ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2019
Inclusive fitness is an indispensable approximation for understanding organismal design.
Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nonlinear social evolution and the emergence of collective action.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- How to make an inclusive-fitness model.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Inclusive fitness forces of selection in an age-structured population.Communications biology · 2023Article
- The evolution of personality disorders: A review of proposals.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Review
- Emergent multilevel selection in a simple spatial model of the evolution of altruism.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Multiple social encounters can eliminate Crozier's paradox and stabilise genetic kin recognition.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Extending the range of additivity in using inclusive fitness.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- What life is for: a commentary on Fromhage and Jennions.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For some decades most biologists interested in design have agreed that natural selection leads to organisms acting as if they are maximizing a quantity known as "inclusive fitness." This maximization principle has been criticized on the (uncontested) grounds that other quantities, such as offspring number, predict gene frequency changes accurately in a wider range of mathematical models. Here, we adopt a resolution offered by Birch, who accepts the technical difficulties of establishing inclusive fitness maximization in a fully general model, while concluding that inclusive fitness is still useful as an organizing framework. We set out in more detail why inclusive fitness is such a practical and powerful framework, and provide verbal and conceptual arguments for why social biology would be more or less impossible without it. We aim to help mathematicians understand why social biologists are content to use inclusive fitness despite its theoretical weaknesses. Here, we also offer biologists practical advice for avoiding potential pitfalls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.