Talk:Inclusive fitness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 inclusive fitness in the family structure 2 "WARNING!: Discussion of econometrics of extremely-selfish, and sex-related, behaviours follow:" 3 A considerable portion of the text appears to constitute original research 4 Parental care is not altruistic

[edit] inclusive fitness in the family structure

This section is very poor. Whilst i feel the concepts are explained correctly, the way in which they are explained is too informal, it is not befitting of an encyclopedia. Terms such as fecundity functions are explained without introduction. The word 'parse' is used unclearly. The first person is used when the passive would be much easier to understand. I feel this section is worthy of cleanup. 149.254.200.218 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC) dom I removed the section on open source software since it seemed absurd. While inclusive fitness can explain why individuals help their relatives, it does not explain collaboration with strangers over the Internet. Try reciprocal altruism for that, or perhaps peer recognition.

Also I think the heading "In a biological sense:" should be removed, since that is the only sense in which the word carries a meaning. Filur 05:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think the ideas on this page are confused. Reciprocal altruism is a very different concept and, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with inclusive fitness. Also, parental investment is not the best example, since you don't need to invoke IF here; as you do in the case of helping one's relatives. IMHO the page needs rewriting by smn competent. Ariosto

You are entirely correct in both assertions. I will tag the page. Filur 10:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "WARNING!: Discussion of econometrics of extremely-selfish, and sex-related, behaviours follow:"

Warning? that's a bit usa-centric thinking, don't you think? I don't get it, being european? Must that warning be there there, it looks stupid. It's not a graphical depiction even, very dry and academic.

I removed the warning. Filur 14:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The original use of the word "altruism" when coined by Durkheim implied that here was no reward and that the gains and losses to the individual were in pleasure or some other utility function rather than reproductive success and that the actor was aware of the gains and losses that might accrue. However, very often a word is used differently in a specific field than in general usage (e.g., force in physics vs. forcing yourself to give up smoking). In inclusive fitness theory and related disciplines the gains and losses are to reproductive success and the actor and recipeint may or may not be conscious of those gains or losses. Durkheim's definition is based on intent and the inclusive fitness definition is based on consequences.

[edit] A considerable portion of the text appears to constitute original research

To 128.253.187.23; on behalf of other editors here, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia dealing with the inclusion of original research in WP articles (it is against WP policy; see WP:NOR). While your opinions and thoughts on this topic are significant, this is unfortunately not the forum in which to express such opinions. This article should be reduced to an explanation of what the scientific community has stated regarding inclusive fitness, and all statements herein need to be backed up by citations. Specifically, ALL significant published opinions on what inclusive fitness is, how it is defined, and examples, should be presented in the article, and presented without judgment or bias (see WP:NPOV) regardless of your personal opinions. It is fine to state that a given author believes something, suggests something, concludes something, or contends something, as long as all authors' opinions are treated as equivalent, and assuming the citations are all from reliable sources (see WP:RS) - otherwise, the article turns into a work of advocacy, favoring your personal preferred theories or interpretations over others, and that is specifically counter to the goals and aims of Wikipedia, much as you or I might wish otherwise. If you wish to pursue a synthesis and summary of inclusive fitness theory, and criticize the work of others, then I encourage you to publish it (as you have done in the past - and yes, you and I have met personally, and I am familiar with your publications) and then cite the published synthesis. Until that point, much of what is written here at present needs to be either removed, or rewritten so there are proper attributions for the various statements made. Again, your contribution here is welcome, but you must limit it to verifiable, attributable statements, even ones that you may believe to be false or erroneous - it is not about what is true, it's about what people have said, and which people said it. That removes any element of your personal opinion from the equation, and that is how WP is designed to work. Dyanega 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parental care is not altruistic

I've cleaned up some of the text, and cut the section on parental care as altruism. Altruistic behaviours are those that have a negative impact on the personal fitness of the actor, i.e. reduce the number of direct descendants, whilst improving the reproductive success of non-descendant relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.29.250 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)