Slate's Bizbox
the earthling: Science, evolution, and politics explained.

Fittest of the Survivors

By Robert Wright
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2001, at 9:00 PM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty

Let me admit at the outset that the TV show Survivor doesn't perfectly mirror the dynamics of human evolution. For example: Archaeologists have scoured the African savannah in vain for evidence that our ancestors played dopey coconut games while surrounded by a film crew, a spectacle you may recall from the first installment of Survivor, this past fall. 

Still, the show does feature small groups of people living in low-tech conditions and playing for high stakes. And, as in human evolution, the game calls not just for competition but for cooperation—a subtle mix of zero-sum and non-zero-sum interactions. So the kinds of traits favored by the game should bear at least some correlation to the kinds of traits that human evolution favored. This means Survivor could provide valid data in a long-standing debate among evolutionary psychologists about the essence of human nature. OK, "valid" may be a reach—but what these data lack in validity they make up for in vividness.

The debate in question is between the "individual selectionist" view, the dominant view within evolutionary psychology, and the "group selectionist" view, a minority view that has long been struggling for wider acceptance and that over the last few years has had some success on the public-relations front, thanks largely to journalists hungry for fresh angles. Alas for the group selectionists, Survivor cannot be counted among those PR successes.

At least, Survivor 1 sure can't. Let me explain why, and then leave it for readers to decide whether Survivor 2, which debuts this Sunday, will have a similar effect on intellectual history.

In crude, layperson's terms, group selectionism is the idea that a significant part of human nature evolved "for the good of the group." Group selectionists, compared to individual selectionists, expect people to be inclined toward purer, less discriminating forms of altruism. They don't claim we're all Mother Teresa, but they claim we're a bit closer to that end of the spectrum than individual selectionists give us credit for being.

Individual selectionists, to be sure, think people are naturally inclined toward altruistic acts. But they generally expect these acts to fall into one of two categories: a) altruism bestowed on kin, which may indeed amount to pure, true self-sacrifice; b) altruism bestowed on non-kin, which tends to be dished out selectively, with the (often unconscious) aim of getting eventual reciprocation in one form or another.

Thus, individual selectionists aren't surprised by the parent-running-into-burning-buildings-to-save-offspring type of altruism. But they expect soldier-jumping-on-hand-grenade-to-save-army-buddies type of altruism to be so rare that when it happens we make a huge deal of it and award the Medal of Honor. As we do.

Which brings us to Survivor. In theory, you can imagine two types of behavior on Survivor. In a heavily group-selectionist scenario, people would do things that are in the interest of their "tribe" even if that meant incurring much greater costs than their tribemates incur. They might, say, work to build a shelter without worrying much about whether their labors are being acknowledged, or whether other people are contributing comparably.

In a heavily individual-selectionist scenario, people would spend their energy in a less diffuse and carefree manner. Yes, they might work hard building a shelter, but they would make damn sure everyone knew about it. That way they could be "repaid" in one currency or another—maybe by elevated social status (which during evolution seems to have had a reproductive payoff) or maybe just by other people pitching in and matching their contribution. In the individual-selectionist scenario, disproportionate burdens are not gleefully shouldered, and selfish calculation is a recurring theme.

I am tempted to say, without further elaboration, "I rest my case." After all, the winner of Survivor 1—the species that was left standing after many generations of winnowing—was the infamous Richard Hatch, now nationally known for his self-centered conniving. When he did something for the "good of the group"—like catching fish, his speciality—he did everything short of calling in the Goodyear blimp to advertise it. And when his tribemates failed to show their appreciation—as when some of them voted against him at "tribal council"—he staged a work stoppage.

Richard's story illustrates a big problem for group selectionists: The individual selectionist view of human nature can account for all kinds of adroitly "groupish" behaviors. After all, Richard won not as a tough loner but as a canny organizer. By appealing baldly to the self-interest of Sue, Kelly, and then Rudy, he covertly formed the "Tagi voting bloc." This group, which probably featured the highest density of selfish calculation found anywhere on the island, was nonetheless cohesive week after week (until, near the end, the flighty Kelly went AWOL, a maneuver for which she eventually paid the ultimate price). As other islanders were cast into the dustbin of evolutionary history, these four stayed standing.

The same story unfolds at a higher level of organization—in comparing the whole Tagi "tribe" to its adversary, the Pagong tribe. The Tagi were contentious, inclined to complain about laggards. The Pagong were a notably nicer, less judgmental group of people—more like you'd expect products of group selection to be.

And which group was more effective—the nice group or the meaner group? I hate to assign the class supplementary reading, but on this point I must direct you to an important anthropological monograph called Survivor, written by the show's co-creator, Mark Burnett. (Its chapters are nicely labeled "Evolution One," "Evolution Two," etc.) Of the Pagong, Burnett writes: "Their beach, for lack of a better word, was a slum." Meanwhile, those selfish Tagi "worked constantly to improve their way of life. The shelter had everything but a wine cellar." It turns out that a lot of showing off and complaining—working conspicuously hard and handing out negative reinforcement to those who don't—can lead to prosperous, powerful tribalism.

You might ask: But if human evolution wasn't heavily shaped by group selection, then how do I explain the Pagong tribe's mellowness? After all, its members were real human beings, products of real human evolution, so presumably they manifested real human nature.

Well, for one thing, though the Pagong were undeniably mellower than the Tagi, the difference wasn't as stark as it seemed. Burnett writes: "Pagong was outwardly loving, but they were a duplicitous bunch. Jenna, for instance, sweet-talked Ramona one minute, then, as soon as the biochemist walked away, Jenna would grumble that Ramona was weak and lazy and should be voted off."

You might still ask: But, even if neither group was a paragon of group-selected altruism, weren't there some individuals who were more selfless than individual selectionists would expect humans to be? What about Sean, that nice young neurologist? And what about the show's angelic heroine, the strong yet sensitive Gretchen? Don't worry—I can explain away these uncooperative data points with no trouble at all.

Let me summarize today's lesson. The spirit of selfless community that you would expect to see if group selection had been a big factor in human evolution didn't suffuse either of the two tribes in Survivor 1. And the groups that featured the most selfishness—whether tribes or sub-tribal coalitions—actually achieved the most as groups. The reason is that enlightened self-interest—the kind that individual selection can produce—leads to cooperation. Yes, it is a grudging, calculating cooperation. It involves constantly monitoring—consciously or unconsciously—the payoffs you're getting for your contributions and the contributions others are making. But it works.

Is this bad news? Some group selectionists seem to believe so. They think that they, unlike those cynical individual selectionists, offer an uplifting view of human nature and bring a message of hope for humankind. Personally, I find the group selectionist view of human nature—people as sheep, if you'll pardon my caricature—a bit creepy. And I find the individual selectionist view of human nature in some ways uplifting, for reasons I've explained in my own recently published book-length message of hope for humankind. (OK, it's guarded, qualified hope, but it's hope.)

In any event, the test of a view of human nature isn't whether it brings hope, but whether it comports with the way people actually behave. And so far, at least, behavior in the Survivor series has favored the individual-selectionist view of human psychology. Stay tuned.

Disclaimer: I can already imagine the letter that an arch-group-selectionist might write in reply to this article. So let me try (in vain, no doubt) to do some pre-emptive qualification.

1) No, I'm not saying that group selection is impossible, or that it played no role in human evolution. In fact, I don't even say that in my book The Moral Animal, which some group selectionists view as an individual-selectionist tract. I'm just saying that a) human nature isn't what you'd expect it to be if group selection had played a large role; and b) the sort of human nature individual selectionists expect to see can account for formidably cohesive group behavior.

2) Obviously, as I said at the outset, Survivor doesn't come anywhere near mirroring the environment of our evolution. Still, it does show human nature being manifested under distinctively illuminating circumstances, and it documents the social consequences of different behavioral styles. In many ways, it is at least as revealing a view of how real people really act as you'll get by examining the roomfuls of undergraduates that make up so many of psychology's data points.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Robert Wright, a visiting fellow at Princeton University's Center for Human Values and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, runs the Web site meaningoflife.tv and is the author of The Moral Animal and Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


I am the "arch group selectionist" that Wright imagines replying to his article. Perhaps Wright is responding in part to my review of his book Nonzero in Skeptic magazine (read it here) in which I roundly criticize him for relying on group selection without using the dreaded G-word. Wright's portrayal of group selection in his article is full of errors; that only a few heretics regard it as an important evolutionary force, that it leads to a sappy nice-guy view of human nature, and so on. My review of Nonzero is designed to acquaint the reader with the real theory of group selection, which need not be repeated here.

The Survivor "experiment" was designed to bring out the individually competitive element of human nature. In the language of multilevel selection theory, it was pure within-group selection. If the experiment had been altered to include several groups with the prize going to a single victorious group (to be shared among members as they see fit), the result would have been very different. It would include strong solidarity, coordination and--yes, even altruism--within groups and intense between-group rivalry. Within-group selfishness would exist but would be suppressed by an arsenal of social control mechanisms. Groups hampered by internal conflict would be among the losers while the group that exhibited the greatest solidarity would probably emerge the victor. The unfolding spectacle would include plenty to satisfy the misanthropist but it would reveal a human nature designed largely by similar among-group selection processes operating on our genes and culturally transmitted traits throughout our evolutionary history. If Wright can't recognize group selection in this scenario, he needs to go back to school to learn what group selection is and always was.

This is the second time that Slate magazine has published articles on group selection by authors who are hostile to and largely ignorant of the subject--however fine their credentials in other respects. The first time was the feeding frenzy on Kevin MacDonald and his work on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective. Then it seemed that a positive account of group selection might make it beyond the Fray section of Slate magazine. I'm still waiting.

--David Sloan Wilson
(Department of Biology, Binghamton University)

(To reply, click here.)

(1/29)



[Notes from the Fray Editor: Some subjects just do bring out those difficult Frays, but in this case was it unreasonable to hope that posters would consider the actual topic, and not some other article they had in their head? "Stumped" expresses the problem beautifully, below. (You thought it was Survivor that got readers going? Hah! Not compared with evolution.) We are waiting to find a Fray subject that Ayn Rand cannot be dragged into: this isn't it, see here. Many readers made some of the same points as Zeitguy, but he was chosen because he mentioned Agatha Christie and had the best post title: "Darwinners and dar losers".]


It is interesting to me that when an article never even mentioned Darwin or how humans came to be on the earth there are so many comments about just that. People, the topic of discussion is about how human society has progressed and developed into what it is today! Not whether or not we evolved from Monkeys, OK? Take some time to really read what is put before you, instead of just automatically assuming that it refers to your personal pet subject.

--Stumped

(To reply, click here.)


The final three Ultimate Survivors were: A gay male, a geriatric, and a female who did not display any sexual interest in these males whatsoever. No reproduction = no evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if another outwardly gay or lesbian will win Survivor 2 since they do not pose reproductive competition among their peers. Reproduction is the key to evolution, without it, evolution won't happen.

Now, those folks on Temptation Island have the right idea.

--Habitue

(To reply, click here.)


Tell anyone that a million dollars is waiting for them and you could get them to bark like dogs and pant and beg as well. We should not gather from this that such "canine behavior" behavior represents some individual or group survival mechanism that evolved in the grasslands of East Africa in distant history.

--Wakefield

(To reply, click here.)


The social "system" created by the producers of Survivor resembles a precocious sadist's ant farm more than it does any natural thing. You cannot apply game theoretic or group dynamic metaphors to this shamming. It was simply an inexorable elimination based on artifice, as true to life as Agatha Christie's un-pc tale of ten little Indians.

Personally, I don't care that people watch this drivel. It keeps them off the internet where the real fun is starting to emerge, mysteriously, without benefit of a psychological paradigm. What is slightly interesting is the contrast between the worldviews of abundance represented by the defunct dot.com investment phenomena, and the worldview of scarcity represented by Survivor.

A lot of losing investors were relieved of guilt by the resurgence of the scarcity model at a critical time. If the abundance model that herded them into collapsing corrals of optimism persisted while they were losing their shirts, they would think there was something wrong with them, and their loser status would be a ticket to lonely pariahdom. With the bleakness of narcissistic opportunism restored to primacy, we can all just join hands, shrug and say it is a cruel world out there.

--Zeitguy

(To reply, click here.)

(1/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon