post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by djcb · 2012-07-29T16:19:33.775Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think this discussed in The Selfish Gene; this 'altruistic' behaviour still helps the older workers' genes chances of survival; no need for group selection.

Replies from: RobertLumley
comment by RobertLumley · 2012-07-29T16:29:53.006Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

How does this differ from other arguments for group selection though?

Say one mutant in the termite colony acquires this gene - I don't see how his chances of reproduction are increased. Perhaps it has to do with termite biology - a queen with this gene's chances of survival would be significantly higher, now that I think about it.

Replies from: gwern
comment by gwern · 2012-07-29T16:55:10.359Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Perhaps it has to do with termite biology - a queen with this gene's chances of survival would be significantly higher, now that I think about it.

The standard explanation of eusociality. Since workers don't reproduce, they can't be selected upon. It's not group selection if the 'group' is just one individual.

Replies from: RobertLumley
comment by RobertLumley · 2012-07-29T17:02:34.668Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That should have occurred to me originally. I'll remove the post, since it's just noise.