Maybe we are not talking about the same thing in this case.
If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist's criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters. This, however, views "group selection" as a theory where the group is responsible for developing biological traits in the individuals, and as a theory which tries to explain altruistic behavior inside the group. I was not claiming any of the above.
I was not talking about an evolutionary pressure on the individual caused by the so-called "group selection theory". I was only talking about support for one's own group in contrast with support for other groups, not in contrast with support for oneself.
Also, if "group selection", as per definition, means that biological traits in individuals develop on the group level, then I was not supporting the group selection theory at all! I was talking about the competition between different groups. Where one group competes with another group.
Would you say this competition doesn't exist, and that groups didn't go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
Maybe I used the term "evolution" in a way which might be misunderstood? I'm not claiming that biological traits spread among the individuals of a group for the good of the group. I'm claiming that general cultural or social principles of one group might make the group more competitive against other groups, and we can see plenty of historical proof for it.
If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist's criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters.
Modern discourse about genetics isn't an ivory tower exercise where you can reason your way to the right answer without looking at empiric reality.
Would you say this competition doesn't exist, and that groups didn't go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
I'm not sure what "group" goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
This sort of thinking seems bad:
This sort of thinking seems socially frowned upon, but accurate:
Similar points could be made by replacing a/b with [group of people]. I think it's terrible to say something like:
But to me, it doesn't seem wrong to say something like:
Credit and accountability seem like good things to me, and so I want to live in a world where people/groups receive credit for good qualities, and are held accountable for bad qualities.
I'm not sure though. I could see that there are unintended consequences of such a world. For example, such "score keeping" could lead to contentiousness. And perhaps it's just something that we as a society (to generalize) can't handle, and thus shouldn't keep score.