Raw LLM Responses

I think it is as with anything vaguely controversial in science, that it is taught matter-of-factly in some places, while simultaneously being controversial in others. But I think it would be fair to say there is a spectrum in how it is taught and understood. On the one hand, a hard reductionism toward biology and gene-centric theories leads to an emphasis on individuals in fitness equations. People are assumed to be mostly competitors, reproduction is our highest calling and survival is the game. On the other end are equally prominent theorists (David Sloan Wilson, Francis Heylighen, Robert Wright, Jonathan Haidt, EO Wilson, etc) that grapple with the adaptive advantages of cooperation and culture, the blurriness between individual and group, complex evolutionary psychology and multiple levels of analysis in evolution, even the idea of superorganisms and a direction to evolution. Overall, I'd say currently most theorists accept some of the later (even if begrudgingly), while still feeling consensus is very much built on the former. I think that in terms of paradigm shifts, people see the later ideas as minor divergences from an accepted core, but don't quite see it as building to a full paradigm shift yet, which I think it really will be. If you look at something like Meta-system Transition Theory in Cybernetics, for instance, it really is a very different beast than Selfish Gene Theory right down to some very incompatible assumptions.