집단 선택 탐험: 002. Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans

[이덕하]

이전 시간(집단 선택 탐험: 001. 여행을 시작하며)에 소개한 모음집을 읽어 보면 진화론과 관련된 저명한 과학자들이 여전히 집단 선택 문제에 대해 의견이 서로 매우 다르다는 점이 드러난다.

THE FALSE ALLURE OF GROUP SELECTION (Steven Pinker)

Stewart Brand, Daniel Everett, David C. Queller, Daniel C. Dennett, Herbert Gintis, Harvey Whitehouse & Ryan McKay, Peter J. Richerson, Jerry Coyne, Michael Hochberg, Robert Boyd & Sarah Mathew, Max Krasnow & Andrew Delton,Nicolas Baumard, Jonathan Haidt, David Sloan Wilson, Michael E. Price, Joseph Henrich, Randolph M. Nesse, Richard Dawkins, Helena Cronin, John Tooby.

http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

오늘은 분분한 의견들 중에서 내가 지지하는 입장과 대체로 비슷한 입장에서 쓴 논문을 소개하겠다. 어떤 분이 보내주신 이메일 덕분에 이 논문이 있다는 것을 알게 되었다.

Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans

Stuart A. West, Claire El Mouden, Andy Gardner

Evolution and Human Behavior 32 (2011) 231-262

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf

이 논문의 목적은 친족 선택과 집단 선택 등에 대해 알기 쉽게 소개하고 여러 가지 오류들을 지적하는 것이다. 친족 선택과 집단 선택 문제는 그리 알기 쉬운 문제가 아니다. 따라서 이렇게 짧은 논문에서 알기 쉽게 설명하는 것이 불가능하다.

그래서 이 논문은 되도록 알기 쉽게 설명하면서 더 깊이 공부하고 싶은 사람을 위해 관련 문헌을 잘 정리해서 소개하는 전략을 취한 것 같다. 이 논문을 읽으면서 본문만큼이나 참고문헌 목록을 열심히 보아야 한다.

몇 가지 마음에 안 드는 부분도 있지만 나는 이 논문이 매우 훌륭하다고 생각한다. 적어도 집단 선택 논란과 관련하여 내가 좋아하는 입장을 상당히 엄밀하고도 쉽게 잘 설명하고 있다.

집단 선택과 관련하여 이 논문의 입장 몇 가지를 아주 거칠게 정리해 보자.

1. “집단 선택”은 여러 가지 의미로 사용되며 집단 선택론자는 여러 가지 의미들 사이에서 오락가락한다.

The above discussion shows how the term group selection has been used to mean three to six different things (Fig. 3), specifically, that (1) selection produces traits that maximize group fitness (old), (2) selection acts at multiple levels (new), or (3) competition occurs between groups (newer). ...... This variable use of group selection has been possible because there is no formal theory of group selection (West et al., 2008, p.380–381; Gardner & Grafen, 2009), which leads to authors confusingly switching between different meanings (Palmer et al., 1997; Trivers, 1998a, 1998b; West et al., 2007b, 2008).

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf

2. 어떤 의미의 집단 선택은 친족 선택(포괄 적합도)과 동등(equivalence)하다. 대체로 친족 선택 모델이 더 쓰기 편한 도구다.

New group selection is not an alternative to inclusive fitness—it is just a different way of looking at the dynamics of natural selection.

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf

Indeed, many researchers who normally focus on the kin selection approach, including ourselves, use multi level selection methods when they are the most appropriate tool for solving the problem (Frank, 1998; Gardner et al., 2007a; Gardner & Grafen, 2009). The reason that most evolutionary biologists, both theoretical and empirical, do not use the group selection approach, or use it very little, is that they find it less useful (Frank, 1998; Queller, 2004), and if they express negative views, it is because it has generated more confusion than insight (reviewed in detail by West et al., 2007b, 2008).

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf

3. 어떤 의미의 집단 선택은 아주 특수한 상황에서만 힘을 발휘한다.

In contrast, since Wynne-Edwards, a number of workers have argued that group selection will lead to “group adaptations” that have been selected for because of their benefit for the good of the group, and that groups can be viewed as adaptive individuals (superorganisms) in their own right (Reeve & Holldobler, 2007; Sober & Wilson, 1998; Wilson, 2008; Wilson & Wilson, 2007; Wilson & O'Brien, 2009; Wilson & Holldobler, 2005; WynneEdwards, 1962). However, formal analysis has shown that selection for group adaptations requires special circumstances, with negligible within group selection (Fig. 4), such as when (a) the group is composed of genetically identical individuals (clonal groups, r=1), or (b) there is complete repression of competition between groups (i.e., no conflict within groups; Gardner & Grafen, 2009).

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf

4. 강한 상호성(strong reciprocity)과 관련하여 집단 선택론자들이 온갖 혼란에 빠져 있다.

In recent years, there has been much attention to the suggestion that cooperation in humans can be explained by “strong reciprocity,” which is defined as a predisposition to help others and to punish those that are not helping (Bowles & Gintis, 2004, 2008; Boyd et al., 2003; Fehr & Gachter, 2002; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004; Fehr et al., 2002; Gintis, 2000, 2003; Gintis et al., 2003, 2005a). This literature has contributed to 10 misconceptions, numbers 1, 2, 4–8 and 14–16. It is useful here to divide the work on strong reciprocity into four areas—what the empirical data show, what it is argued the empirical data show, what the theoretical models show, and what it is argued the theoretical models show. A major source of confusion is that all of these four areas are in disagreement with each other, and that there are several inconsistencies between the different papers on this topic.

http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/gardner/publications/WestElMoudenGardner_InPress.pdf