David Sloan Wilson

My evolutionary biologist fiancée forced this book on me, and like all things that are forced on me, I decided to hate it. But I had to read it, as I was trapped in an airport and I'd exhausted all other reading material. I was initially skeptical-- the first few chapters are pretty basic, and Wilson doesn't help his case with his cheesy "you too can be a scientist!" rhetoric-- but before I knew it, I was warming up to the book. A lot. Wilson's argument is that evolution manifests itself in show more all aspects of our lives, society, and culture, from dung beetles to religion, from homicide to politics, and at first I was skeptical, but he just kept piling on example after example, and I started thinking, You know, maybe there's something in this. Then I found myself noticing evolution everywhere I went: people in one of my seminars were wondering why a group of female factory workers we'd read about were so stringently self-policing, and I knew that evolutionary theory would provide the answer! I was listening to a story on Morning Edition about an Army guy who wrote a book about training Afghani troops, and he said that they were really good at fighting individually, but not as a unit, and I thought, Man, I wonder what evolutionary theory would say about that? Slowly and unwillingly, I had become an evolutionist!

The book isn't all roses; like I said, I was little leery of Wilson's tone sometimes. He did pen one of the most unfortunate sentences I've ever come across: "Learning about natural selection is like having a premature orgasm. You think it will take a long time and lead to a tremendous climax, but then it's over almost as soon as it began!" And sometimes I found myself worried that I had been swayed only because I wasn't familiar enough with the material he was discussing to muster a counter-argument; I think it's telling that I was most unconvinced by the (very brief) section on evolutionary theory in literature, but he's co-edited a whole book about that (The Literary Animal), so I suppose I'll have to seek that out. But perhaps the biggest endorsement for this book comes from an encounter I had in the lunchroom at school. One thing Wilson rails against is the thinking that evolutionary theory leads straight to eugenics and genocide, when it can actually have a bevy of positive applications. Well, I was reading the book over lunch and one of my colleagues noticed it and said that the scary thing about evolutionary theory was eugenics. But as Wilson shows, there's so much to evolutionary theory than that-- and this book is an excellent first step to recognizing that. show less

In the final paragraph of On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote, “There is grandeur in this view of life...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

From this poetic ending we get the title of David Sloan Wilson’s latest book, This View of Life, which seeks to expand the evolutionary worldview beyond the biological realm to the realm of human culture and policy.

Biology is one of the few disciplines that show more already has its grand unifying theory: evolution by natural selection. It’s what prompted the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky to declared in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Evolution by natural selection beautifully explains all things biological from the fossil record to DNA sequences to taxonomical classification, and every plant and animal can be explained fully in terms if its function, evolutionary history, mechanism of behavior, and embryological development—all under one grand unifying theory.

What Wilson is proposing is that the human sciences—psychology, sociology, history, politics, education, etc.—can also be better explained by, and included within, the grand unifying theory of evolution. Wilson is essentially taking Dobzhansky one step further by stating that “nothing in human culture makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

The problem is that this has been stated before, in poor form. We are resistant to the application of evolution to the study of human behavior for two (misguided) reasons: 1) we think evolution means only genetic evolution (which means determinism), and 2) social Darwinism.

Wilson dispels the myth of social Darwinism in the first chapter. He notes, first, that Charles Darwin himself was not a social Darwinist. Social Darwinism has always been a derogatory term associated with eugenics, genocide, and the phrase “survival of the fittest,” which is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

The irony is that, as Wilson writes, “People hardly ever call themselves social Darwinists and those who are accused almost never actually use Darwin’s theory to justify their position.” Darwin himself never adopted the social Darwinist views, recognizing the importance of sympathy and cooperation over competition in human evolution. As Darwin wrote, “selfish and contentious people will not cohere and without coherence nothing can be effected.”

As Wilson states, any tool can be used as a weapon, and evolutionary theory is no exception, but the important point is that the evolutionary worldview does not necessarily lead to the pursuit of ruthless competition. Properly understood, the evolutionary worldview places far more importance on human cooperation, and therefore the social Darwinist views are nothing more than imaginary evils that prevent us from weilding a more accurate picture of reality.

As Wilson repeatedly states, human cultural evolution, being a part of (but distinct from) genetic evolution, is not deterministic. Cultural evolution can take us in a number of different directions, and, unguided, will likely take us where we don’t want to go. Our task is guide the evolutionary process toward appropriate and worthwhile goals.

Wilson, throughout the book, provides several examples of how the evolutionary worldview helps us to more effectively solve problems and manage small groups. But this is where we need to pause to consider the contentious topic of group selection, because it’s easy to dismiss Wilson outright if you take his views on group selection to be wrong. In fact, nothing in the book will make sense except in the light of group selection (or multi-level selection, as Wilson calls it).

The controversy, I believe, is largely illusory and one of perspective. Those against the idea of group selection will note that groups cannot replicate themselves, and therefore cannot participate in the process of variation and selection that is required for evolution. Groups, like bodies, are simply “vehicles” for the genes, and genes are, technically, the only physical material that can actually replicate.

Multi-level selection, as I understand Wilson to be describing it, accepts that genes are the replicators and groups are the vehicles. But the vehicles, in the case the groups, can influence which genes are ultimately passed on, therefore having an indirect but powerful impact on gene transmission.

Think of an individual struggling to survive. If he is well-adapted to his environment, and can outcompete his competition, evade his predators, and secure a mate, then he will pass on his genetic information to future generations. Any genetic variation that makes this more likely will increase his fitness and increase the representation of those genes in the population. Group selection doesn’t factor into this scenario.

But think about this same individual as part of a group that is competing against other groups. Regardless of his fitness level within his group, if another group outcompetes his group, and his group dies off, his genes are not passed on to future generations.

Consider an alternative scenario. What if this individual is part of a group that cooperates more effectively and can fend off the competing group, so that this other group dies off instead. Now, this individual’s genes will have been passed on to to future generations, but only because his group was better at cooperating and outcompeting other groups. This is group selection, even though it is still only the genes that are being transmitted. Selection is working at two levels.

To accept Wilson’s conception of multi-level selection is only to accept that groups can indirectly impact the transmission of genes, which it seems that they clearly can, as when ant colonies that outcompete other ant colonies replicate themselves as vehicles through the genetic replication of its individual members. The genes have an impact on the vehicles and the vehicles have an impact on the genes (and not only from group selection, but also from epigenetics, or the modification of gene expression).

I suspect that a large number of people will turn away from the book on the first hint of group selection, and that is unfortunate. At the same time, Wilson certainly could have done a better job defending his particular conception of group selection. Rather, he seems to pretend it’s not controversial and just assumes that his readers will agree. This is probably a mistake.

So already there are a few hurdles you have to overcome before you can really dig into the main ideas of the book. If you think evolution means genetic evolution only, that any application of evolution to human culture is social Darwinism, or that group selection is flat out wrong in any form, then you will likely dismiss the book before it even gets started. However, if you’re able to see these misconceptions for what they are, the remainder of the book will expand your perspective on using evolutionary theory to solve real-world problems.

So what exactly can the evolutionary perspective offer, in practical terms? That’s the meat and strength of the book, once you clear away the biases mentioned above. Wilson recounts several real-world applications in business, education, and public policy that leverages the evolutionary worldview.

The best way to think of the evolutionary approach to managing teams and implementing policy is to think of the area between Laissez-faire and centralized planning. In terms of Laissez-faire, Wilson writes, “If there is anything that evolution teaches us, it is that the pursuit of lower-level self-interest does not automatically benefit the common good.” As for central planning, Wilson reminds us that “the reason centralized planning seldom works is because the world is too complex to be understood by anyone.” No matter how well intentioned the planning is, there are always unforeseen consequences.

What can work, instead, is a managed process of variation and selection. Once a worthwhile goal is established that considers the common good, a process of planned and unplanned variation and selection can be managed as the optimal way to achieve the stated goal. This scientific-oriented approach to problem solving can be applied not only in biology but also in business, government, and the management of any group.

In the chapter titled “What All Groups Need,” Wilson summarizes the research of Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for her research on the tragedy of the commons. Specifically, she analyzed a worldwide database of groups that had successfully managed common-pool resources. The tragedy of the commons, if you’re not familiar, is the problem associated with a group of people sharing a resource that each individual person is tempted to overuse at the expense of the group.

It turns out that the most successful groups all abided by eight core design principles (CDPs), which can be used as a template for creating effective groups in business, government, education, and more. They include the establishment of clear goals and purpose, collective decision making, fair distribution of costs and benefits, self-monitoring, graduated punishments, local autonomy, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances without top-down rigidity.

Far from being only theoretical, Wilson recounts how he implemented these CDPs with great success by developing an at-risk program for ninth and tenth graders at Binghamton High School. Wilson also shows how the CDPs can be implemented for the management of neighborhoods, religious groups, and socially-minded businesses.

Humans evolved within the context of small groups, and it is through the creation of effective small group dynamics that we are most effective at solving problems. Understanding how to manage groups within the framework of evolutionary theory will not only complete the darwinian revolution but will also give us our best chance to solve our most pressing social problems.

The only thing I would add is that this is not necessarily new; David Deutsch has outlined this evolutionary approach in his book The Beginning of Infinity, and Karl Popper long ago emphasized the evolutionary approach to knowledge and policy. Popper’s “conjectures and refutations” is, after all, the concept of “variation and selection” expressed in different terms. I was somewhat surprised that Wilson made no mention of these authors. Nonetheless, the presentation is unique and the practical examples drive the point home in terms of relevance to real-world problems.

In closing, if we’re looking for long-term solutions to our political problems, this is it. Leveraging the evolutionary process of variation and selection to achieve goals brings a level of sanity and rationality to the political process, which should be thought of as a cooperative problem solving activity rather than as a pre-darwinian zero-sum competition between competing factions. show less

Can evolutionary methods be used to study the development of religion? David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because of the advantages it confers on those who share in it. Religion may even have contributed to humanity’s rise as the dominant animal on earth. By studying religious concepts in their group settings (religions are well known for their in-group morality and out-group hostility), Wilson places the evolution of social behavior, and show more religion in particular, on the same playing field as biological entities.

Group selection long ago became passé among evolutionary biologists, but it may be time for its revival. In the 60’s, it was believed that evolution takes place entirely by mutational change. Since then, it has been shown that evolution also occurs along a different pathway: by social groups becoming so functionally integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. So why aren’t groups—particularly religious groupings—receiving the attention they deserve in the evolutionary field?

Wilson wants to study religious groups in the same way biologists study guppies, bacteria, and other forms of life. Does the rational choice theory fit religion? Functionalism? Using Calvinism as his primary case study, he determines that characteristics of social groups can be predicted via group selection theory.

Intelligent and cutting edge, Wilson does have something to say, but this is not an easy read; it reads like a university thesis, scholarly and reference-infested. It’s not because the theory isn’t fascinating, but because I had a hard time concentrating on the presentation, that I ranked it only three stars. show less

I have very mixed feelings about this book.

One the one hand, it's yet another great introduction to the relevance of evolutionary theory (a worldview, maybe?) in all aspects of life. In fact, he goes to great length to show how evolutionary theory has come to interpenetrate erstwhile disparate academic disciplines, resulting in exciting new discoveries and ideas. (And, he doesn't shy away from telling us, he has had no small part in helping this happen in some areas.)

On the other hand, he show more moves from chapter to chapter, covering many of this cross-disciplinary ideas, providing far too much narrative about himself, his colleagues, and seemingly every single person whose ideas he discusses to any length--and the reader is left wondering what this really has to do with improving our neighborhoods. In fact, one has a hard time discovering just what he has accomplished in his own neighborhood--or what hope we have of taking away real, practical lessons. There are some, but hidden away in lots of other musings (many about religion) that seem to wander here and there.

It's clear what he's doing with all this extra material: he is dealing with many relevant issues for the life of a city, and narrating a lot of the process by which he arrived at wanting to bring evolutionary theory to bear on improving that city. The problem is that we are given far too much musing on how evolution is relevant to understanding our world, from the large scale to the small, and how evolution is relevant to some of the other disciplines (e.g., economics) that certainly inform our understanding of a city, but far too little take-away lessons and practical steps.

The book is more a narrative describing the establishment of the Neighborhood Project (detailing his thought process at every point...) than an examination of a real-life case study with imminently significant results. As a result, it's unclear who would best be served by this book. Anyone really concerned with changing their local environment can learn a lot about how a city is like an organism or has a "soul," but little about what to really do and--most importantly--why Wilson is the person to tell you how to do it. It can, however, enrich someone's understanding of their environment and world, bringing interesting and thoughtful ideas to bear one's appreciation for one's neighborhood. But how to get your hands dirty (without the ability to conduct large, citywide surveys and statistical analyses) and start making a difference...unfortunately, one would have to look elsewhere.

In the end, Wilson deserves some praise, as always, for being an excellent educator and leading proponent of evolution--not to mention well-informed and rather swell guy, I imagine--but this book is in need of some major editing (trimming the fat) and a much clearer focus. show less