Facts, Conventions, and the Levels of Selection
Abstract
Debates concerning the units and levels of selection have persisted for over fifty years. One major question in this literature is whether units and levels of selection are genuine, in the sense that they are objective features of the world, or merely reflect the interests and goals of an observer. Scientists and philosophers have proposed a range of answers to this question. This Element introduces this literature and proposes a novel contribution. It defends a realist stance and offers a way of delineating genuine levels of selection by invoking the notion of a functional unit.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mechanisms of group bonding provided an advantage in intergroup competition and conflict.
“Multilevel selection theory (Bourrat, 2021;Boyd, 2018;Price, 1970) suggests that mechanisms of group bonding provided an advantage in intergroup competition and conflict.”
From Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality (2026) · cites this paper as Bourrat, 2021
According to the Price equation, the transmission bias E(w_i •Δz_i) is crucial for the change in character across generations, just as is the selection pressure at the higher level, which is in this case the costs of losing in a situation of intergroup competition.
“According to the Price equation, the transmission bias E(w i •Δz i ) is crucial for the change in character across generations, just as is the selection pressure at the higher level, which is in this case the costs of losing in a situation of intergroup competition.”
From Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality (2026) · cites this paper as Bourrat, 2021
Cites
Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2010) · doi:10.4324/9780203852279 · Cited by 3,469 · see citing works
Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2004) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226712130.001.0001 · Cited by 2,793 · see citing works
Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.
WEST, S. A., GRIFFIN, A. S., & GARDNER, A. (2007) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x · Cited by 1,889 · see citing works
Wilson, D. S. (1975) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.72.1.143 · Cited by 1,259 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality
Windzio, M. (2026) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-026-09531-2
- Authors
- Bourrat, P.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bourrat, Pierrick
- ORCID
- Bourrat, Pierrick
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2021-08-20
- OpenAlex
- W3194646883
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 20.38
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- levels of selection, units of selection, realism, functional units, evolution, evolutionary theory, philosophy of biology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
