tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4367190233877799632.post4277430769886743727..comments2024-02-27T09:51:03.152-08:00Comments on On Memetics: Wilson: The Social Conquest of EarthTim Tylerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4367190233877799632.post-79608194885052584402012-02-27T11:55:02.221-08:002012-02-27T11:55:02.221-08:00"Multilevel selection" seems to me to be..."Multilevel selection" seems to me to be the most obvious term to use for the Wilson/Price idea. However, D. S. Wilson wants to call it "group selection". That is understandable - but it is also a source of much confusion.Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4367190233877799632.post-7083321593868075232012-02-27T11:46:36.359-08:002012-02-27T11:46:36.359-08:00There was an error in publishing. This is the righ...There was an error in publishing. This is the right comment:<br /><br />I guess it would be better to use the term "Multilevel selection" coined, as far as I know, by another Wilson (D.S Wilson).<br />Perhaps the divisions between different levels of selection are somewhat artificial. Nature doesn´t have the necessity to draw clear frontiers between levels of selection. We do.<br />We know that the basic level of selection isgene-level selection. We can start there and see another levels of selection as an emergent property. Like an "as if".<br />"Selfish" gene-level selection may account for individual-level selection and for kin-selection. And these levels can account for an "as if" group selection under particular circumstances (for example, Boyd and Richerson showed how conformity bias an prestige bias can enhance the uniformity within groups and diversity among groups).<br />It is useful for us to use these denomination so that we know what we are speaking about, but the core of everything is the selfish replicator-level selection.<br /><br />Juan Alfonso del BustoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com