Abstract
Various results show the ‘formal equivalence’ of kin and group selectionist methodologies, but this does not preclude there being a real and useful distinction between kin and group selection processes. I distinguish individual- and population-centred approaches to drawing such a distinction, and I proceed to develop the latter. On the account I advance, the differences between kin and group selection are differences of degree in the structural properties of populations. A spatial metaphor (‘K-G space’) provides a useful framework for thinking about these differences: kin and group selection may be conceptualized as large, overlapping regions of K-G space. I then consider some implications of the account, defend it from possible objections, and further argue that the structural features characteristic of both kin and group selection may recur at multiple levels of biological organization. 1 Introduction2 Equivalence Results and Their Limitations 2.1 An example of an equivalence result 2.2 Limitations3 Individual- and Population-Centred Approaches4 Two Influences: Hamilton and Godfrey-Smith5 K and G 5.1 K 5.2 G 5.3 K-G space6 The rb ≠ 0 Requirement7 Levels of Organization8 The Key Substantive Questions
Highlights
2 Equivalence Results and Their Limitations2.1 An example of an equivalence result 2.2 Limitations 3 Individual- and Population-Centred Approaches 4 Two Influences: Hamilton and Godfrey-Smith 5 K and G 5.1 K 5.2 G 5.3 K-G space 6 The rb 61⁄4 0 Requirement 7 Levels of Organization 8 The Key Substantive Questions ß The Author(s) 2018
It is crucial to distinguish between the formal equivalence of two statistical descriptions of change and the causal equivalence of two types of selection process responsible for change
My claim in this article is that, there is an important sense in which kin and group selection are formally equivalent when conceived as statistical descriptions of change, there is a real and useful—but not sharp—distinction between kin and group selection conceived as causal processes responsible for change
Summary
2.1 An example of an equivalence result 2.2 Limitations 3 Individual- and Population-Centred Approaches 4 Two Influences: Hamilton and Godfrey-Smith 5 K and G 5.1 K 5.2 G 5.3 K-G space 6 The rb 61⁄4 0 Requirement 7 Levels of Organization 8 The Key Substantive Questions ß The Author(s) 2018. Org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is doi:10.1093/bjps/axx properly cited
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
