halucigenia wrote:I was probably taking this too far (as the saying goes) especially for a forum such as the BBC Nature messageboards where the show Autunmwatch is discussed. However it did arise from something that Chris Packham said on Autumnwatch the other night.

Chris stated that

Some people have come up with the idea that this is mating for pleasure. Now I would dispute that. I don't think that animals do anything for no reason whatsoever. Pleasure would not be a good enough reason really.

with reference to frequent non reproductive mating behaviour in badgers. Which made me think of how Richard Dawkins explains his selfish gene theory in terms of the genes inducing pleasure in the bodies that they find themselves in in order for them to be replicated. I do remember a reference to orgasm in the book to illustrate the point (I have been listening to the audiobook version of The Selfish Gene in the car on the way to work recently).

So I started a discussion about this on the BBC messageboards.

It has ended up with me coming up with the following metaphor this morning (I don't think that I have heard it anywhere before) and I wondered what you all might think of it here.

Our (all organisms) genes are operating a metaphorical Skinner box on us in order that they (the genes) are dispensed to the next generation.

I thought that it may be stretching a metaphor a bit too far but I think that it does encapsulate the concept of the selfish gene.

What do you think?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "metaphorical Skinner box"? The behaviors in which are learnt in animals are produced (in a very simplistic way) either by approaching pleasurable things, or avoiding aversive things. This wouldn't be a 'metaphorical' Skinner box, that would be a literal Skinner box, in that such actions are exactly what Skinner had in mind. The orgasm would of course act as a reinforcer for some behaviors, so it would be easy for nature to accidentally condition an organism to engage in certain behaviors when they result in an orgasm - for example, masturbation. There is absolutely no reason to think that masturbation is an evolved trait, and the pleasurable consequences of the action eventually shapes the behavior over time. An argument can even be made that mating behaviors themselves are learnt through these shaping behaviors, and I'm not aware of any particularly convincing arguments to suggest that mating behaviors in most animals (particularly mammals) are innate.

These learnt behaviors wouldn't be covered by the selfish gene theory though since they are a by-product of a general ability to learn, not something which is directly passed on from generation to generation.

Sorry if I've misunderstood what you were getting at - if I have, then just try to correct me or clarify some areas of your idea and I'll try to respond in more detail.

halucigenia wrote:Interesting that you say that mating is learned behaviour, but I would still ask why the learned behaviour gets reinforced as you say by repeating a pleasurable behaviour. Could it be that the behaviour is pleasurable because that is programmed in to be so by the genes? I am sure that this is the point that RD makes in the book The Selfish Gene. It is not that the behaviour is programmed by the genes it is that the behviour is the outcome of the fact that certain behaviours are pleasurable and certain behaviours areas you say aversive. Hence the genes operate the Skinner box that produces the behaviour indirectly rather than program the behaviour directly.
Does that make more sense of my metaphor?

Yes that makes sense, I think I understand what you mean now. Yes, it seems highly probable to me that organisms have evolved specifically to have pleasurable or aversive reactions to certain stimuli - e.g. satiating hunger is pleasurable (and the reverse, being hungry has aversive qualities like hunger pains). I'm not sure if it's accurate to describe it as a "metaphorical Skinner box" - in a way you are correct, but you're essentially taking Skinner's theory and re-simplifying it. Skinner viewed an organisms' adaptation over the course of its life as a direct extension of evolutionary biology, and so whilst natural selection operated on the phylogeny of a species (i.e. a biological setup that makes food pleasurable), a process called "selection by consequences" (the natural selection of behaviors) operated on the ontogeny of the individual. To demonstrate his theories on how behavior is learnt, he used the Skinner box as controlled environment which replicates the effects of nature in order to experiment which different variables. This means that to say genes act as Skinner box operators, you're essentially saying that the simplified analogue for the effect of the environment on an individual is a metaphor for the effect of the environment on an individual.. It's a little convoluted and unnecessary, in my opinion.

Anyway, this simple principle (pleasure-good, pain-bad) can actually explain a lot of our behavior, and it does make it extremely difficult to figure out what is learnt and what is innate. Even things like language or mating behaviors, which are commonly believed to have significant innate components, aren't necessarily so in many species.

halucigenia wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Does anyone still believe Dawkins' story?

It appears to explain a lot to me.
Does it not to you? Can you explain why?

I don't think it's well accepted in biology. I think biologists generally accept a multi-level theory of selection, rather than a focus purely on the genes. I don't really know enough about the specifics though, hopefully someone like Susu can clarify (or alternatively, you could try searching his posts because I think he's written on this topic before).

halucigenia wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Yes that makes, I think I understand what you mean now. Yes, ...This means that to say genes act as Skinner box operators, you're essentially saying that the simplified analogue for the effect of the environment on an individual is a metaphor for the effect of the environment on an individual.. It's a little convoluted and unnecessary, in my opinion.

I am glad you understand and, yes, it is a bit of a muddled metaphor. Taking a process that explains behaviour and using a metaphor of an experiment that is meant to explain behaviour to explain it .

And I'm not complaining, I'm happy that people are discussing Skinner's work.

halucigenia wrote:Yes, I am sure that it has been done to death here and elsewhere but I was specifically asking ughaibu to explain why he seems to think of it as a "story" that one has to "believe" in. Sure, the title is a metaphor but does he not not think that it helps explain evolution.
A lot of people misunderstand the selfish gene concept quite badly IMHO. If they even get past the title having the word selfish in it and don't get hung up on that, it usually comes down to a misunderstanding of the difference between the unit of evolution - the gene, and the object of selection - the individual, IMHO. I think that Even RD has backed down a bit on insisting that the object of "selection" is the gene if that ever was his stance in the first place.

AFAIK The Selfish Gene was Dawkins' reaction against the prevalent misunderstanding of the time (and it still continues) that evolution was for the "good of the species" which in itself is a misunderstanding of group or of kin selection. And, yes, I am sure that Susu would have something to say on this.

I'd wager that Ughaibu understands the topic here well enough to comment on it (i.e. it's not based on a superficial misunderstanding, like Dawkins was suggesting that evolution makes all animals "selfish" or whatever), and his initial comment about it being a "story" was probably intended as a derogatory comment on its scientific validity. I'm pretty sure Dawkins did view genes as the unit of selection though, since the Selfish Gene was an extension of the work of Williams (and others) on the gene-centered view of evolution - and it's controversial position in science is (I'd guess) what sparked Ughaibu's comment. However, he can explain it all himself if I'm wrong.