Self-interested agents create, maintain, and modify group-functional culture

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manvir Singh ◽  
Luke Glowacki ◽  
Richard W. Wrangham
Keyword(s):  
Group Selection ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Target Article

AbstractWe agree that institutions and rules are crucial for explaining human sociality, but we question the claim of there not being “alternatives to CGS [that] can easily account for the institutionalized cooperation that characterizes human societies” (target article, sect. 7). Hypothesizing that self-interested individuals coercively and collaboratively create rules, we propose that agent-based hypotheses offer viable alternatives to cultural group selection (CGS).

scholarly journals Replicators, lineages, and interactors

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Taylor ◽  
Joanna J. Bryson
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Food Processing ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Agent Based Model ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Target Article

AbstractThe target article argues that whole groups can act as interactors in an evolutionary process. We believe that Smaldino's discussion would be advanced by a more thorough analysis of the appropriate replicators and lineages for this model. We show that cultural evolution is necessarily a separate process from cultural group selection, and we also illustrate that the two processes may influence each other as demonstrated by an agent-based model of communicating food-processing skills.

scholarly journals Cultural group selection is plausible, but the predictions of its hypotheses should be tested with real-world data

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Turchin ◽  
Thomas E. Currie
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Target Article

AbstractThe evidence compiled in the target article demonstrates that the assumptions of cultural group selection (CGS) theory are often met, and it is therefore a useful framework for generating plausible hypotheses. However, more can be said about how we can test the predictions of CGS hypotheses against competing explanations using historical, archaeological, and anthropological data.

scholarly journals Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Richerson ◽  
Ryan Baldini ◽  
Adrian V. Bell ◽  
Kathryn Demps ◽  
Karl Frost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Transmission ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Inheritance System ◽  
Patterns Of Behavior ◽  
Sufficient Variation

AbstractHuman cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete, and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is “no,” then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence, including quantitative evidence, that the answer to all of the questions is “yes” and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies, then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

Cultural group selection follows Darwin's classic syllogism for the operation of selection

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Richerson ◽  
Ryan Baldini ◽  
Adrian V. Bell ◽  
Kathryn Demps ◽  
Karl Frost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Target Article

AbstractThe main objective of our target article was to sketch the empirical case for the importance of selection at the level of groups on cultural variation. Such variation is massive in humans, but modest or absent in other species. Group selection processes acting on this variation is a framework for developing explanations of the unusual level of cooperation between non-relatives found in our species. Our case for cultural group selection (CGS) followed Darwin's classic syllogism regarding natural selection: If variation exists at the level of groups, if this variation is heritable, and if it plays a role in the success or failure of competing groups, then selection will operate at the level of groups. We outlined the relevant domains where such evidence can be sought and characterized the main conclusions of work in those domains. Most commentators agree that CGS plays some role in human evolution, although some were considerably more skeptical. Some contributed additional empirical cases. Some raised issues of the scope of CGS explanations versus competing ones.

When is the spread of a cultural trait due to cultural group selection? The case of religious syncretism

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Santana ◽  
Raj Patel ◽  
Shereen Chang ◽  
Michael Weisberg
Keyword(s):  
Group Selection ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Cultural Trait ◽  
Cultural Systems ◽  
Cultural Traits ◽  
Religious Syncretism

AbstractThe reproduction of cultural systems in cases where cultural group selection may occur is typically incomplete, with only certain cultural traits being adopted by less successful cultural groups. Why a particular trait and not another is transmitted might not be explained by cultural group selection. We explore this issue through the case of religious syncretism.

Mother–infant cultural group selection

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
James S. Chisholm ◽  
David A. Coall ◽  
Leslie Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Group Selection ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Group Selection

AbstractRicherson et al. argue that “cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation.” We believe that cooperation came first, making culture and thus cultural group selection possible. Cooperation and culture began – and begins – in mother–infant interaction.

Can Group-Functional Behaviors Evolve by Cultural Group Selection?: An Empirical Test

1995 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Soltis ◽  
Robert Boyd ◽  
Peter J. Richerson
Keyword(s):  
Group Selection ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Group Selection

Human evolutionary history and contemporary evolutionary theory provide insight when assessing cultural group selection

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustin Fuentes ◽  
Marc Kissel
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Group Selection ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Current Proposal

AbstractRicherson et al. provide a much needed roadmap for assessing cultural group selection (CGS) theory and for applying it to understanding variation between contemporary human groups. However, the current proposal lacks connection to relevant evidence from the human evolutionary record and requires a better integration with contemporary evolutionary theory. The article also misapplies the Fst statistic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document