The Selfish Gene Review
Added 2024-10-26 05:11:22 +0000 UTCIn this special international episode of Decoding the Gurus, Chris and Matt Brown team up to dissect Richard Dawkins' enduring influential work, 'The Selfish Gene.'
The hosts dive deep into Dawkins' evolutionary theories, touching on genes, memes, and human meat bags. They explore Dawkins' narrative style, the academic controversies sparked by his ideas, and his broader influence on understanding human behaviour. Along the way, they address criticisms by figures like Stephen Jay Gould and Mary Midgley, debate the implications of seeing humans as biological automata, and reflect on cultural paradigms overtaking biological legacies.
Join Chris and Matt as they recognise their true nature as a vehicle for bastard genes and do their best to contribute their enduring genetic lineage.
Links
Comments
Maybe I need to give Extended Phenotype a try reading instead then...
Ema Corro
2024-11-07 10:16:40 +0000 UTCYou can argue for other positions, of course, but Dawkins gene centred position is basically aligned with the majority view in evolutionary biology.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-11-05 11:17:23 +0000 UTCThe problem there is that there are very limited examples of selection that works on other levels. Inclusive fitness has proven rather robust, whereas any group selection account has typically failed. Cultural selection fares better but that really only applies to humans and that doesn't dramatically take off until the past 50,000 years or so. Multilevel selection models also talk a good game but their ability to outpredict gene selection models hasn't borne much fruit and again most of the arguments focus on humans. Dawkins has a fairly robust section arguing he isn't arguing for focusing on single genes and this is spelt out further in the Extended Phenotype.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-11-05 11:16:05 +0000 UTCAs a life long fan of Doctor Who, and a person who is disillusioned over who Dawkins is today, it did make me happy to see that Lalla "Romana II" Ward divorced him.
Mike Nelson
2024-11-03 21:46:53 +0000 UTCI should also say Ive never been able to get through this book. Maybe its the writing style idk. Which makes me a bad critic... But I am kind of in a related field which is in ecology and doing a lot of work involving genetics.
Ema Corro
2024-11-03 02:53:45 +0000 UTCI dont disagree with a lot you've said. But I found it a little frustrating that your response to every criticism of the book was "I dont think he was saying that" (though its probably true in a lot of cases related to culture etc). But ultimately the main disagreement other biologists (including genetecists) tend to have with him is over genes being the central unit of evolution. I dont think saying he aknowledges lot of genes are involved in complex traits really adresses that, because at a certain point its becomes an argument against genes being the fundamental unit evolution is acting on. Like when hundreds or thousands of genes or even other molecular processes affect a trait. I also think a lot of biologists focussing on different levels find it frustrating because they can see evolution acting on those levels, from other molecular processes to whole ecosystems. Is it that Im still taking his metaphore too literally or something?
Ema Corro
2024-11-03 02:51:19 +0000 UTCThis was good. I have the book but it's not on my immediate to-read list . Some day!
Alex H
2024-10-31 23:21:37 +0000 UTCMatt, if you have the opportunity to fit in another In-N-Out Burger, make sure the next one is Animal Style.
Eddy Wyn
2024-10-29 04:43:42 +0000 UTCThanks for educating me. I'll have a listen. But if anthropologists are branching out into these fields, what will become of the sciurology departments?
Robert Andrews
2024-10-28 05:33:24 +0000 UTCOh ye of little faith Robert. How anthrocentric for you to assume that anthropology cannot encompass non-human subjects: https://culanth.org/fieldsights/animals-and-anthropology-laura-murray.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-10-28 03:22:35 +0000 UTCExcellent job boys!!!
Julie
2024-10-27 22:32:42 +0000 UTCI hope my comment didn't come across as looking at guru followers as idiotic. Dawkins then goes on to examine why the birds might be fooled by their cuckoo "offspring." Having been manipulated by others myself, I know that those guru-types have lots of emotional tricks up their sleeves.
Linda Sears
2024-10-27 14:34:48 +0000 UTCI'm here for the banter more mostly 😊
Natasha Bride
2024-10-27 13:12:45 +0000 UTCLoved the podcast episode, but I must point out... and I hate to be that guy... Matt said that he had some anthropological observations of America, and one of them was about .... squirrels. If only there had been an anthropologist on the podcast, to point out that squirrels are not actually people even if they think they are. Sorry.
Robert Andrews
2024-10-27 06:01:19 +0000 UTCThey are red. I think they are Fox squirrels
Jennifer Nelson
2024-10-26 20:16:34 +0000 UTCThanks, that was very entertaining, and also educational! 😃 As I have too many unread books, and bought another two this week, I'll skip this one. Something about Ethnography would be interesting!
Roland Weber
2024-10-26 19:52:37 +0000 UTCAre they red or grey, or some other colour?
Roland Weber
2024-10-26 19:49:36 +0000 UTCI’m glad ya’ll said you were doing this book because it got me to read it, and I enjoyed it. Although you cautioned against seeing the descriptions of animal behaviors as saying something about human behavior, this one passage reminded me of the dynamic between our gurus and their followers: “The cuckoo is usually much larger, in some cases grotesquely larger, than its ‘parent’. I’m looking at a photograph of an adult dunnock, so small in comparison to its monstrous foster child that it has to perch on its back in order to feed it. Here we feel less sympathy for the host. We marvel at its stupidity, its gullibility. Surely any fool should be able to see there is something wrong with a child like that.”
Linda Sears
2024-10-26 18:59:07 +0000 UTCgood one
Protagonist Science
2024-10-26 16:02:53 +0000 UTCI read this book when I was 17 and a fan of Dawkins. It was disappointing to see him get into the culture war nonsense but it’s nice to know this book still holds up.
Amy
2024-10-26 15:38:35 +0000 UTCAs a Californian it is true, In and Out is great. However, squirrels are rats in cute outfits.
PuffyLowe
2024-10-26 15:10:33 +0000 UTCThanks, should be a good listen 😊. Might even reread the book first, it's been a while. Now, if we could get just the Dominion review as audio...
Erland Hvittfeldt
2024-10-26 15:01:11 +0000 UTCAustralians are always into the squirrels
Jake
2024-10-26 13:26:37 +0000 UTCMatt is correct, we do have the best squirrels here in the SF Bay Area. I’m glad to have his validation on that. We’re scruffier in the East Bay, so just cross a bridge and you’ll fit right in. Plus you haven’t seen a truly cute squirrel until you’ve seen a Berkeley campus squirrel, so that’s two reasons to visit the East Bay: peak scruffy and peak squirrel
Jennifer Nelson
2024-10-26 12:43:35 +0000 UTCBy the end of this, I had a very clear memory of the culture war in student bars circa 1989. What is interesting is that Dawkins can be adapted to any simplistic argument any shouty bloke wants to make. A bit like Orwell.
Nina Davies
2024-10-26 12:24:25 +0000 UTCWe have one hole with two openings. Think donut!
mobitobi
2024-10-26 10:53:33 +0000 UTCSo good 😊
Jill
2024-10-26 10:52:55 +0000 UTCAlways good to confess🙂 📖👍🏼
Anne Stephens
2024-10-26 06:41:09 +0000 UTCA treat every time one drops :)
Lillie
2024-10-26 05:25:06 +0000 UTC
