scholarly journals Cultura, adaptación y ciencias sociales: una aproximación naturalista

Author(s):  
Laureano Castro ◽  
Luis Castro ◽  
Miguel Á. Castro ◽  
Miguel Á. Toro

RESUMENEn la primera parte de este artículo defendemos que la evolución de la cultura en nuestra especie es consecuencia de una naturaleza humana esencialmente valorativa, la naturaleza de Homo suadens. La propuesta considera que nuestros antepasados homínidos dotados de la capacidad de aprobar y reprobar la conducta ajena desarrollaron un sistema de transmisión cultural assessor entre padres e hijos, el cual transformó el aprendizaje social en un sistema de herencia acumulativo. En la segunda parte, defendemos, desde nuestra condición de Homo suadens, la necesidad de reconceptualizar algunos de los problemas presentes en el núcleo teórico de las ciencias sociales.PALABRAS CLAVEAPRENDIZAJE SOCIAL, EVOLUCIÓN CULTURAL, TRANSMISIÓN ASSESSOR, HOMO SUADENSABSTRACTIn this paper, first we argue that the evolution of culture in our species is the result of an essentially evaluative human nature, the nature of Homo suadens. The proposal considers that our hominid ancestors endowed with the ability to approve or disapprove of the conduct of others developed a system of assessor cultural transmission between parents and children, who transformed social learning into a cumulative inheritance system. Second, we defend, from our Homo suadens condition, the need to reconceptualise some of the problems lying at the theoretical core of social sciences.KEY WORDSSOCIAL LEARNING, CULTURAL EVOLUTION, ASSESSOR TRANSMISSION, HOMO SUADENS

Author(s):  
William Hoppitt ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

This chapter describes a variety of approaches to modeling social learning, cultural evolution, and gene-culture coevolution. The model-building exercise typically starts with a set of assumptions about the key processes to be explored, along with the nature of their relations. These assumptions are then translated into the mathematical expressions that constitute the model. The operation of the model is then investigated, normally using a combination of analytical mathematical techniques and simulation, to determine relevant outcomes, such as the equilibrium states or patterns of change over time. The chapter presents examples of the modeling of cultural transmission and considers parallels between cultural and biological evolution. It then discusses theoretical approaches to social learning and cultural evolution, including population-genetic style models of cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution, neutral models and random copying, social foraging theory, spatially explicit models, reaction-diffusion models, agent-based models, and phylogenetic models.


2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1528) ◽  
pp. 2429-2443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Shea

What is the evolutionary significance of the various mechanisms of imitation, emulation and social learning found in humans and other animals? This paper presents an advance in the theoretical resources for addressing that question, in the light of which standard approaches from the cultural evolution literature should be refocused. The central question is whether humans have an imitation-based inheritance system—a mechanism that has the evolutionary function of transmitting behavioural phenotypes reliably down the generations. To have the evolutionary power of an inheritance system, an imitiation-based mechanism must meet a range of demanding requirements. The paper goes on to review the evidence for and against the hypothesis that there is indeed an imitation-based inheritance system in humans.


2021 ◽  
pp. 127-144
Author(s):  
Harvey Whitehouse

Understanding the role of ritual in the evolution of social complexity requires attention to many complex, interacting processes operating at different levels. This chapter attempts to sort these out into a coherent overarching framework by building on the ideas of British biologist, philosopher, and polymath C. H. Waddington, who put forward the idea of an ‘epigenetic landscape’ to explain how organisms develop. Waddington’s basic model can be extended to explain how cognitive-developmental and social-historical landscapes unfold and how all three kinds of landscapes interact. Adopting this overarching perspective on cultural evolution helps bridge the unnecessary divisions among branches of evolutionary theory and psychology that emphasize distinct but potentially complementary aspects of social learning and cultural transmission.


Author(s):  
Robert F. Lachlan ◽  
Andrew Whiten

“Culture” is generally regarded as a population’s shared array of traditions, transmitted between individuals by processes of social learning, and which may persist from one generation to later ones. If we consider genetic material to provide the primary system of inheritance in living things, then social learning—learning from others—provides a second inheritance system in those species of animals that have the cognitive capacity to learn in this way. Once it was thought that cultural traditions inherited in this way were unique to, and defining of, our own species. This view was challenged by research arising particularly in the middle of the 20th century, which revealed evidence of the spread of innovations in the behavior of nonhuman species, generating traditions that passed from one generation to the next. Early examples included regional birdsong dialects and novel foraging techniques in Japanese macaque monkeys. Research over the last seventy years or so has accumulated a wealth of evidence that animal traditions exist in many aspects of behavior, from migration to mate choice and predator avoidance, and in numerous taxa including fish, birds, and mammals. Social learning has also been well documented in insects, although the existence of traditions in the wild remains less clear. Once such a second inheritance system does emerge, supporting the transmission of behavioral traditions, the potential exists for a second system of evolution—cultural evolution—which can be defined most simply as changes in culture over time. As in the case of organic evolution based on genetic inheritance, imperfect copying and sampling error may be sufficient to cause evolutionary changes, known as drift. Alternatively, some innovations may prove to be more adaptive than others, in which case we can expect the essential Darwinian processes of variation, selection, and inheritance to generate some directional cultural evolution. Both drift and Darwinian evolution have long been evident in human cultural evolution, but evidence has begun to accumulate for them also in nonhuman species. Humans additionally display cumulative culture, in which some form of progress builds cumulatively on the achievements of previous generations. Examples are legion, from the evolution of wheeled vehicles to languages and religions. A currently contentious issue is whether such cumulative cultural evolution is unique to our species, or is shared in some ways with others. Other current areas of uncertainty include which cognitive mechanisms underlie animal social learning and whether the precision of animal social learning can support long-lasting traditions; the degree to which animal cultures extend broadly enough across behavioral repertoires, or deeply enough in the complexity of individual traits, to be usefully compared to those of humans; and whether culture creates selection pressures that are long lasting enough to shape animals’ genomes. In general, while it is very clear that human culture is more extensive than in any other species, there is less agreement about which qualitative differences in psychological and cultural processes are responsible for this gulf.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roope Oskari Kaaronen ◽  
Mikael A. Manninen ◽  
Jussi T. Eronen

This article combines insights from ecological rationality and cultural evolution to illustrate how simple heuristics – colloquially, “rules of thumb” – have guided human behaviour and the evolution of complex cultures. Through a variety of examples and case studies, we discuss how human cultures have used rules of thumb in domains as diverse as foraging, resource management, social learning, moral judgment, and cultural niche construction. We propose four main arguments. Firstly, we argue that human societies have a rich cultural history in applying rules of thumb to guide daily activities and social organization. Second, we emphasise how rules of thumb may be convenient units of cultural transmission and high-fidelity social learning – the backbones of cumulative cultural evolution. Third, we highlight how rules of thumb can facilitate efficient decision making by making use of environmental and bodily features. Fourth, we discuss how simple rules of thumb may serve as building blocks for the emergence of more complex cultural patterns. This paper sets a research agenda for studying how simple rules contribute to cultural evolution in the past, the present, and the Anthropocene future.


Author(s):  
Alan F. T. Winfield ◽  
Susan Blackmore

This paper presents a series of experiments in collective social robotics, spanning more than 10 years, with the long-term aim of building embodied models of (aspects of) cultural evolution. Initial experiments demonstrated the emergence of behavioural traditions in a group of social robots programmed to imitate each other’s behaviours (we call these Copybots). These experiments show that the noisy (i.e. less than perfect fidelity) imitation that comes for free with real physical robots gives rise naturally to variation in social learning. More recent experimental work extends the robots’ cognitive capabilities with simulation-based internal models, equipping them with a simple artificial theory of mind. With this extended capability we explore, in our current work, social learning not via imitation but robot–robot storytelling, in an effort to model this very human mode of cultural transmission. In this paper, we give an account of the methods and inspiration for these experiments, the experiments and their results, and an outline of possible directions for this programme of research. It is our hope that this paper stimulates not only discussion but suggestions for hypotheses to test with the Storybots. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The emergence of collective knowledge and cumulative culture in animals, humans and machines’.


2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1528) ◽  
pp. 2417-2428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Whiten ◽  
Nicola McGuigan ◽  
Sarah Marshall-Pescini ◽  
Lydia M. Hopper

We describe our recent studies of imitation and cultural transmission in chimpanzees and children, which question late twentieth-century characterizations of children as imitators, but chimpanzees as emulators. As emulation entails learning only about the results of others' actions, it has been thought to curtail any capacity to sustain cultures. Recent chimpanzee diffusion experiments have by contrast documented a significant capacity for copying local behavioural traditions. Additionally, in recent ‘ghost’ experiments with no model visible, chimpanzees failed to replicate the object movements on which emulation is supposed to focus. We conclude that chimpanzees rely more on imitation and have greater cultural capacities than previously acknowledged. However, we also find that they selectively apply a range of social learning processes that include emulation. Recent studies demonstrating surprisingly unselective ‘over-imitation’ in children suggest that children's propensity to imitate has been underestimated too. We discuss the implications of these developments for the nature of social learning and culture in the two species. Finally, our new experiments directly address cumulative cultural learning. Initial results demonstrate a relative conservatism and conformity in chimpanzees' learning, contrasting with cumulative cultural learning in young children. This difference may contribute much to the contrast in these species' capacities for cultural evolution.


Author(s):  
William Hoppitt ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

Many animals, including humans, acquire valuable skills and knowledge by copying others. Scientists refer to this as social learning. It is one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of behavioral research and sits at the interface of many academic disciplines, including biology, experimental psychology, economics, and cognitive neuroscience. This book provides a comprehensive, practical guide to the research methods of this important emerging field. It defines the mechanisms thought to underlie social learning and demonstrate how to distinguish them experimentally in the laboratory. It presents techniques for detecting and quantifying social learning in nature, including statistical modeling of the spatial distribution of behavior traits. It also describes the latest theory and empirical findings on social learning strategies, and introduces readers to mathematical methods and models used in the study of cultural evolution. This book is an indispensable tool for researchers and an essential primer for students.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Mesoudi

Cultural evolution is a branch of the evolutionary sciences which assumes that (i) human cognition and behaviour is shaped not only by genetic inheritance, but also cultural inheritance (also known as social learning), and (ii) this cultural inheritance constitutes a Darwinian evolutionary system that can be analysed and studied using tools borrowed from evolutionary biology. In this chapter I explore the numerous compatibilities between the fields of cultural evolution and cultural psychology, and the potential mutual benefits from their closer alignment. First, understanding the evolutionary context within which human psychology emerged gives added significance to the findings of cultural psychologists, which reinforce the conclusion reached by cultural evolution scholars that humans inhabit a ‘cultural niche’ within which the major means of adaptation to difference environments is cultural, rather than genetic. Hence, we should not be surprised that human psychology shows substantial cross-cultural variation. Second, a focus on cultural transmission pathways, drawing on cultural evolution models and empirical research, can help to explain to the maintenance of, and potential changes in, cultural variation in psychological processes. Evidence from migrants, in particular, points to a mix of vertical, oblique and horizontal cultural transmission that can explain the differential stability of different cultural dimensions. Third, cultural evolutionary methods offer powerful means of testing historical (“macro-evolutionary”) hypotheses put forward by cultural psychologists for the origin of psychological differences. Explanations in terms of means of subsistence, rates of environmental change or pathogen prevalence can be tested using quantitative models and phylogenetic analyses that can be used to reconstruct cultural lineages. Evolutionary considerations also point to potential problems with current cross-country comparisons conducted within cultural psychology, such as the non-independence of data points due to shared cultural history. Finally, I argue that cultural psychology can play a central role in a synthetic evolutionary science of culture, providing valuable links between individual-oriented disciplines such as experimental psychology and neuroscience on the one hand, and society-oriented disciplines such as anthropology, history and sociology on the other, all within an evolutionary framework that provides links to the biological sciences.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Noël Haidle ◽  
Oliver Schlaudt

AbstractIn our recent article, "Where Does Cumulative Culture Begin? A Plea for a Sociologically Informed Perspective" (Haidle and Schlaudt in Biol Theory 15:161–174, 2020) we commented on a fundamental notion in current approaches to cultural evolution, the “zones of latent solutions” (henceforth ZLS), and proposed a modification of it, namely a social and dynamic interpretation of the latent solutions which were originally introduced within an individualistic framework and as static, genetically fixed entities. This modification seemed, and still seems, relevant to us and, in particular, more adequate for coping with the archaeological record. Bandini et al. (Biol Theory, 2021) rejected our proposition and deemed it unnecessary. In their critique, they focused on: (1) our reservations about an individualistic approach; (2) our objections to the presumption of fully naive individuals; and (3) our demand for an extended consideration of forms of social learning simpler than emulation and imitation. We will briefly reply to their critique in order to clarify some misunderstandings. However, the criticisms also show that we are at an impasse on certain crucial topics, such as the meaning of ZLS and the scope and nature of culture in general. Thus, we consider it necessary to make an additional effort to identify the conceptual roots which are at the very basis of the dissent with Bandini et al.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document