Hamilton’s Rule and Its Discontents

Abstract

In an incendiary 2010 Nature article, M. A. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita, and E. O. Wilson present a savage critique of the best-known and most widely used framework for the study of social evolution, W. D. Hamilton’s theory of kin selection. More than a hundred biologists have since rallied to the theory’s defence, but Nowak et al. maintain that their arguments ‘stand unrefuted’. Here I consider the most contentious claim Nowak et al. defend: that Hamilton’s rule, the core explanatory principle of kin selection theory, ‘almost never holds’. I first distinguish two versions of Hamilton’s rule in contemporary theory: a special version (HRS) that requires restrictive assumptions, and a general version (HRG) that does not. I then show that Nowak et al. are most charitably construed as arguing that HRS almost never holds, while HRG buys its generality at the expense of explanatory power. While their arguments against HRS are fairly uncontroversial, their arguments against HRG are more contentious, yet these have been largely overlooked in the ensuing furore. I consider the arguments for and against the explanatory value of HRG, with a view to assessing what exactly is at stake in the debate. I suggest that the debate hinges on issues concerning the causal interpretability of regression coefficients, and concerning the explanatory function Hamilton’s rule is intended to serve. 1 Nature Red in Tooth and Claw 2 Two Versions of Hamilton’s Rule 2.1 The special version (HRS) 2.2 The general version (HRG) 2.3 The rules compared 3 How They Come Apart: A Simple Illustration 3.1 Why HRS often fails 3.2 Why HRG always holds 4 A Dilemma for Hamilton’s Defenders 5 HRG and Explanatory Power I: The ‘Tautology Problem’ Redux 6 HRG and Explanatory Power II: Prediction versus Unification 6.1 The predictive limitations of HRG 6.2 The unification response 6.3 A worry about this response 6.4 Causal interpretation revisited 7 The Heart of the Matter

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 71 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.