| v1.13.0 | (+287/-280) | |||
| v1.12.0 | (+66/-13) | |||
| v1.11.0 | (+35) Phil, I'm willing to link to your posted opinion, I don't think it's common enough to deserve primary billing in the LW wiki. | |||
| v1.10.0 | (-776) Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/PhilGoetz|PhilGoetz]] ([[User talk:PhilGoetz|talk]]) to last revision by [[User:PeerInfinity|PeerInfinity]] | |||
| v1.9.0 | (+4/-3) all => most, due to my uncertainty | |||
| v1.8.0 | (+17) be more specific about genetic vs. cultural phenotypes | |||
| v1.7.0 | (+758) Adding a separate section at the end with a contrary view | |||
| v1.6.0 | (+4/-4) | |||
| v1.5.0 | (+24/-9) | |||
| v1.4.0 | (+36/-16) |
The historical fiasco of group selectionism is relied on as a clear-cut(clear-cut) case in point of the dangers of anthropomorphism.
Added by Phil Goetz: In contrast to what is written above, I note that:
Yudkowsky usesThe historical fiasco of group selectionism asis a clear-cut case in point of the dangers of anthropomorphism.
People who are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory sometimes proposeGroup Selection posits that a featurenatural selection might not operate at the level of genes in individuals, and instead also operate at genes in groups of individuals, i.e. selecting for genes for the group even at the expense of the organism is there for the good of the group - forindividual. For example, you might posit that human religion is an adaptation to make human groups more cohesive, since religious groups outfight nonreligious groups.
Postulating group selection is guaranteed to make professional evolutionary biologists roll up their eyes and sigh.See also:Evolution, Alienness of evolution
Added by Phil Goetz: In contrast to what is written above, I note that: