Equivalence, Interactors, and Lloyd’s Challenge to Genic Pluralism
On a train ride in 1986, Elisabeth Lloyd convinced Stephen Jay Gould he had been wrong about species selection. The mistake had to do with differentiating what Lloyd came to call the “interactor question” from three other distinct questions implicit in the units of selection controversy. Lloyd’s efforts to answer this question led her to propose “emergent fitness” with Gould, develop the additivity criterion, and allowed the dissection of the units debates that was endorsed by George Williams and John Maynard Smith. It also led her into conflict with contemporary genic pluralists who argue that higher and lower level models are equivalent. Lloyd’s approach to the interactor question led her to show why this is a mistake and is key to understanding the controversy.
KeywordsInteractors Pluralism Additivity criterion Group selection Contextual analysis Multilevel selection
I would like to thank Elisabeth Lloyd for her generosity and candid insight over the course of multiple extensive discussions regarding the development of her ideas and how they were received by a host of distinguished figures she engaged with over the course of her career so far. I would also like to thank Michael Wade for discussion of some of the technical details, Ciprian Jeler for helpful editorial insight, and especially Lisa Ferrier for all of her crucial support.
- Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Godfrey-Smith, P. (1992). Additivity and the units of selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 315–328.Google Scholar
- Gould, S. J. (1982). The meaning of punctuated equilibrium and its role in validating a hierarchical approach to macroevolution. In R. Milkman (Ed.), Perspectives on evolution (pp. 83–104). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jablonski, D. (1986). Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39(2), 565–587.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. (1986). Evaluation and evidence in group selection debates. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 483–493.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. (1988). The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. (1992). Unit of selection. In E. Keller & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 334–340). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. (2001). Units and levels of selection: An anatomy of the units of selection debates. In R. S. Singh et al. (Eds.), Thinking about evolution: Historical, philosophical, and political perspectives (pp. 267–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. (2017). Units and levels of selection. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/davidson.
- Maynard Smith, J. (1987). How to model evolution. In J. Dupre (Ed.), The latest of the best: Essays on evolution and optimality (pp. 119–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J. (2001). Reconciling Marx and Darwin. Evolution, 55(7), 1496–1498.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Vrba, E. (1980). Evolution, species and fossils: How does life evolve? South African Journal of Science, 76(2), 61–84.Google Scholar
- Vrba, E. (1989). Levels of selection and sorting with special reference to the species level. In P. Harvey & L. Partridge (Eds.), Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology (Vol. 6, pp. 111–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Waters, C. K. (1985). Models of natural selection: From Darwin to Dawkins. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wimsatt, W. C. (1980). The units of selection and the structure of the multi-level genome. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1980(2), 122–183.Google Scholar