In less crude terms, the debate over group selectionism involves arguments about a) the relative importance of "between-group selection" and "within-group selection" during human evolution; b) how easy it was during human evolution to migrate from an endangered social group to a less endangered social group; and c) various other things, including such theoretical issues as what exactly constitutes a "group"—all of which explains why, for the rest of this piece, I'll stick with the crude, layperson's terms. My own view is that a) some of the group-selectionist arguments are semantic and ultimately inconsequential (as when group selectionists insist that "kin selection" is a form of "group selection"); b) the group selectionists have nonetheless performed the useful service of showing that the theoretical issues underlying the debate are subtle and not to be dismissed casually; c) but the on-the-ground evidence—i.e., human nature—just isn't consistent with the idea that group selection played a large role in human evolution.