[soc/neuro; feminism] Eusociality
I.
They're right.
Or at least, Group Selection is right. I've been reasonably certain Kin Selection was mathematically ludicrous since I learned about it at age 15, and it didn't add up then, but I figured actual scientists must have looked into it and I would hold my opinion until I had a chance to hear what they said. I got a little distracted, but along the way I figured out what I take they're calling Group Selection (paper is behind paywall so I haven't read the original for myself, but I've read a bunch of synopses ETA: Ooo!) all on my own, and figured with every bit of research about the relationship of personality diversity to group dynamics that the field must have also been maturing. When I found out that Dawkins rather heatedly -- defensively -- decried Group Selection, I just figured that he was a bit of a crank, a la Pauling and vitamin C, on that issue. It never occured to me he was mainstream in his beliefs.
To me it is so massively, overwhelmingly self-evident that Group Selection is correct, it beggars my imagination to be confronted with the idea that this is controversial among actual grown-up scientists.
The urge to go put together a review of the substantiating literature in social and personality psychology and economic anthropology is nigh overwhelming but fortunately being thwarted by the fact I have a job and no longer have access to EBSCOhost. Perhaps someone could just nail compilations of JPSP to the relevant foreheads.
II.
Would someone care to explain to me why throughout all media I have seen refer to the paper in question, reference is made, only, to "Nowak and Wilson"?
The paper has three authors. Is there some reason that people are not screaming about "Nowak, Tarnita, and Wilson"?
I mean, other than the fact that Tarnita is a woman?
(I mean, srsly? For real? Am I actually witnessing this happening?)
ETA: livredor informs me this is a convention particular to the biological sciences, where the first and last author places have conventional meaning/assignment, and it is thus conventional to refer to papers by "FirstAuth and LastAuth". Not how we do things in the social sciences. Yay interfield anthropology.
They're right.
Or at least, Group Selection is right. I've been reasonably certain Kin Selection was mathematically ludicrous since I learned about it at age 15, and it didn't add up then, but I figured actual scientists must have looked into it and I would hold my opinion until I had a chance to hear what they said. I got a little distracted, but along the way I figured out what I take they're calling Group Selection (paper is behind paywall so I haven't read the original for myself, but I've read a bunch of synopses ETA: Ooo!) all on my own, and figured with every bit of research about the relationship of personality diversity to group dynamics that the field must have also been maturing. When I found out that Dawkins rather heatedly -- defensively -- decried Group Selection, I just figured that he was a bit of a crank, a la Pauling and vitamin C, on that issue. It never occured to me he was mainstream in his beliefs.
To me it is so massively, overwhelmingly self-evident that Group Selection is correct, it beggars my imagination to be confronted with the idea that this is controversial among actual grown-up scientists.
The urge to go put together a review of the substantiating literature in social and personality psychology and economic anthropology is nigh overwhelming but fortunately being thwarted by the fact I have a job and no longer have access to EBSCOhost. Perhaps someone could just nail compilations of JPSP to the relevant foreheads.
II.
Would someone care to explain to me why throughout all media I have seen refer to the paper in question, reference is made, only, to "Nowak and Wilson"?
The paper has three authors. Is there some reason that people are not screaming about "Nowak, Tarnita, and Wilson"?
I mean, other than the fact that Tarnita is a woman?
(I mean, srsly? For real? Am I actually witnessing this happening?)
ETA: livredor informs me this is a convention particular to the biological sciences, where the first and last author places have conventional meaning/assignment, and it is thus conventional to refer to papers by "FirstAuth and LastAuth". Not how we do things in the social sciences. Yay interfield anthropology.