Population genetics and cultural history

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2008

This paper examines conceptual issues that arise in applications of Darwinian natural selection to cultural systems. I argue that many criticisms of cultural selectionist models have been based on an over-detailed reading of the analogy between biological and cultural units of selection. I identify five of the most powerful objections to cultural selection theory and argue that none cuts to its heart. Some objections are based on mistaken assumptions about the simplicity of the mechanisms of biological heredity. Other objections are attributable, rather, to mistaken inferences from observations of biological subject matter to what is essential in natural selection. I argue that such features are idiosyncratic of biological systems, but not essential for natural selection. My arguments throughout are illustrated by examples from biological and cultural evolution, and counter-factual illustrations from the history of theoretical biology.

Human Ecology, 1973

By introducing the concept of the natural selection of individual organisms, Darwin was able to cut through the mystification surrounding theological discussions of the origin of species. By placing the concept of an individual “struggle for satisfaction” in an analogous conceptual framework, a similar feat may be performed with regard to the mystification and reification surrounding much of contemporary social science. The proposed theory states that individuals are the generating force behind the origin, spread, and transformations of sociocultural complexes and that all sociocultural phenomena are explicable in terms of the differential replication of ideas by individuals as this is conditioned by selective pressures generated by particular material conditions of life. The theory is used to illuminate certain key issues in evolution, such as adaptation, group selection, and free will

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, 2015

Trying to explain the increase in cultural complexity over the long term of human history has long been an interest of anthropology and of historical social sciences more generally. In recent years, interest has grown rapidly in the idea that a key factor in accounting for it might be the size of the human population itself and the extent of interaction between people, because of the effect these have on the innovation rates in populations and on the success with which innovations are transmitted. An important driver of this growth of interest has been the emergence of the new interdisciplinary field of cultural evolution, which makes extensive use of mathematical techniques, especially methods derived from population genetics. The result has been the development of a range of analytical and computer simulation models that make various predictions about the way in which population size influences cultural change, and in particular the growth of cumulative culture, including the processes that have led from the very simple forms of culture possessed by other great apes to those characteristic of Homo sapiens. The aim of this review is to distinguish them, so that future work can focus on evaluating their strengths and weaknesses and the circumstances in which they are useful.

1981

Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology, 1992

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

The chapters in this volume express the current diversity and richness of contemporary cultural evolutionary approaches. Although most of the chapters represent specific case studies, each of the authors structures his or her analysis with broader comparative issues in central focus. Collectively, these papers express the richness of the issues that are under investigation by comparative theorists interested in long-term change as well as the present diversity of data, approaches, and ideas that are being studied and employed to examine these questions.

2020

Cultural evolution theory has long been inspired by evolutionary biology. Conceptual analogies between biological and cultural evolution have led to the adoption of a range of formal theoretical approaches from population dynamics and genetics. However, this has resulted in a research programme with a strong focus on cultural transmission. Here, we contrast biological with cultural evolution, and highlight aspects of cultural evolution that have not received sufficient attention previously. We outline possible implications for evolutionary dynamics and argue that not taking them into account will limit our understanding of cultural systems. We propose twelve key questions for future research, among which are calls to improve our understanding of the combinatorial properties of cultural innovation, and the role of development and life history in cultural dynamics. Finally, we discuss how this vibrant research field can make progress by embracing its multidisciplinary nature.

PLos ONE

The idea that demographic change may spur or slow down technological change has become widely accepted among evolutionary archaeologists and anthropologists. Two models have been particularly influential in promoting this idea: a mathematical model by Joseph Henrich, developed to explain the Tasmanian loss of culture during the Holocene; and an agent-based adaptation thereof, devised by Powell et al to explain the emergence of modern behaviour in the Late Pleistocene. However, the models in question make rather strong assumptions about the distribution of skills among social learners and about the selectivity of social learning strategies. Here I examine the behaviour of these models under more conservative and, on empirical and theoretical grounds, equally reasonable assumptions. I show that, some qualifications notwithstanding, Henrich's model largely withstands my robustness tests. The model of Powell et al, in contrast, does not-a finding that warrants a fair amount of skepticism towards Powell et al's explanation of the Upper Paleolithic transition. More generally, my evaluation of the accounts of Henrich and of Powell et al helpfully clarify which inferences their popular models do and not support.

2004

Theories of cultural selection have been rejected or deliberately ignored by many social scientists. The main objections against evolutionary and selectionist theories are listed and commented. Evolutionary and selectionist theories of sociocultural change generally take a non-anthropocentric perspective, while many traditional sociologists prefer an anthropocentric perspective. Some of the objections against selection theories can be dismissed as expressions of preference for one perspective over another. Different perspectives lead scientists to make different kinds of discoveries, but all perspectives are valid, and no single theory or perspective can cover all aspects of social phenomena. Other objections can be dismissed as referring to obsolete or misunderstood versions of the theory. The limitations of cultural selection theory are discussed and some improvements are proposed. It is concluded that cultural selection theory can explain certain phenomena that other theories cannot explain, especially phenomena that are unplanned or unintended.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Human cultural traits—behaviors, ideas, and technologies that can be learned from other individuals—can exhibit complex patterns of transmission and evolution, and researchers have developed theoretical models, both verbal and mathematical, to facilitate our understanding of these patterns. Many of the first quantitative models of cultural evolution were modified from existing concepts in theoretical population genetics because cultural evolution has many parallels with, as well as clear differences from, genetic evolution. Furthermore, cultural and genetic evolution can interact with one another and influence both transmission and selection. This interaction requires theoretical treatments of gene–culture coevolution and dual inheritance, in addition to purely cultural evolution. In addition, cultural evolutionary theory is a natural component of studies in demography, human ecology, and many other disciplines. Here, we review the core concepts in cultural evolutionary theory as th...