INTRODUCTION
1. Neusner and Chilton (2005).
2. Dugatkin (2006).
3. My previous book on altruism with Elliott Sober (Sober and Wilson 1998) provides more depth, especially with respect to psychological altruism.
4. I recount these stories in detail in Wilson (2011).
CHAPTER 1
1. Hutchins (1996).
2. Ostrom (1990, 2010).
3. Hardin (1968).
4. McGinnis (1999).
5. Cox, Arnold, and Villamayor-Thomas. (2010).
6. Wilson, Ostrom, and Cox (2013).
7. Holldobler and Wilson (2008).
8. Seeley (1995, 2010); Seeley and Buhrman (1999); Seeley et al. (2012); Passino, Seely, and Visscher. (2007).
9. Described in Seeley et al. (2012).
10. Prins (1995).
11. Sontag, Wilson, and Wilcox (2006).
12. Couzin (2007); Couzin et al. (2011); Wilson (2000).
CHAPTER 2
1. See especially Frank (2011).
2. Wilson and Wilson (2007, p. 348).
3. Chapters 3 and 4 of The Neighborhood Project (Wilson 2011) are titled “The Parable of the Strider” and “The Parable of the Wasp.” They are written to illustrate the difference between within- and between-group selection.
4. Eldakar et al. (2009a).
5. Eldakar et al. (2009b; 2010).
6. Kerr et al. (2006).
7. Margulis (1970).
8. Maynard Smith and Szathmary (1995, 1999); see Bourke (2011) and Calcott and Sterelny (2011) for recent treatments.
9. Burt and Trivers (2006); Crespi and Summers (2005); Pepper et al. (2009).
CHAPTER 3
1. Darwin (1871, p. 166).
2. See Sober and Wilson (1998); Borrello (2010); Harmon (2010); and Okasha (2006) for historical and conceptual accounts.
3. Ghiselin (1974, p. 247); Alexander (1987, p. 3).
4. Hamilton (1975) is the seminal paper in this regard. Hamilton initiated inclusive fitness theory in the 1960s and regarded it as an alternative to group selection at the time. After encountering the work of George Price, he reformulated his own theory and realized that it invoked selection within and among groups after all, which he stated clearly in his 1975 paper. The fact that the entire community of evolutionary biologists did not quickly follow suit is a puzzle for social historians to solve. Hamilton (1996) describes his “conversion” in his own words, and Harmon (2010) has written an excellent book on Price and Hamilton.
5. My first article on group selection appeared in 1975, the same year that Hamilton’s article was published, and coined the term “trait group” to define the sets of individuals within which social interactions occur for any given evolving trait. I provided a simple algebraic model showing that selection among trait groups in a multigroup population can easily counteract selection among individuals within trait groups, contrary to the received wisdom about group selection. No one could dispute the math, but the typical response to the paper was “Why would you call that ‘group selection’?”
6. See Dugatkin and Reeve (1994); Kerr and Godfrey-Smith (2002); Marshall (2011); Queller (1991), Okasha (2006, 2014, Wilson (2008), Wilson and Sober (2002). A summary of Okasha’s 2006 book Evolution and the Levels of Selection and commentaries followed by a reply was published in the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (Okasha 2011a, 2011b; Sober 2011; Waters 2011).
7. Popper (1934).
8. Kuhn (1970).
9. Campbell and Grondona (2010).
10. Gintis (2009).
11. Before leaving the topic of equivalence, it is important to stress that evolutionary theories of social behavior can be equivalent in some respects without being equivalent in all respects. In particular, accounting methods that average the fitness of individuals across groups are straightforward in additive models but become cumbersome and perhaps even impossible with nonadditive effects. An example is the concept of equilibrium selection, in which complex social interactions result in multiple local equilibria that differ in their group-level properties. Group selection favors local equilibria that have the highest group fitness, but the component traits are also positively selected within groups. It is hard to see how this scenario can be modeled by inclusive fitness theory. For a sample of the recent literature on this topic, see Traulsen (2010); Marshall (2011); van Veelen et al. (2012); Goodnight (2013); Simon, Fletcher, Doebel (2013); and Simon (2014).
CHAPTER 4
1. Once a major transition occurs, many species can result from the first species. Thus, the origination of the first eusocial wasps, bees, ants, and termites was rare, not their subsequent adaptive radiation.
2. Haig (1997); Burt and Trivers (2006); Pepper et al. (2009).
3. See Burkart and van Schaik (2012) and de Waal (2009) for a review of cooperation in nonhuman primates.
4. Boehm (1993, 1999, 2012); Bingham (1999); Bingham and Souza (2011).
5. Henrich and Gil-White (2001).
6. E. O. Wilson (2012).
7. Wilson (2002).
8. Wegner (1986, p.185).
9. Campbell (1994, p. 23). Donald T. Campbell (1916–1996) was a social psychologist who pioneered the study of altruism, group-level functional organization, and cultural evolution from a modern evolutionary perspective.
10. Wilson (2009); see also Bingham (1999); Bingham and Souza (2011); Boehm (1999, 2012); Tomasello (2009).
11. Tomasello et al. (2005); Tomasello (2009).
12. Hare et al. (2002); Hare and Woods (2013).
13. Deacon (1998); Jablonka and Lamb (2005).
14. Wilson, Ostrom, and Cox. (2013).
15. Jablonka and Lamb (2005). Calling symbolic thought a nongenetic inheritance system does not deny that it evolved by genetic evolution. The point is that after it evolved, it creates heritable phenotypic variation that is independent of genetic variation.
16. Jablonka and Lamb (2005) provide a concise history of how evolutionary biology became so gene-centric.
17. See, for example, Smith (2003).
18. Gissis and Jablonka (2011).
19. Gregory and Webster (1996).
20. West-Eberhard (2003); Piersma and van Gils (2010).
21. E. O. Wilson (2012).
22. Pagel and Mace (2004); Pagel (2012).
23. The concept of cultural traits as like parasites and disease organisms has been developed by Dawkins (1976); Blackmore (1999); Dennett (2006).
24. Richerson and Boyd (2005).
25. Richerson and Boyd (1999); Stoelhorst and Richerson (2013); Turchin (2005, 2011).
26. Turchin (2005); Acemoglu and Robinson (2012).
CHAPTER 5
1. Sober (1984).
2. Williams (1966); see Sober and Wilson (1998) for a more detailed treatment.
3. Colwell (1981); Wilson and Colwell (1981).
4. See Sober and Wilson (1998) for a more detailed account.
5. Wilson and Sober (1989, 1994); Sober and Wilson (1998).
6. Batson (1991, 2011).
7. Mayr (1961).
8. Tinbergen (1963); see Laland et al. (2011) and Scott-Phillips , Dickens, and West. (2011) for recent treatments.
9. Holden and Mace (2009).
10. This thought experiment is similar to one that Elliott Sober and I conducted to compare hedonists, egoists, and altruists (Sober and Wilson 1998), but these distinctions do not exactly correspond to the three types of individuals discussed here.
11. The veil of ignorance made famous by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice (1971) assumes that the average person reasons like Dick. The veil is required for Dick to choose social arrangements that qualify as just.
12. These nuances are based on mathematical models in which evolution takes place in a single group (the desert island scenario) or in multiple groups with random variation among groups (Wilson 1975, 1977).
13. See also Haidt (2012).
1. Boehm (2012).
2. Ehrenpreis, Felbringer, and Friedmann. (1978, p. 11).
3. Wilson (2002).
4. Atran (2002); Boyer (2001).
5. Dawkins (2006); Dennett (2006); Hitchens (2007); Harris (2004).
6. Dennett (1995).
7. Tyler (1871); Frazer (1890); Durkheim and Fields (1912).
8. Gould and Lewontin (1979).
9. In his introduction to the second edition of his book on Darwin’s finches, Lack (1961) notes the change in thinking that had occurred since the publication of the first edition. My article on adaptive individual differences within single populations (Wilson 1998) notes the trend during the subsequent decades showing that natural selection operates on much finer spatial and temporal scales than Lack knew.
10. Wright (2009); Wade (2009); Norenzayan (2013); Bellah (2011).
11. One of my contributions to this consensus is an analysis of a random sample of religions, which avoids selection bias (Wilson 2005).
12. Ehrenpreis, Felbringer, and Friedmann. (1978); discussed in more detail by Wilson and Sober (1994).
13. Neusner and Chilton (2005); also see Neusner and Chilton (2009) for a similarly organized volume on the Golden Rule in world religions.
14. Berchman (2005, p. 2).
15. Wilson (1995).
16. Neusner and Chilton (2005, p. 191).
17. Numbers (1976); for a more detailed account of this example, see Wilson (2011, ch. 18).
18. Hafen and Hafen (1992).
19. In my study of a random sample of religions (Wilson 2005), the frequency of religions that spread by violent conflict was very low.
20. Comte (1851).
21. Dixon (2005, p. 203).
22. Dixon (2005, p. 205).
CHAPTER 7
1. Wilson (2007).
2. Like Gandolf, Bernard rejoined the Evolution Institute and played an integral role in its development until his death in 2014. He will be missed.
3. The special issue at the Journal for Economic Behavior and Organization website, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01672681/90/supp/ S. Short accessible articles describing each of the thirteen articles in the special issue are available at the online evolution magazine This View of Life, http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/evolution-and-economics-special-issue.
4. See Wilson (2011, ch. 19) for a narrative account of my journey.
5. Smith (1759, 1776).
6. Burgin (2012); Jones (2012).
7. Rand (1957).
8. Mandeville (1705).
9. Wright (2005, p. 46).
10. Beinhocker (2005, p. 30).
11. Veblen (1898, p. 389).
12. Thaler and Sunstein (2008, p. 6).
13. Friedman (1953).
14. Hodgson (1991); Stone (2010); Lewis (2012).
15. Gould and Lewontin (1979).
16. Feldman (2008) discussed from an evolutionary perspective by Wilson (2012a).
17. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/idaho-legislator-suggests-making-ayn-rand-required-high-school-reading-article-1.1257262.
18. http://www.aynrand.org/campus.
19. Wilson (1995).
20. Rand (1961, p. 50).
21. http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/when-alan-met-ayn-atlas-shrugged-and-our-tanked-economy.
22. Branden (1989, p.7).
23. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0.
24. Wilson and Gowdy (2015).
25. Gintis et al. (2005).
26. Tocqueville (1835, p. 60).
27. Pickett and Wilkinson (2009); Acemoglu and Robinson (2012); Piketty (2014).
28. Lewis (2014).
29. Lewis (2014, p. 164).
30. Strobel et al. (2011).
31. Lewis (2014, p. 95).
1. Wilson (2011) provides a book-length description of the Binghamton Neighborhood Project and the evolutionary paradigm that informs it for a general audience. Wilson et al. (2014) and Wilson and Gowdy (2013) provide overviews of how evolutionary theory provides a general theoretical framework for positive change at scales ranging from single individuals to small groups to large populations.
2. Visit the Evolution Institute website (http://evolution-institute.org) for more on these projects.
3. See http://www.search-institute.org.
4. Wilson, O’Brien, and Sesma. (2009).
5. Physical traits can be flexible in the same way. The general term that evolutionists use for traits that vary in response to the environment during the lifetime of the organism is phenotypic plasticity. A large literature exists on phenotypic plasticity that is highly relevant to understanding and improving the human condition. See Pigliucci (2001); West-Eberhard (2003); DeWitt and Scheiner (2004); and Piersma and van Gils (2010) for book-length academic treatments.
6. These results are reported in Wilson (2011); Wilson, O’Brien, and Sesma. (2009); Wilson and O’Brien (2010); O’Brien (2012); O’Brien, Gallup, and Wilson (2012); O’Brien and Kauffman (2012); and O’Brien, Norton, Cohen, and Wilson (2012).
7. Prosociality from an evolutionary perspective intersects with concepts such as social capital and collective efficacy developed by sociologists such as Robert Putnam (2000) and Robert Sampson (2003, 2004).
8. Bjorklund (2007); Del Giudice, Ellis, and Shirtcliff. (2011); Ellis and Bjorklund (2005); Ellis et al. (1999, 2011).
9. Gluckman and Hanson (2004); Bateson and Gluckman (2011).
10. Carey (2011); Jablonka and Lamb (2005).
11. Ellis et al. (2011); Del Giudice, Ellis, and Shirtcliff. (2011). Science writer David Dobbs has reported on this subject in the December 2009 issue of Atlantic Monthly and elsewhere; see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/.
12. O’Brien and Wilson (2011).
13. O’Brien, Gallup and Wilson (2012).
14. Wilson, Ostrom, and Cox (2013).
15. Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider (2000).
16. Wilson, Kauffman, and Purdy (2011).
17. Kauffman and Wilson (2014).
18. Embry (2002); Bradshaw et al. (2009); Kellam et al. (2008).
19. Prinz et al. (2009). Visit the Triple P website (http://www.triplep.net/glo-en/home/) to learn more about this remarkable program.
20. Wilson et al. (2014).
21. I have accumulated considerable experience on this point. In my communitarian projects, I frequently work with religious believers of all stripes. You would think that being a professed atheist and evolutionist would be a disadvantage, but I am typically judged primarily for the skills that I bring to the table, my commitment to a common cause, and my tolerance of their meaning systems.
22. Grant (2013). An interview that I conducted with Grant for the online evolution magazine This View of Life is available at http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/prosociality-works-in-the-workplace.
CHAPTER 9
1. Oakley et al. (2011).
2. Ellis et al. (2012).
3. Wilson and Csikszentmihalyi (2007).
4. O’Conner et al. (2011).
5. McGrath and Oakley (2011, ch. 4); Widiger and Presnall (2011, ch. 6); Zahn-Waxler and Van Hulle (2011, ch. 25).
6. Bachner-Melman (2011, ch. 7).
7. Li and Rodin (2011, ch. 11); Klimecki and Singer (2012, ch. 28).
8. Oakley (2011).
9. Exline et al. (1970).
10. Capaldi et al. (2001).
11. Jackall (2009).
12. Achebe (1960).
CHAPTER 10
1. Brown (1991).
2. Wilson et al. (2014).
3. View this video (http://alanhonick.com/prosocial) and visit the website of the Evolution Institute (http://evolution-institute.org/) to learn more.
4. This concept was also pioneered by Elinor Ostrom’s husband, Vincent Ostrom. See McGinnis (1999) for a volume of collected papers.