Well, and if your groups are men and women, they aren’t really in competition with each other for survival at the level of college admissions, so I wouldn’t think that’d be relevant to any kind of survival calculation, even if that were what it were about.
I don’t see how the “selfish gene” idea makes much if any real sense. Society and families and friends are all clearly much more effective, constructive and helpful ways to behave than being selfish, at least in most long-term situations. Overall, being helpful to others tends to be helpful to oneself anyway, because people like you back. Often being selfish in the short term backfires in the long term.
But getting away from over-stated survival-oriented theories of causation and human nature, it seems to me that there is a basic human nature to be friendly and help others when their own needs are met, and somewhat more self-oriented when there’s a distress. But more than that, I think the cause of negative, hostile and self-centered behavior tends to be abuse – practically every jerkish behavior, and every narcissist and sociopath and so on that I know enough about to say, seems to have a root cause of having been neglected or abused or otherwise messed with, and so developed an orientation based on that. People in great distress go into survival mode and end up with stuck emotions that mess them up until they get healing, and getting healing requires getting attention for upsets that were covered up in order to survive the trauma in the first place. To get attention, people create drama that somehow is like the original trauma, without realizing what they’re doing (unless they’ve sufficiently figured themselves out). None of that really has a whole lot to do with a strategy for optimum gene propagation, at least not in a direct way. The genetic/evolutionary theories seldom ring true for me at the level of how people actually are.