mathematically/logically) the outcomes.
You should check out kin selection for more detail on Dawkin's side of the debate, but basically the idea is that a "gene" for helping out your brother (for example) is likely to spread through the population because your brother probably also has the same "gene". You don't have to survive personally for your genes to live on, so your genes don't focus wholly on your personal wellbeing.
If you want to be less hand-wavy you can work out the probabilities based on what we know about genes, and therefore work out how much altruism you expect to show towards members of your family vs. random strangers. For example, your relatedness to your siblings is a half, to your cousins 1/8th; hence the quip:
I'd lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.
— J.B.S. Haldane
My knowledge of Wilson's argument is limited but I think the crux is that he (or at least someone) believes in selection on the level of groups of individuals (as opposed to just genes) and uses that to explain altruism instead / as well. Dawkins and others disagree. Taleb has basically argued "the maths checks out", but that's pretty much irrelevant when it's the starting assumptions that are under scrutiny, not the logic that follows.
one-more-minute|11 years ago
You should check out kin selection for more detail on Dawkin's side of the debate, but basically the idea is that a "gene" for helping out your brother (for example) is likely to spread through the population because your brother probably also has the same "gene". You don't have to survive personally for your genes to live on, so your genes don't focus wholly on your personal wellbeing.
If you want to be less hand-wavy you can work out the probabilities based on what we know about genes, and therefore work out how much altruism you expect to show towards members of your family vs. random strangers. For example, your relatedness to your siblings is a half, to your cousins 1/8th; hence the quip:
My knowledge of Wilson's argument is limited but I think the crux is that he (or at least someone) believes in selection on the level of groups of individuals (as opposed to just genes) and uses that to explain altruism instead / as well. Dawkins and others disagree. Taleb has basically argued "the maths checks out", but that's pretty much irrelevant when it's the starting assumptions that are under scrutiny, not the logic that follows.thekemkid|11 years ago
sjg007|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]