Talk:Inclusive fitness

The explanations for other principles seem a little vague and don't contribute much to understanding them. As well as the definition for kin selection is not what I have read in other work. Some statements/ explanations are not cited and if they are, it is not known with ease or by standard means.

---

McGheess.83---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgheess.83 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Need references for the last section

It seems decently informative and it's arguably appropriate to the article, but if no one finds any sources, a lot of the claims will have to be trimmed down soon. --DoItAgain (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A considerable portion of the text appears to constitute original research

To 128.253.187.23; on behalf of other editors here, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia dealing with the inclusion of original research in WP articles (it is against WP policy; see WP:NOR). While your opinions and thoughts on this topic are significant, this is unfortunately not the forum in which to express such opinions. This article should be reduced to an explanation of what the scientific community has stated regarding inclusive fitness, and all statements herein need to be backed up by citations. Specifically, ALL significant published opinions on what inclusive fitness is, how it is defined, and examples, should be presented in the article, and presented without judgment or bias (see WP:NPOV) regardless of your personal opinions. It is fine to state that a given author believes something, suggests something, concludes something, or contends something, as long as all authors' opinions are treated as equivalent, and assuming the citations are all from reliable sources (see WP:RS) - otherwise, the article turns into a work of advocacy, favoring your personal preferred theories or interpretations over others, and that is specifically counter to the goals and aims of Wikipedia, much as you or I might wish otherwise. If you wish to pursue a synthesis and summary of inclusive fitness theory, and criticize the work of others, then I encourage you to publish it (as you have done in the past - and yes, you and I have met personally, and I am familiar with your publications) and then cite the published synthesis. Until that point, much of what is written here at present needs to be either removed, or rewritten so there are proper attributions for the various statements made. Again, your contribution here is welcome, but you must limit it to verifiable, attributable statements, even ones that you may believe to be false or erroneous - it is not about what is true, it's about what people have said, and which people said it. That removes any element of your personal opinion from the equation, and that is how WP is designed to work. Dyanega 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a professional science writer I heartily agree that statements of opinion should be properly attributed, and as an intermediate messenger for some of this stuff I'm trying to get that done. It may take a while because some of the references seem to be buried in the basements of academic buildings. If carried to far, however, the proscription of "original research" could preclude many experts from contributing to articles in their own field, since they would have no choice but to cite their own work.

And with tongue inserted partly into cheek, I can't resist asking: Do you think an article on evolution should also present intelligent design theory "without judgment or bias?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Parental care is not altruistic

I've cleaned up some of the text, and cut the section on parental care as altruism. Altruistic behaviours are those that have a negative impact on the personal fitness of the actor, i.e. reduce the number of direct descendants, whilst improving the reproductive success of non-descendant relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.29.250 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree its not altruistic - however I do agree that it does not demonstrate inclusive fitness (at all or well). So i've removed the lapwing example as well. The squirrel example is good though. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Parental care is more altruistic than cloning and less altruistic than grandparental care. Irrespective of any of this, it is part of inclusive fitness. Using examples involving parental care can at times (especially the present) avoid confusion. Mhuben (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (Transcribing for Mike Orlove.)

Personal fitness and reproductive success are synonyms. Hamilton's (1964) definition of altruism was in gains and losses of Classical Fitness. If people hadn't repeatedly deleted the definition of classical fitness from the article, this confusion might not have arisen. I have been reminded that one should put various points of view in the article, but this should be done in a way that doesn't compromise the integrity of any of them. Such compromise has been characterized as vandalism according to wikipedia policy. For example, if I say Author1 says "the note in the drawer says the man has a braid" and Author2 disagrees, saying "the note says the can has a brain", that is not vandalism. But if I put it in the form "M(C?)an has a braid(n?)" then that is vandalism. The reason is that it implies that all the permutations exist, when really only two of them have historically existed. It's like saying that the first letter of this document is a or b or c ... or x or y or z, and the second letter is a or b or c ... or x or y or z, and so on. Failure to heed this suggestion can easily give the impression that all the permutations exist as opinions out there when in fact only a few of them actually exist. Mhuben (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (Transcribing for Mike Orlove.)

On reflection, those gains and losses should be Personal, not Classical fitness. Mhuben (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC) (Transcribing for Mike Orlove.)

Ricklefs and Miller, 2001?

There is no result for Ricklefs & Miller 2001 on Google Scholar. 216.73.248.51 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus their definition is godawful. 98.234.216.78 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton's Equation or Hamilton's Inequality?

Strictly speaking, Hamilton's Equation is an inequality, not an equation. It is usually referred to as Hamilton's Rule, or as the Hamilton Inequality. It might be advisable to rename that section appropriately, not least to avoid confusion with Hamilton's Equations, which actually are equations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.94.13 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowak & al

I've tried to clarify these points, quoting from the NTW (Nowak Tarnita & Wilson) paper. I should disclose that I am a friend and collaborator of Martin's, but I believe the edit is NPOV. On the NY Times Article, there are both critics and opponents of the NTW paper, and Gardner is by no means the most prominent critic. It is fair to point out that AFAIK none of Nowak and Wilson's critics have remotely the stature and track record of Nowak and Wilson, nor do they have much of a mathematical background. If a mathematical paper survives a peer-review in Nature is it very unlikely to contain mathematical errors, and however much experimental biologists might not like the maths, shouting will not change the mathematical results. NBeale (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You used one of Gardner's (et al) papers in your previous edits to suggest that Hamilton's rule was flawed in its application. Now are you suggesting that they are not qualified to have an opinion on the application of the rule? Ninahexan (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One glaring error in Nowak et al. is the unnumbered equation right after inequality (1) on page 1059. There are two mistakes in that he wants to have 'something' = instead of $R=$ lest he get caught in circular reasoning because he defines Q as the relatedness between the potential altruist and the potential beneficiary and Q bar as the relatedness between one of them and an average member of the population and since R and relatedness are the same thing according to him, that is a circular definition. However, what he was trying to say is that 'something' equals the right hand side of the equation and then he was challenging that 'something' would always equal R. If he had used "genes alike in state" instead of relatedness in his definitions of Q and Q bar, then the equation would have been accurate. If the formula is evaluated twice using "genes alike in state" the first time and "relatedness" the second time, when calculating Q and Q bar the circularity is eliminated and the R values returned both times will be identical thus proving 'something' always equals R. ('Something"' as used by Nowak is the name of a variable, and not just the word something.) This equation (perhaps independently derived) was in an unpublished paper given at a seminar in November of 1970 which evolved into Orlove 1975. (BU344M, Cornell Biometry department.) Mhuben (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC) (Transcribed over the phone for Mike Orlove.)

File:Orlove paper BU-344-M pg.4.tiff

Page 4 from BU-344-M showing how the unnumbered equation that follows Hamilton's inequality in Nowak et al is derived. This is for clarification of the argument. The West referred to here is Mary Jane West Eberhard, not Stuart West.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhuben (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the point of 'something' in equation (1) is that there are many different models. As they say "For many models we find that cooperators are favoured over defectors for weak selection, if a condition holds that is of the form [26–31]: ‘something’.c/b". The 6 different papers they reference do not all use the same model. Nature papers, esp ones of this prominence, are very carefully refereed and the idea that there is an obvious and glaring error is a bit naive. NBeale (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gardner & al have written a reply submitted to Nature, not a paper. It should soon come out in the Correspondence section, together with a response from Nowak & al (as is the protcol in such cases). NBeale (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:NBeale, Science does not proceed by stature. If it did, we would still be stuck with Rutherford's non-nuclear model for the Sun for example. So kindly avoid implying that the stature of authors as an indicator of correctness, and argue for or against works based on their content, not on the qualifications or perceived stature of their author(s). 128.32.45.186 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To be specific, here is a copy of a letter from Orlove to Ullica Segerstrale, an historian at Illinois Institute of Technology who studies sociobiology, that identifies the errors he's referring to (watch out for line breaks in the link!):

Dear Ullica,

Here are the two mistakes, which I tried to pinpoint for you, in Tom's copy of "Sociobiology: A New Synthesis". My eyesight was failing at that time so severely that it was overwhelmingly difficult. Now that I have been given access to a searchable electronic copy, it didn't take long at all. Here they are:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9ofvKZAmpEC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=%22But+at+least+half+of+the+brother%27s+genes+are+identical%22+%22more+than+doubles+the+brother%27s+personal+representation%22&source=bl&ots=oNa4ZLAx5i&sig=Yc1yBv2OT-Cl4KkuzeIxw8L6kAY&hl=en&ei=f5bRTvmTJYX40gGqzIDzDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&v ed=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22But%20at%20least%20half%20of%20the%20brother%27s%20genes%20are%20identical%22%20%22more%20than%20doubles%20the%20brother%27s%20personal%20representation%22&f=true

The link takes you to page 56. The errors are on page 56 and 57.

Error 1:

If you look in Orlove (1975, 1979, 1981) and Orlove and Wood (1978) you will see that W is defined as the sacrifice made by a worker so the queen can have Q2 extra offspring, when she's having Q1 offspring anyway. According to Hamilton (1964), K (in Hamilton's rule) = Q2 / W. Wilson, on page 56, defines K as Q2 / Q1.

Error 2:

Spite is defined by Hamilton (1970) as an animal being willing to lower its fitness in order to lower another animal's fitness even more, because R is negative. A negative R means this other animal is less related to the actor than an average member of the population. What Wilson called spite, on page 57, is what Mary Jane West-Eberhard calls "enforced altruism".

Respectfully Yours,

Michael J. Orlove

P.S.

Here is a link to a recent manuscript of mine, whose appendix lets you know what I think of Martin Nowak's attempt.

http://www.lightlink.com/bobhope/m2mfull3.pdf

P.P.S.

In spite of his frequent blunders, Ed Wilson actually clearly understands the paradigm. Bill Hamilton explained this by saying that Ed was wont to "slight of pen". I explain it by perceiving that his secretaries, editors, etc., introduce the blunders, and for some reason he is unwilling or unable to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: According to Mike Orlove, the above is an exact copy of the letter, but it contains an error. The correct title for the book is "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis." Mike says he also can be the victim of editing errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Orlove comments

In a phone conversation with Mike Orlove, he identifies problems following reference links using NetEcho and NetByPhone, which provide web browsing for the visually disabled over the phone. There are two styles of references that are used in this article: the standard wiki <ref></ref> doesn't correctly bring you to the reference, but instead takes you to the beginning of the current article. Mike proposes using the older system of simple text to make this accessible to disabled people. It would be a good thing in any event to be consistent in the reference styles. Does anybody else have problems following references with a different browser? Safari seems to work properly.

Mhuben (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An issue like this should be raised at WP:VPT where a bunch of highly experienced techos are likely to provide useful feedback. Please make your report precise with an example: At this section, clicking the ^[10] in the last paragraph should jump to "Maynard Smith, 1995". However, using ...[what exactly?]... it jumps to the top of the article. Specify whether this happens for all references in all articles (i.e. click a few refs in a few articles: does it ever work?). If WP:VPT does not help, ask User:Graham87. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More Orlove Comments

I deleted two rather large contributions from Mike Orlove (one of them quoted below) which heavily cite his own work between 1975 and 1980. I honestly think these give undue weight to some very old material, and to one particular PoV amongst many. But others may consider that some or all of this is worth preserving:

If $r$ is defined such that Hamilton's Rule is preserved then the approach is by definition ad hoc. However, if $r$ is defined in addition such that two propositions about the rate of selection, namely "the total amount of corrected inclusive fitness in the world equals the total amount of personal fitness in the world" and "if everyone has a doppelganger on a possible world and the personal fitness of one's doppelganger equals one's own corrected inclusive fitness (provided that the initial conditions are the same in both worlds) then the plot of gene frequency as a function of time will be identical in both worlds", are preserved then the two definitions of $r$ coincide, which greatly reduces or eliminates the ad hoc nature of Hamilton's Rule: where corrected inclusive fitness equals inclusive fitness in the original sense, plus $C$, where $C$ is a constant the same for everyone in the population at any instant in time and it equals the total number of stranger equivalents reared in the current generation divided by the population size (e.g., if $r$ equals 1/8 between cousins and I rear 8 offspring from my cousin. I have reared one of my offspring equivalents and 7 stranger equivalents. Evenly dividing the stranger equivalents between all members of the population is a little white lie equivalent to saying I reared one of my offspring and seven strangers. However, it does preserve the proposition about rates of selection. Hamilton's 1964 not using $C$ was not an oversight because he wanted his definition of fitness to be incapable of decreasing as time goes by, as R. A. Fisher predicted for Classical fitness in his fundamental theorem of natural selection. It is not only interesting that the two derivations for r yield the same formula, but even more interesting that the term to the right of the minus sign in the covariance formulae in these formulae for r derive from the genotypes of offspring that the potential beneficiary has anyway, regardless whether she is helped or not in the Hamilton's-rule-related derivation, but from the parts of the genotypes of the extra offspring that the potential beneficiary has when she is helped that are unrelated to the altruist in the rates-of-selection derivation. Nowak et al. cite the fact that both inclusive fitness and personal fitness can be used "to do the same thing" as evidence for the superfluous nature of inclusive fitness. However, Orlove 1979 and Orlove 1975 use it as a way of finding philosophical implications, notably seeing inclusive fitness theory as isomorphic with the much older karma theory, $C$ being equivalent to group karma. The similarity between kin theory and karma theory stems from the natural selection working on correlated events just as well as when they are or are not causally linked, much as in B. S. Skinner finding a similar phenomenon in operant conditioning which he called "superstition".

A recent paper by Alan Grafen is a much more up to date statement of the inclusive fitness view (which cite's Orlove's seminal 1975 paper).

NBeale (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Orlove states:

I have restored the original article, because removal of such a large section constitutes illegitimate blanking.

(1) Although the material is old, it is still valid, and has not become obsolete. (2) Had the people responsible for the accusation of ad hoc in the Nowak et al. paper read Orlove 1979, they never would have made the accusation. (3) I have been requested to put in other points of view that disagree with my own and cite sources on them into the article and would gladly do so if I could. However, due to extenuating circumstances (I hope temporary) I cannot get to the library that has these refereences, and I have lost my own library due to burglary

I invite Martin Nowak, Corinna Tarnita and Ed Wilson and anyone else to add to the article, but in the spirit of fellow travellers and not adversaries. A wikipedia article should be like a zoo or a museum. Basically, a pluralistic venture. As should the study of these topics. It is possible that the errorrs that I perceived in Nowak et al's paper may not be there by wish of the authors, and may somehow have crept in by the editorial process. Mhuben (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this really won't do. (a) The restored version has some basic errors (eg the ref on squrrels, and Garnder has not submitted a paper to Nature in response to the article, it is a letter co-signed with many others that will eventually appear with the authors' response in the correspondence section, but (b) what Mike has done is inserted a long essay citing mainly his 1979 paper which has been cited just five times since publication (and partly on his 1975 paper which has been cited 54 times in the subsequent 35 years, only 2 of which are this century. Thus the article becomes Orlove's view of inclusive fitness and without intending disrespect to a pioneer from the 1970s this is giving far too much weight to a researcher who seems to have published 4 papers between 1975 and 1982 and nothing since. If Mike wants to publish a paper correcting Nowak and Wilson he should submit it to a peer-reviewed journal and not do it in a Wikipedia article. (c) I think there are technical errors in his comments, and certainly infelicities of style, but I really don't have time to go through it. NBeale (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The work on squirrels and on Gardner are not the work of Orlove, but another contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhuben (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course more focused comments from Mike Orlove would be v helpful

I should make it clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that I do not at all object to Mike, or any other expert, making comments, far from it! But it is generally much better not to over-cite one's own work, and to try to keep things in proportion. Could Mike, or anyone else, add a short para based at least in part on the more recent papers, such as the one I cite above? NBeale (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Grafen's recent work should be described by someone familiar with it. Mike tells me that he has access to the text but not to the equations due to his disability. He even tried blowing it up on optical transparencies -- very expensive -- but they were stolen. Anyway, whatever is added should point out that Bill Hamilton is credited with inclusive fitness theory and the concept of inclusive fitness. Anyone who wishes to redefine inclusive fitness has to call it something else and not steal Hamilton's concept. For example, "corrected inclusive fitness" (Orlove 1979).

Grafen used the term inclusive fitness but changed the definition. He might better have called it "inclusive gitness" or just "gitness" -- a pun based on the functions f(x) and g(x). Hamilton suggested humorously, "intrusive fitness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Beldings Ground Squirrel

The Beldings Ground Squirrel section in the intro looks a bit too good to be true. The ref turns out to be a PhD student's website and when I replaced it with the paper that seemed most relevant (from the title) and then found the paper it makes no such claim about relatedness. Can anyone actually substantiate this?NBeale (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That section was not written by Mike Orlove. Mhuben (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Submitted by Phil Scopes on behalf of Mike Orlove:

I am NOT the author of the Belding's Ground Squirrel section.

Mistakes in its source-citing are not attributable to me, and though, like all other human beings, I am capable of mistakes, the squirrel one isn't one of mine. Using it as evidence to generally discredit me, and that as an excuse to blank out a large section (which has nothing to do with the squirrels, or Nowak et al (2010) for that matter) is simply argumentum ad hominem (and as such is a Logical fallacy -See Marilyn Vos Savant's page on logical fallacies by googling "marilyn vos savant logical fallacies"), and vindictive.

I was drawn into this article's project initially by the Talk Page calling out for an expert to chime in.

The article was then fraught with confusion, mostly about whether parental care was or wasn't part of Inclusive fitness.

The section which Nicholas Blanked about crocodiles, spiders, Lx-curves, MX-curves, and life cycles going from conception to conception or from weaning to weaning was crafted to eliminate the confusion.

It may seem long, but it is of minimum length to get all necessary points across to maintain rigor and intelligibility.

Similarly, citing (Orlove 1979) was done the minimum number of times to preserve accuracy of the argument. In mathematical, logical, philosophical, and scientific arguments accurate qualifiers are necessary to avoid charlatanism, aka stating a broader significance than that which actually holds.

If I say a proposition exists claiming "total inclusive fitness equals total personal fitness" and another of equal truth value which can be generated from the first by reading "expected" for "total", then these propositions are only true if the inclusive fitnesses are corrected inclusive fitnesses. Stating this truth without citing (Orlove 1979) would comprise an unsourced statement and be open to accusations of "original research", both taboo in Wikipedia Policy.

Nicholas's keeping us minded of the 1979 paper as old or cited (allegedly) only 5 times is again irrelevant, argumentum ad hominem and an attempt at character assination (pun intended). Vladimir Nabokov's (1945) seminal paper on Polyommatus butterflies hadn't been cited once until 1980, when it was 2 or 3 years older than (Orlove 1979) today. Now that DNA sequencing by Naomi Pierce confirms his complicated assertion, his paper will be one of the most important in the historical record.

In 1979, I anticipated what Nowak, et al (2010) would write 31 years later.

Thus a rigorous mathematical come-back to their claim that inclusive-fitness theory and Hamilton's Rule's ad hoc nature already existed in the peer-reviewed literature. It just happens to be 32 years old. So what?. My 1975 paper is cited over 200 times, not the 55 counted by Nicholas.

If anyone wants to liken my anticipating Nowak et al in advance to a genetic engineer patenting all the one thousand digit long numbers in base 4, let me ask:

Would it be wise to publish a paper today making a thesis identical to one made by Galileo's imaginary opponent in his dialogue.

The blanked section at the end is the most important part of my contribution to this article. Nicholas, please restore it! (Physical disability prevents me from doing so.)

My mentioning that life cycles can be reckoned from weaning has NOTHING to do with endorsement of abortion.

The abandonment of inclusive-fitness Theory or failure to cite Vedic Philosophy coming so close to it in the form of The Law of Karma, is ethnocentric and Xenophobic, and plagiarism.

It is very hard to find an encyclopedia which gives deserved credit to the Babylonians and Chinese for having discovered the "Pythagorean" Theorem hundreds of years before Pythagoras. Even though Pythagoras visited Babylon and was a mathematics student there, stories exist in Western books of how he was inspired with the theorem whilst contemplating the patterns in the tiles in the floor of a public loo. Give me a break!

We need to respect all cultures and give credit when due.

Dissing people because they are long ago or far away is bad form.

I have had to rely on friends for dictation due to my disability.

Sometimes they make mistakes, e. g., "anyone" for "anyway", and "B. S. Skinner" for "B. F. Skinner". This is no crime!

However, it is a crime when during proofing one of them reads the text back to me as if the corrections were implemented, but the mistakes show up in the article or talk page uncorrected, again and again.

One 2-word phrase was so omitted and it ruined the argument. It is now fixed. Thankfully so!

In his column, The Ethicist, in the New York Times, Randy Cohen writes of a Judge who campaigned against Patrick Henry, who went easy on him because Henry was ill, saying "I will not lay low a man who has already been so by the Hand of God." Yes, it's a paraphrase, not necessarily an exact quote.

Nicholas assays to ridicule me for over-citing my work, saying how few times mine is cited How many times are other peoples's cited? How many times his, Martin's, etc.?, and cruelest of all, he faults me for not publishing since 1982.

Due to local politics, fueled greatly by the fatal stabbing of a nice, affable, good, young policeman, with a wife and infant child, by a disabled woman, my flat is invaded in pogrom-like raids, this repeatedly leaves me bereft of equipment to properly read, write, compute,.

I'd love to read Grafen's recent papers.

The equipment left me reads x sub 1 x sub 2, x sub 3, and x sub i all as x.))Nicholas, how would you like to be treated if this were happening to you?

Inclusive fitness is Bill Hamilton's concept. The P. O. V. (point of view) is his.

He regarded my correcting term as a valuable tool in explaining his subject matter, not competition.

Should an article about Kepler's laws that has been modified to revise them into Newton's laws exist? How about Newton into Einstein!

Should we trash fractions because we have decimals or polar coordinates because we have Cartesian ones?

We need both personal and inclusive fitness approaches, and it is the relation between them where the real interest begins.

The unchallenged exposure given Nowak et al, has made it unsafe for me to go out of doors, on-campus,and off, even 2 miles from campus. So Nicholas, put your money where your mouth is.

The Policeman was sadly murdered circa 1997, but the invasions started in 1983/1984, at Harvard not Cornell.

The motive then was probably professional jealousy, based on the fact that on arrival at Harvard I was approached by a total stranger, out of doors between the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the Organismic and Evolutionary Biology building who recognized me and predicted that these things would happen as they already have to others who were funded to attempt to solve the "Cost of Meiosis" Problem.

Once the invader accidentally left behind a tape he accidentally recorded of himself raiding my flat whilst I was at Harvard.

It's real.

I would  read all that new stuff sooner if you back off Nick!

By the way, I have a friend who is a co-author on that paper (Nowak et al.) as well.

MJO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.169.242 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal appears more wholesale than necessary

The most recent edit appears to be somewhat excessive; the text certainly was lengthy, but some of the citations deserve inclusion here. Dyanega (talk)

Counting error

Nick stated that between 1975 and 1982 Orlove only has four publications. Actually there are 13. With the following exceptions they are all in peer-reviewed journals and all about kin theory. Exceptions: Four are in a popular magazine (Creative Computing); One of these was an article including kin theory simulations. The remaining three were about logic, physics and philosophy on a level for kids. One had a long foreword written by the editor, and one was totally reworked by the editor.

Of the remaining nine one was a book chapter and another was co-authored with statistician Constance L. Wood.

P.S.--I'm not Mike. Posting this for him due to his handicap.

I said "seems to have published" and I was going by Google Scholar. I apologise if I have under-counted. The point remains though that there are c41k articles on Kin Selection and 6k on inclusive fitness. The highest cited articles are cited 323 times. I don't deny that Orlove made a valid and interesting point but we shouldn't give undue weight just one author. NBeale (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I find these ad hominem exchanges beside the point. This is not a debate, it's a collaboration to produce an encyclopedia article. If there is controversy in the field we should state it and move on, not keep flipping the article back and forth to support one position or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 February 2011

Bogus Referral on Kin Selection

The "Criticisms" subsection on the Kin selection page ended with "These criticisms have been addressed on the inclusive fitness page and its discussion (talk page)". I've deleted this from that page, since it's unsuitable prose for an Article page. (For more on this, see the Talk page there).

But I also notice that there's no discussion of the criticisms against Inclusive Fitness theory here on this page, which would leave this page liable to neutrality POV complaints. I haven't raised a badge, since I'm just passing through these pages right now doing research, but as it stands this page isn't up to Wikipedia's standards. Hopefully, this is because it's a work in progress - but it's been a month since the last edit so I do wonder...

If someone is working on this page, please remember that if you don't include criticisms (such as those mentioned on the Kin selection page in respect of Inclusive fitness theory) you are liable to get a "badge of dishonour" at some point.

Best of luck with your future edits! ChrisBateman (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section yourself! It's unfair to accuse editor's of violating WP:NPOV due to a lack of content, unless you have evidence that such a section was removed (in which case, you can reinstate it), or even that sources are so abundant it has deliberately been omitted.

The article presents criticisms with due weight where relevant (e.g. Hamilton's rule at worst superfluous and at and best ad hoc; Gardner in turn was critical of the paper, describing it as "a really terrible article" etc.) including statements from the Nature paper quoted on Kin selection. It has to be said that the paper to which you're referring is pointing out 'limitations' of the theory, and a single review doesn't necessarily have to be plastered over all related Wikipedia pages (though it is already referenced on this page). In respect to WP:DUE, the article is missing much more pertinent content on classic studies, history, etc. Jebus989^✰ 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Terminal Bud

The above is a marker to allow a visually impaired person to post here. It looks stupid, but please do not remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening phrase

Changed the opening to say "Inclusive fitness is..." in the standard style of Wikipedia articles. Strictly speaking, the article is not about "inclusive fitness theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions to section 'Inclusive fitness and altruism'

In resonance with ChrisBateman's comments on 'criticism' and "badge of dishonour" above, and with Jebus989 on background/history, I have added some referenced content to the 'Inclusive fitness and altruism' section that I hope is useful. The aim is to forestall the common misunderstanding/over-simplification that the theory predicts that organisms will cooperate with genetic relatives, one which, though not a pitfall for experts, is a very common one for students and others coming to the theory for the first time. I'd be grateful for any feedback on this, or the inclusion in the article of additional examples or clarifications. Thanks.Maximilianholland (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inclusive fitness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803214955/http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF to http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Opposing view

The "Opposing view" section that concludes the article is really litle more than its first paragraph - the second, larger paragraph describing FURTHER SUPPORT for Hamilton et al's theories. Its third and final paragraph is, I find, hard to make anything of.

The section is little more than a miniscule nod and dismissive reference to the paper of Nowak et al., a POSITION, in my opinion, that is diametrically opposed to the assessment given, for instance, by the Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/science/inclusive-fitness) which concludes:

 "Although some researchers still contend that inclusive fitness can be used to describe the evolution of eusociality, the theory’s empirical assumptions and relevance to only very specialized social structures have led others to challenge its validity. American biologists Edward O. Wilson, Martin A. Nowak, and Corina E. Tarnita have provided mathematical explanations for eusociality based on population genetics and natural selection .. the researchers determined that competition between selection for a eusocial allele .. was determined by basic principles guiding natural selection rather than by selection factors that extend beyond standard fitness calculations. The researchers further concluded that genetic relatedness is a consequence of cooperation and eusociality, not a driving force behind the evolution of these characteristic."

Can anyone please introduce some balance to the article that reflects the significance of Nowak et al.'s paper? The stark contrast between Wikipedia's presentation and Britannica's does no favours to anyone.

The response to Nowak et al., and their reply to this, can be read here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom-Wenseleers/publication/50832089_Inclusive_fitness_theory_and_eusociality/links/5db31dc34585155e27010b53/Inclusive-fitness-theory-and-eusociality.pdf

LookingGlass (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Um, I'm afraid that it's the EB's unsubstantiated claims that are hopelessly unbalanced: which doesn't mean that the section is much good as it stands (the article isn't C-grade for nothing). It would benefit from a substantial rewriting to make clear the multiple strong and evidence-based rebuttals of the Nowak et al paper, which are admirably presented in the researchgate page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)