How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection

Liane Gabora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.04391

2015-01-19

Populations and Evolution

Abstract:This article explains how natural selection works and how it has been inappropriately applied to the description of cultural change. It proposes an alternative evolutionary explanation for cultural evolution that describes it in terms of communal exchange.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Five clarifications about cultural evolution

Liane Gabora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.2622

2013-09-10

Populations and Evolution

Abstract:This paper reviews and clarifies five misunderstandings about cultural evolution identified by Henrich, Boyd, and Richerson (2008). First, cultural representations are neither discrete nor continuous; they are distributed across neurons that respond to microfeatures. This enables associations to be made, and cultural change to be generated. Second, 'replicator dynamics' do not ensure natural selection. The replicator notion does not capture the distinction between actively interpreted self-assembly code and passively copied self-description, which leads to a fundamental principle of natural selection: inherited information is transmitted, whereas acquired information is not. Third, this principle is violated in culture by the ubiquity of acquired change. Moreover, biased transmission is less important to culture than the creative processes by which novelty is generated. Fourth, there is no objective basis for determining cultural fitness. Fifth, the necessity of randomness is discussed. It is concluded that natural selection is inappropriate as an explanatory framework for culture.
An Evolutionary Framework for Culture: Selectionism versus Communal Exchange

Liane Gabora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1206.4386

2012-06-20

Populations and Evolution

Abstract:Dawkins' replicator-based conception of evolution has led to widespread mis-application selectionism across the social sciences because it does not address the paradox that inspired the theory of natural selection in the first place: how do organisms accumulate change when traits acquired over their lifetime are obliterated? This is addressed by von Neumann's concept of a self-replicating automaton (SRA). A SRA consists of a self-assembly code that is used in two distinct ways: (1) actively deciphered during development to construct a self-similar replicant, and (2) passively copied to the replicant to ensure that it can reproduce. Information that is acquired over a lifetime is not transmitted to offspring, whereas information that is inherited during copying is transmitted. In cultural evolution there is no mechanism for discarding acquired change. Acquired change can accumulate orders of magnitude faster than, and quickly overwhelm, inherited change due to differential replication of variants in response to selection. This prohibits a selectionist but not an evolutionary framework for culture. Recent work on the origin of life suggests that early life evolved through a non-Darwinian process referred to as communal exchange that does not involve a self-assembly code, and that natural selection emerged from this more haphazard, ancestral evolutionary process. It is proposed that communal exchange provides a more appropriate evolutionary framework for culture than selectionism. This is supported by a computational model of cultural evolution and a network-based program for documenting material cultural history, and it is consistent with high levels of human cooperation.
The Cultural Evolution of Socially Situated Cognition

Liane Gabora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0803.2568

2008-03-18

Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems

Abstract:Because human cognition is creative and socially situated, knowledge accumulates, diffuses, and gets applied in new contexts, generating cultural analogs of phenomena observed in population genetics such as adaptation and drift. It is therefore commonly thought that elements of culture evolve through natural selection. However, natural selection was proposed to explain how change accumulates despite lack of inheritance of acquired traits, as occurs with template-mediated replication. It cannot accommodate a process with significant retention of acquired or horizontally (e.g. socially) transmitted traits. Moreover, elements of culture cannot be treated as discrete lineages because they constantly interact and influence one another. It is proposed that what evolves through culture is the mind; ideas and artifacts are merely reflections of its current evolved state. Interacting minds transform (in part) through through a non-Darwinian autopoietic process similar to that by which early life evolved, involving not survival of the fittest but actualization of their potential.
Can Other People Make You Less Creative?

Liane Gabora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.02076

2015-02-06

Multiagent Systems

Abstract:This paper explains in layperson's terms how an agent-based model was used to investigate the hypothesis that culture evolves more effectively when novelty-generating creative processes are tempered by imitation processes that preserve proven successful ideas. Using EVOC, an agent-based model of cultural evolution we found that (1) the optimal ratio of inventing to imitating ranged from 1:1 to 2:1 depending on the fitness function, (2) there was a trade-off between the proportion of creators to conformers and how creative the creators were, and (3) when agents in increased or decreased their creativity depending on the success of their latest creative efforts, they segregated into creators and conformers, and the mean fitness of ideas across the society was higher. It is tentatively suggested that through the unconscious use of social cues, members of a society self-organizes to achieve a balanced mix of creators and conformers.
A Holistic, Non-algorithmic View of Cultural Evolution: Commentary on Review Article by Prof. Liane Gabora

Stuart Kauffman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.05.005

2014-10-08

Abstract:There is surely some truth to the notion that culture evolves, but the Darwinian view of culture is trivial. Gabora does two things in this paper. First, she levels a reasoned and devastating attack on the adequacy of a Darwinian theory of cultural evolution, showing that cultural evolution violates virtually all prerequisites to be encompassed by Darwin's standard theory. Second, she advances the central concept that it is whole world views that evolve. A world view emerges when the capacity of memories to evoke one another surpasses a phase transition yielding a richly interconnected conceptual web, a world view. She proposes that cultural evolves not through a Darwinian process such as meme theory, but through communal exchange of facets of world views. Each section of her argument is completely convincing.

Neurons and Cognition
Selection, adaptation, inheritance and design in human culture: the view from the Price equation

Daniel Nettle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0358

2020-03-09

Abstract:For decades, parts of the literature on human culture have been gripped by an analogy: culture changes in a way that is substantially isomorphic to genetic evolution. This leads to a number of sub-claims: that design-like properties in cultural traditions should be explained in a parallel way to the design-like features of organisms, namely with reference to selection; that culture is a system of inheritance; and that cultural evolutionary processes can produce adaptation in the genetic sense. The Price equation provides a minimal description of any evolutionary system, and a method for identifying the action of selection. As such, it helps clarify some of these claims about culture conceptually. Looking closely through the lens of the Price equation, the differences between genes and culture come into sharp relief. Culture is only a system of inheritance metaphorically, or as an idealization, and the idealization may lead us to overlook causally important features of how cultural influence works. Design-like properties in cultural systems may owe more to transmission biases than to cultural selection. Where culture enhances genetic fitness, it is ambiguous whether what is doing the work is cultural transmission, or just the genetically evolved properties of the mind. I conclude that there are costs to trying to press culture into a template based on Darwinian evolution, even if one broadens the definition of ‘Darwinian’. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Fifty years of the Price equation’.

biology
Design of Cultural Product Evolution System Based on Interactive Genetic Algorithm

Defu Bao,Min Zou,Jingzhuo Zhang,Sanyuan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCID.2017.188

2017-01-01

Abstract:It becomes important to adapt to the culture for product design. The paper took advantage of the optimization ability of genetic algorithm and conducts crossover , mutation and selection operations on existing cultural product components, so as to generate cultural product models that satisfy the user preferences. By applying this system, not only the efficiency of morphological evolution can be improved, but operational errors caused by user fatigue can also be reduced.
Old and New Perspectives on the Nature/Culture Opposition in Biology and Anthropology

Gláucia Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09436-w

2021-08-01

Biosemiotics

Abstract:The article explores a change taking place today in the fields of biology and social anthropology, signaling a shared desire to transcend the heuristic effects of the opposition between nature and culture. Acceptance of the idea that random mutations are the sole driving force behind the process of natural selection overlooks the agentive capacity of non-human living beings, revealing an anthropocentric inspiration. To critique the rhetoric surrounding the principle of natural selection, I turn to the anthropology of Tim Ingold and his analysis of the metaphors that illustrate the principle. I disagree with the author, however, when he argues that these metaphors do not adequately illustrate neo-Darwinian premises. Instead, I believe that they are faithful since their apparent contradiction expresses the unease of neo-Darwinian theory itself when it combines randomness and teleology. New currents in biology, such as biosemiotics, attribute evolutionary importance to epigenetic changes. From the evolutionary perspective, they also highlight the importance of recognizing that the entire lived world possesses the capacity for agency, not just human beings. Within social anthropology, the so-called ontological turn and multispecies ethnography have been working with a new conception of the person, extendible to non-human beings, including the latter to compose a single collective with humans. Thus we can observe an attempt on the part of biologists and anthropologists alike to move beyond anthropocentrism, producer and product of the opposition between nature and culture.

history & philosophy of science
Population thinking and natural selection in dual-inheritance theory

Wybo Houkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9307-5

2012-01-26

Abstract:A deflationary perspective on theories of cultural evolution, in particular dual-inheritance theory, has recently been proposed by Lewens. On this ‘pop-culture’ analysis, dual-inheritance theorists apply population thinking to cultural phenomena, without claiming that cultural items evolve by natural selection. This paper argues against this pop-culture analysis of dual-inheritance theory. First, it focuses on recent dual-inheritance models of specific patterns of cultural change. These models exemplify population thinking without a commitment to natural selection of cultural items. There are grounds, however, for doubting the added explanatory value of the models in their disciplinary context—and thus grounds for engaging in other potentially explanatory projects based on dual-inheritance theory. One such project is suggested by advocates of the theory. Some of the motivational narratives that they offer can be interpreted as setting up an adaptationist project with regard to cumulative change in cultural items. We develop this interpretation here. On it, dual-inheritance theory features two interrelated selection processes, one on the level of genetically inherited learning mechanisms, another on the level of the cultural items transmitted through these mechanisms. This interpretation identifies a need for further modelling efforts, but also offers scope for enhancing the explanatory power of dual-inheritance theory.

biology
An evolutionary process without variation and selection

Liane Gabora,Mike Steel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0334

2024-10-01

Abstract:Natural selection successfully explains how organisms accumulate adaptive change despite that traits acquired over a lifetime are eliminated at the end of each generation. However, in some domains that exhibit cumulative, adaptive change -- e.g., cultural evolution, and earliest life -- acquired traits are retained; these domains do not face the problem that Darwin's theory was designed to solve. Lack of transmission of acquired traits occurs when germ cells are protected from environmental change, due to a self-assembly code used in two distinct ways: (i) actively interpreted during development to generate a soma, and (ii) passively copied without interpretation during reproduction to generate germ cells. Early life and cultural evolution appear not to involve a self-assembly code used in these two ways. We suggest that cumulative, adaptive change in these domains is due to a lower-fidelity evolutionary process, and model it using Reflexively Autocatalytic and Foodset-generated networks. We refer to this more primitive evolutionary process as Self-Other Reorganisation (SOR) because it involves internal self-organising and self-maintaining processes within entities, as well as interaction between entities. SOR encompasses learning but in general operates across groups. We discuss the relationship between SOR and Lamarckism, and illustrate a special case of SOR without variation.

Populations and Evolution
When norm change hurts

Charles Efferson,Sönke Ehret,Lukas von Flüe,Sonja Vogt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0039

2024-01-21

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

Abstract:Applied cultural evolution includes any effort to mobilize social learning and cultural evolution to promote behaviour change. Social tipping is one version of this idea based on conformity and coordination. Conformity and coordination can reinforce a harmful social norm, but they can also accelerate change from a harmful norm to a beneficial alternative. Perhaps unfortunately, the link between the size of an intervention and social tipping is complex in heterogeneous populations. A small intervention targeted at one segment of society can induce tipping better than a large intervention targeted at a different segment. We develop and examine two models showing that the link between social tipping and social welfare is also complex in heterogeneous populations. An intervention strategy that creates persistent miscoordination, exactly the opposite of tipping, can lead to higher social welfare than another strategy that leads to tipping. We show that the potential benefits of miscoordination often hinge specifically on the preferences of people most resistant to behaviour change. Altogether, ordinary forms of heterogeneity complicate applied cultural evolution considerably. Heterogeneity weakens both the link between the size of a social planner’s intervention and behaviour change and the link between behaviour change and the well-being of society. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Social norm change: drivers and consequences’.

biology
Distilling the Essence of an Evolutionary Process and Implications for a Formal Description of Culture

Liane Gabora,Diederik Aerts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.4712

2013-09-18

Populations and Evolution

Abstract:It has been proposed that, since the origin of life and the ensuing evolution of biological species, a second evolutionary process has appeared on our planet. It is the evolution of culture-e.g., ideas, beliefs, and artifacts. Does culture evolve in the same genuine sense as biological life? And if so, does it evolve through natural selection, or by some other means? Why does no other species remotely approach the degree of cultural complexity of humans? These questions lie at the foundation of who we are and what makes our lives meaningful. Although much research has been done on how selective pressures operating at the biological level affect cognition and culture, little research has focused on culture as an evolutionary process in its own right. Like biological forms, cultural forms-ideas, attitudes, artifacts, mannerisms, etc.-incrementally adapt to the constraints and affordances of their environment through descent with modification. In some respects culture appears to be Darwinian, i.e., a process of differential replication and selection amongst randomly generated variants. This suggests that knowledge of biological evolution can be put to use to gain insight into culture. However, attempts to apply Darwinian theory to culture have not yielded the kind of unifying framework for the social sciences that it provided for the biological sciences, largely because of the nonrandom manner in which the mind-the hub of cultural change-generates and assimilates novelty. This paper investigates how and when humans became capable of supporting culture, and what previously held it back, focusing on how we attained the creative powers we now possess. To invent in the strategic, intuitive manner characteristic of humans requires a cognitive architecture that supports the capacity to spontaneously adapt concepts to new circumstances and merge them together to conceptualize new situations.
Trait specialization, innovation, and the evolution of culture in fluctuating environments

Dominik Deffner,Anne Kandler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0360-4

2019-11-26

Palgrave Communications

Abstract:Abstract Individuals often respond phenotypically to environmental challenges by innovating and adopting novel behavioral variants. Behavioral (or ‘cultural’) variants are defined here as alternative ways to solve adaptive problems, such as finding food or building shelter. In unpredictable environments, individuals must both be able to adapt to current conditions but also to cope with potential changes in these conditions, they must “hedge their evolutionary bets” against the variability of the environment. Here, we loosely apply this idea to the context of behavioral adaptation and develop an evolutionary model, where cultural variants differ in their level of generality, i.e. the range of environmental conditions in which they provide fitness benefits: generalist variants are characterized by large ranges, specialist variants by small ranges. We use a Moran model (with additional learning opportunities) and assume that each individual’s propensity for innovation is genetically determined, while the characteristics of cultural variants can be modified through processes of individual and social learning. Our model demonstrates that flexibly adjusting the level of generality allows individuals to navigate the trade-off between fast and reliable initial adaptation and the potential for long-term improvements. In situations with many (social or individual) learning opportunities, no adjustment of the innovation rate, i.e. the propensity to learn individually, is required to adapt to changed environmental conditions: fast adaptation is guaranteed by solely adjusting the level of generality of the cultural variants. Few learning opportunities, however, require both processes, innovation and trait generality, to work hand in hand. To explore the effects of different modes of innovation, we contrast independent invention and modification and show that relying largely on modifications improves both short-term and long-term adaptation. Further, inaccuracies in social learning provide another source of variant variation that facilitates adaptation after an environmental change. However, unfaithful learning is detrimental to long-term levels of adaptation. Our results demonstrate that the characteristics of cultural variants themselves can play a major role in the adaptation process and influence the evolution of learning strategies.
When ideas have sex: the role of exchange in cultural evolution

M W Ridley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/sqb.2009.74.017

Abstract:Human economic and technological progress has been dominated for the last 100,000 years by natural selection among variants of cultures, rather than among variants of genes. Evidence suggests that cultural evolution depends on exchange and trade to bring together ideas in much the same way that genetic evolution depends on sex to spread genetic mutations, or in the case of bacteria, on horizontal gene transfer. When starved of access to a large "collective brain" by isolation from trade and exchange, people may experience not just less innovation, but even regress. The capacity for ideas to have sex on the Internet is likely to accelerate cultural evolution still further.
The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Facilitates Evolutionary Models of Culture Change

Cameron M. Smith,Liane Gabora,William Gardner-O'Kearney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.00143

2019-07-16

Abstract:The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is beginning to fulfill the whole promise of Darwinian insight through its extension of evolutionary understanding from the biological domain to include cultural information evolution. Several decades of important foundation-laying work took a social Darwinist approach and exhibited and ecologically-deterministic elements. This is not the case with more recent developments to the evolutionary study of culture, which emphasize non-Darwinian processes such as self-organization, potentiality, and epigenetic change.

Populations and Evolution
Using Game Theory to Study the Evolution of Cultural Norms

Soham De,Dana S. Nau,Michele J. Gelfand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.02570

2017-03-17

Abstract:We discuss how to use evolutionary game theory (EGT) as a framework for studying how cultural dynamics and structural properties can influence the evolution of norms and behaviors within a society. We provide a brief tutorial on how EGT works, and discuss what kinds of insights it can provide. We then describe three published studies in which we have developed EGT models that help explain how structural and external conditions in a society affect the emergence of social norms.

Computers and Society,Computer Science and Game Theory,Multiagent Systems,Physics and Society,Populations and Evolution
How Natural Selection Can Create Both Self- and Other-Regarding Preferences, and Networked Minds

Thomas Grund,Christian Waloszek,Dirk Helbing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.1746

2013-04-05

Physics and Society

Abstract:Biological competition is widely believed to result in the evolution of selfish preferences. The related concept of the `homo economicus' is at the core of mainstream economics. However, there is also experimental and empirical evidence for other-regarding preferences. Here we present a theory that explains both, self-regarding and other-regarding preferences. Assuming conditions promoting non-cooperative behaviour, we demonstrate that intergenerational migration determines whether evolutionary competition results in a `homo economicus' (showing self-regarding preferences) or a `homo socialis' (having other-regarding preferences). Our model assumes spatially interacting agents playing prisoner's dilemmas, who inherit a trait determining `friendliness', but mutations tend to undermine it. Reproduction is ruled by fitness-based selection without a cultural modification of reproduction rates. Our model calls for a complementary economic theory for `networked minds' (the `homo socialis') and lays the foundations for an evolutionarily grounded theory of other-regarding agents, explaining individually different utility functions as well as conditional cooperation.
Epistasis between cultural traits drives paradigm shifts in cultural evolution

Ignacio Pascual,Jacobo Aguirre,Susanna Manrubia,José A. Cuesta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.12972

2019-04-29

Physics and Society

Abstract:Every now and then the cultural paradigm of a society changes. Human history can be regarded as a sequence of long periods of cultural stasis punctuated by paradigm shifts that transform culture upside-down over the turn of a few generations. We propose here a population dynamics model devised to analyse paradigm shifts. In this model individuals are defined by a vector of cultural traits that can change mainly through imitation of other individuals' traits. The novelty of the model is that cultural traits may interact reinforcing or hindering each other. Imitation is then biased by the 'cultural fitness' landscape thus defined. Our main result is that abrupt paradigm shifts occur, as a response to weak changes in the landscape, only when cultural traits do interact---whereas adaptation is smooth if there is no interaction. Borrowing the genetic term, this interaction is called 'cultural epistasis'. The result is robust to the way that epistasis is implemented, to whether imitation is biased by homophily, or to changes in other model parameters. Finally, a relevant consequence of this dynamics is the irreversible nature of paradigm shifts: the old paradigm cannot be restored even if the external changes are undone. Our model puts the phenomenon of paradigm shifts in cultural evolution in the same category as catastrophic shifts in ecology or phase transitions in physics.
BLIND AND INCREMENTAL OR DIRECTED AND DISRUPTIVE? ON THE NATURE OF NOVEL VARIATION IN HUMAN CULTURAL EVOLUTION

Alex Mesoudi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/48600682

2021-01-01

American Philosophical Quarterly

Abstract:Abstract Many scholars have rejected cultural evolutionary theory on the grounds that cultural variation is directed and intentionally created, rather than incremental and blind with respect to function, as is the case for novel genetic variation in genetic evolution. Meanwhile, some cultural evolution researchers insist that cultural variation is blind and undirected, and the only directional force is selection of randomly-generated variants. Here I argue that neither of these positions are tenable. Cultural variation is directed in various ways. While this does not invalidate cultural evolution, more attention should be paid to the different sources of non-randomness in culturally evolving systems.
Cultural Change: The How and the Why

Michael E. W. Varnum,Igor Grossmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699971

2017-09-15

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract:More than half a century of cross-cultural research has demonstrated group-level differences in psychological and behavioral phenomena, from values to attention to neural responses. However, cultures are not static, with several specific changes documented for cultural products, practices, and values. How and why do societies change? Here we juxtapose theory and insights from cultural evolution and social ecology. Evolutionary approaches enable an understanding of the how of cultural change, suggesting transmission mechanisms by which the contents of culture may change. Ecological approaches provide insights into the why of cultural change: They identify specific environmental pressures, which evoke shifts in psychology and thereby enable greater precision in predictions of specific cultural changes based on changes in ecological conditions. Complementary insights from the ecological and cultural evolutionary approaches can jointly clarify the process by which cultures change. We end by discussing the relevance of cultural change research for the contemporary societal shifts and by highlighting several critical challenges and future directions for the emerging field of cross-temporal research on culture and psychology.

psychology, multidisciplinary

How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection

Five clarifications about cultural evolution

An Evolutionary Framework for Culture: Selectionism versus Communal Exchange

The Cultural Evolution of Socially Situated Cognition

Can Other People Make You Less Creative?

A Holistic, Non-algorithmic View of Cultural Evolution: Commentary on Review Article by Prof. Liane Gabora

Selection, adaptation, inheritance and design in human culture: the view from the Price equation

Design of Cultural Product Evolution System Based on Interactive Genetic Algorithm

Old and New Perspectives on the Nature/Culture Opposition in Biology and Anthropology

Population thinking and natural selection in dual-inheritance theory

An evolutionary process without variation and selection

When norm change hurts

Distilling the Essence of an Evolutionary Process and Implications for a Formal Description of Culture

Trait specialization, innovation, and the evolution of culture in fluctuating environments

When ideas have sex: the role of exchange in cultural evolution

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Facilitates Evolutionary Models of Culture Change

Using Game Theory to Study the Evolution of Cultural Norms

How Natural Selection Can Create Both Self- and Other-Regarding Preferences, and Networked Minds

Epistasis between cultural traits drives paradigm shifts in cultural evolution

BLIND AND INCREMENTAL OR DIRECTED AND DISRUPTIVE? ON THE NATURE OF NOVEL VARIATION IN HUMAN CULTURAL EVOLUTION

Cultural Change: The How and the Why