[FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we behave?)

[lrudolph at meganet.net]

Nick says, in relevant part:

> For instance, when
> sociobiologists use the notion of selfish gene, they may legitimately
> disclaim the idea that genes consciously choose between self-regarding and
> other-regarding options, but they cannot legitimately disclaim the idea
> that a gene has the power to make any choice but the self-regarding one
> And that idea is patently false.  Genes do not make choices, they ARE
> choices and the choice is made at the level of the phenotype or at the
> level of the population, depending on how one thinks about the matter.
> My position is that I favor each and every one of us taking whatever
> responsibility for understanding our own "convex hull" of
> capability/knowledge/intuition as we are capable of and "managing" it to
> the best of our ability.

Although I am always happy to impugn the integrity of sociobiologists, and
in particular have no doubt that they are (perhaps not deliberately with
malice aforethought) equivocating on the meanings of "selfish", there
*are* two such meanings in common usage, which lead to two possible
readings of the phrase "selfish gene".  (1) The first meaning of "selfish"
(in the nearest dictionary) is "concerned chiefly or only with oneself"),
and using that one, the phrase "selfish gene" deserves all the scorn and
deprecation you have for it, precisely because the reading of the phrase
enforced by that definition of the adjective forces "self"-hood on the
gene.  (2) However, the second meaning of "selfish" is "arising from,
characterized by, or showing selfishness" (where "selfishness", not
explicitly defined in this dictionary, has to be taken as implicitly
defined by (1) in what might loosely be called a recursive manner); the
example phrase, "a selfish whim", illustrate that the "self" to which 
"selfishness" is ascribed need not (and I would say, generally is not) the
noun directly modified by "selfish" ("whim" or "gene"), but is rather some
other (actual or metaphorical) agent (the person whose whim it is or the
population/phenotype which has--metaphorically--"chosen", i.e., actually
*evolved*, the gene).

To the extent sociobiologists carelessly equivocate between those
meanings, they are to be corrected; to the extent that they do so
tendentiously, they are to be deplored (as well as corrected); but perhaps
some of them (with whom you are not familiar, or who you have possibly
misread) make it explicit that they are using meaning (2)?  *Those*
sociobiologists ought to be commended!