Kin Selection and Organizations

Without interacting much with the truth-value of group-selection...there is nonetheless a rather devastating proof of the extent to which kin-selection crowds out group selection in many circumstances.

Definitions from la wik:

• group selection refers to the idea that alleles can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the alleles' effect on the fitness of individuals within that group.
• By kin selection I mean the evolution of characteristics which favour the survival of close relatives of the affected individual, by processes which do not require any discontinuities in the population breeding structure.
• reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

Basically...the question is: Do we see (in animals) actions that are ACTUALLY actions promoting the survival/health of a group, as opposed to (a) promoting self-interest in a delayed manner, or (b) promoting the survival of relatives.

Proof:
Suppose that animal A is a group-selector, and animal B is only a kin selector. All other factors equal. Over large numbers of actions, then animal A and/or his descendants end up with fewer resources, as B doesn't help A, but A does help B. Then animal A will under-reproduce B, by a measurable margin, and over time, we can expect gene-based group selection to become extinct.

Dispute:
There is some dispute as to whether groups under long-term intense survival limits, wherein coordinated activity is essential to survival, can evolve group-selecting processes...as groups that don't evolve them go extinct...while random selection could spread them through a small group rather quickly...The evolutionary cost might be low enough that other accidentally associated traits could move stuff through the group. ALSO, there's some discussion of whether you can get cultural group selection in humans, as group belonging is survival-essential and group facing behaviors can become prerequisite to group-belonging.

However, it's close to true that if the external environment isn't your primary competitor...group selection fails.

Claim:
The same logic necessitates Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. IF an organization isn't under intense selective pressure...then group-benefiting behavior strategies die out. People do precisely as much to benefit the group/company as necessary, and mostly act to benefit themselves. ALSO, people acting to benefit the company, rather than to benefit themselves lose out in corporate survival (promotions), because they are looking out for their own interests LESS than others, ceteris paribus.

IF an organization is stable, it will act to perpetuate/expand the power of it's leaders first, and for ALL other goals much lower. Some unstable organizations have different goals. But only unstable organizations.