Dual inheritance theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT), also known as Gene-Culture Coevolution, was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to explain how human behavior is a product of two different and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. DIT is a "middle-ground" between much of social science, which views culture as the primary cause of human behavioral variation, and human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which view culture as an insignificant by-product of genetic selection. In DIT, culture is defined as information in human brains that got there by social learning. Cultural evolution is considered a Darwinian selection process that acts on cultural information. Dual Inheritance Theorists often describe this by analogy to genetic evolution, which is a Darwinian selection process acting on genetic information. [1] Because genetic evolution is relatively well understood, most of DIT examines cultural evolution and the interactions between cultural evolution and genetic evolution.

Contents

[edit] Theoretical Basis

DIT holds that genetic and cultural evolution interact in the evolution of Homo sapiens. DIT recognizes that the natural selection of genotypes is an important component of the evolution of human behavior and that cultural traits can be constrained by genetic imperatives. However, DIT also recognizes that genetic evolution has endowed the human species with a parallel evolutionary process of cultural evolution. DIT makes three main claims: [2]

[edit] 1) Culture capacities are adaptations

The human capacity to store and transmit culture arose from genetically evolved psychological mechanisms. This implies that at some point during the evolution of the human species a type of social learning leading to cumulative cultural evolution was evolutionarily advantageous.

[edit] 2) Culture evolves

Social learning processes give rise to cultural evolution. Cultural traits are transmitted differently than genetic traits and, therefore, result in different population-level effects. These effects can help explain human behavioral variation.

[edit] 3) Genes and culture coevolve

Cultural traits alter the social and physical environments under which genetic selection operates. For example, the cultural adoptions of agriculture and dairying have, in humans, caused genetic selection for the traits to digest starch and lactose, respectively.[3][4][5][6][7][8] As another example, it is likely that once culture became adaptive, genetic selection caused a refinement of the cognitive architecture that stores and transmits cultural information. This refinement may have further influenced the way culture is stored and the biases that govern its transmission.

DIT also predicts that, under certain situations, cultural evolution may select for traits that are genetically maladaptive. An example of this is the demographic transition, which describes the fall of birth rates within industrialized societies. Dual Inheritance Theorists hypothesize that the demographic transition may be a result of a prestige bias, where individuals that forgo reproduction to gain more influence in industrial societies are more likely to be chosen as cultural models. [9][10]

[edit] DIT View of Culture

People have defined the word "culture" to describe a large set of different phenomena.[11][12] A definition that sums up what is meant by "culture" in DIT is:

Culture is information stored in individuals' brains that is capable of affecting behavior and that got there through social learning.[13][14]

This view of culture emphasizes population thinking by focusing on the process by which culture is generated and maintained. It also views culture as a dynamic property of individuals, as opposed to the more standard social science view of culture as a superorganismic entity to which individuals must conform. This view's main advantage is that it connects individual-level processes to population-level outcomes.[15]

[edit] Genetic Influence on Cultural Evolution

Genes have an impact on cultural evolution via psychological predispositions on cultural learning. Genes encode much of the information needed to form the human brain. Genes constrain the brain's structure and, hence, the ability of the brain to store culture. Genes may also endow individuals with certain types of transmission bias (described below).

[edit] Cultural Influences on Genetic Evolution

Culture can profoundly influence gene frequencies in a population. One of the best known examples is the prevalence of the genotype for adult lactose absorption in human populations, such as Northern Europeans and some African societies, with a long history of raising cattle for milk. Other societies such as East Asians and Amerindians, retain the typical mammalian genotype in which the body shuts down lactase production shortly after the normal age of weaning. This implies that the cultural practice of raising cattle for milk led to a selection for genetic traits for lactose digestion.[16]

[edit] Mechanisms of Cultural Evolution

In DIT, the evolution and maintenance of cultures is described by five major mechanisms, natural selection of cultural variants, random variation, cultural drift, guided variation and transmission bias.

[edit] Natural Selection

Cultural differences among individuals can lead to differential survival of individuals, with those that survive more likely to have their cultural variants adopted by others. The patterns of this selective process depend on transmission biases and can result in behavior that is more adaptive to a given environment.

[edit] Random Variation

Random variation arises from errors in the learning, display or recall of cultural information.

[edit] Cultural Drift

Cultural drift is a process roughly analogous to genetic drift in evolutionary biology.[17] In cultural drift, the frequency of cultural traits in a population may be subject to random fluctuations due to chance variations in which traits are observed and transmitted (sometimes called "sampling error").[18] These fluctuations might cause cultural variants to disappear from a population. This effect should be especially strong in small populations. [19]

[edit] Guided Variation

Cultural traits may be gained in a population through the process of individual learning. Once an individual learns a novel trait, it can be transmitted to other members of the population. The process of guided variation depends on an adaptive standard that determines what cultural variants are learned.

[edit] Biased Transmission

Understanding the different ways that culture traits can be transmitted between individuals has been an important part of DIT research since the 1970s. [20] [21] Transmission biases occur when some cultural variants are favored over others during the process of cultural transmission. [22] Boyd and Richerson (1985) [23] defined and analytically modeled a number of possible transmission biases. The list of biases has been refined over the years, especially by Henrich and McElreath.[24]

[edit] Content Bias

Content biases result from situations where some aspect of a cultural variant's content makes them more likely to be adopted. [25] Content biases can result from genetic preferences, preferences determined by existing cultural traits, or a combination of the two. For example, food preferences can result from genetic preferences for sugary or fatty foods and socially-learned eating practices and taboos. [26] Content biases are sometimes called "direct biases."[27]

[edit] Context Bias

Context biases result from individuals using clues about the social structure of their population to determine what cultural variants to adopt. This determination is made without reference to the content of the variant. There are two major categories of context biases: (1) model-based biases, and (2) frequency-dependent biases.

[edit] Model-based biases

Model-based biases result when an individual is biased to choose a particular "cultural model" to imitate. There are four major categories of model-based biases: (1) prestige bias, (2) skill bias, (3) success bias, (4) similarity bias. [28][29] A "prestige bias" results when individuals are more likely to imitate cultural models that are seen as having more prestige. A measure of prestige could be the amount of deference shown to a potential cultural model by other individuals. A "skill bias" results when individuals can directly observe different cultural models performing a learned skill and are more likely to imitate cultural models that perform better at the specific skill. A "success bias" results from individuals preferentially imitating cultural models that they determine are most generally successful (as opposed to successful at a specific skill as in the skill bias. A "similarity bias" results when individuals are more likely to imitate cultural models that are perceived as being similar to the individual based on specific traits.

[edit] Frequency-dependent biases

Frequency-dependent biases result when an individual is biased to choose particular cultural variants based on their perceived frequency in the population. The most explored frequency-dependent bias is the "conformity bias." Conformity biases result when individuals attempt to copy the mean or the mode cultural variant in the population. Another possible frequency dependent bias is the "rarity bias." The rarity bias results when individuals preferentially choose cultural variants that are less common in the population. The rarity bias is also sometimes called a "nonconformist bias".

[edit] Social Learning and Cumulative Cultural Evolution

In DIT, the evolution of culture is dependent on the evolution of social learning. Analytic models show that social learning becomes evolutionarily beneficial when the environment changes with enough frequency that genetic inheritance can not track the changes, but not fast enough that individual learning is more efficient.[30] While other species have social learning, and thus some level of culture, only humans, some birds and chimpanzees are known to have cumulative culture.[31] Boyd and Richerson argue that the evolution of cumulative culture depends on observational learning and is uncommon in other species because it is ineffective when it is rare in a population. They propose that the environmental changes occurring in the Pleistocene may have provided the right environmental conditions. [32]. Michael Tomasello argues that cumulative cultural evolution results from a "ratchet effect" that began when humans developed the cognitive architecture to understand others as mental agents. [33]

[edit] Cultural Group Selection

Although group selection is commonly thought to be nonexistent or unimportant in genetic evolution, [34][35][36] DIT predicts that, due to the nature of cultural inheritance, it may be an important force in cultural evolution. The reason group selection is thought to operate in cultural evolution is because of conformist biases (see above section on transmission biases). Conformist biases make it difficult for novel cultural traits to spread through a population. Conformist bias also helps maintain variation between groups. These two properties, rare in genetic transmission, are necessary for group selection to operate.[37] Based on an earlier model by Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, [38] Boyd and Richerson show that conformist biases are almost inevitable when traits spread through social learning, [39] implying that group selection is common in cultural evolution. Group selection can also only work if the rate of group formation is greater than the rate of group extinction. Analysis of the rates of formation and extinction of small groups in New Guinea implied that cultural group selection might be a good explanation for slowly changing aspects of social structure, but not for rapidly changing fads.[40] The ability of cultural evolution to maintain intergroup diversity is what allows for the study of cultural phylogenetics. [41]

[edit] Historical Development

The idea that human cultures undergo a similar evolutionary process as genetic evolution goes back at least to Darwin[42] In the 1960s Donald T. Campbell published some of the first theoretical work that adapted principles of evolutionary theory to the evolution of cultures. [43] In 1976 two developments in cultural evolutionary theory set the stage for DIT. In that year Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene introduced ideas of cultural evolution to a popular audience. Although one of the best-selling science books of all time, because of its lack of mathematical rigor, it had little impact on the development of DIT. Also in 1976, geneticists Marcus Feldman and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza published the first dynamic models of gene-culture coevolution. [44] These models were to form the basis for subsequent work on DIT, heralded by the publication of three seminal books in 1980 and 1981.

The first was Charles Lumsden and E.O. Wilson's Genes, Mind and Culture.[45] This book outlined a series of mathematical models of how genetic evolution might favor the selection of cultural traits and how cultural traits might, in turn, affect the speed of genetic evolution. While it was the first book published describing how genes and culture might coevolve, it had relatively little impact on the further development of DIT.[46] Some critics felt that their models depended too heavily on genetic mechanisms at the expense of cultural mechanisms [47]. Controversy surrounding Wilson's sociobiological theories may also have decreased the lasting impact of this book.[48]

The second 1981 book was Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman's Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach.[49] Borrowing heavily from population genetics and epidemiology, this book built a mathematical theory concerning the spread of cultural traits. It describes the evolutionary implications of vertical transmission, passing cultural traits from parents to offspring; oblique transmission, passing cultural traits from any member of an older generation to a younger generation; and horizontal transmission, passing traits between members of the same population.

The next significant DIT publication was Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson's 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process.[50] This book presents the now-standard mathematical models the evolution of social learning under different environmental conditions, the population effects of social learning, various forces of selection on cultural learning rules, different forms of biased transmission and their population-level effects, and conflicts between cultural and genetic evolution. The book's conclusion also outlined areas for future research that are still relevant today.

[edit] Current and Future Research

In their 1985 book, Boyd and Richerson outlined an agenda for future DIT research. This agenda, outlined below, called for the development of both theoretical models and empirical research. DIT has since built a rich tradition of theoretical models over the past two decades. [51] However, there has not been a comparable level of empirical work.

In a 2006 interview Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson expressed disappointment at the little attention afforded DIT:

"...for some reason I haven't fully fathomed, this most promising frontier of scientific research has attracted very few people and very little effort." [52]

Kevin Laland and Gillian Brown attribute this lack of attention to DIT's heavy reliance on formal modeling, which doesn't attract the media attention of less rigorous approaches to human behavioral evolution, such as evolutionary psychology:

"In many ways the most complex and potentially rewarding of all approaches, [DIT], with its multiple processes and cerebral onslaught of sigmas and deltas, may appear too abstract to all but the most enthusiastic reader. Until such a time as the theoretical hieroglyphics can be translated into a respectable empirical science most observers will remain immune to its message."[53]

Economist Herbert Gintis disagrees with this critique, citing existing empirical work as well as more recent work using techniques from behavioral economics [54]. These behavioral economic techniques have been adapted to test predictions of cultural evolutionary models in laboratory settings [55] [56] [57] as well as studying differences in cooperation in fifteen small-scale societies in the field. [58]

Since one of the goals of DIT is to explain the distribution of human cultural traits, ethnographic and ethnologic techniques may also be useful for testing hypothesis stemming from DIT. Although findings from traditional ethnologic studies have been used to buttress DIT arguments, [59] [60] thus far there have been little ethnographic fieldwork designed to explicitly test these hypothesese.[61][62][63] A major difficulty in using existing ethnographic data to test DIT is that, due to cultural anthropologies assumption of culture as an superorganic entity, ethnographic data tends to ignore individual and intragroup cultural variation and focus almost entirely on intergroup variation.

DIT has been viewed as having great potential for unifying diverse academic fields under one overarching theory. Mesoudi, et. al. have identified DIT as the ideal way to build a comprehensive theory of cultural evolution to answer questions about human behavior at different temporal and spacial scales. [64] Along with game theory, Herb Gintis has named DIT one of the two major conceptual theories with potential for unifying the behavioral sciences, including economics, biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology and political science. Because it addresses both the genetic and cultural components of human inheritance, Gintis sees DIT models as providing the best explanations for the ultimate cause of human behavior and the best paradigm for integrating those disciplines with evolutionary theory. [65] In a review of competing evolutionary perspectives on human behavior, Laland and Brown see DIT as the best candidate for uniting the other evolutionary perspectives under one theoretical umbrella.[66]

[edit] Relation to Other Fields

[edit] Sociology and Cultural Anthropology

Two major topics of study in both sociology and cultural anthropology are human cultures and cultural variation. However, Dual Inheritance theorists charge that both disciplines too often treat culture as a static superorganic entity that dictates human behavior. [67][68] Cultures are defined by a suite of common traits shared by a large group of people, without regard to variation in cultural traits at the individual level. This is in sharp contrast to DIT, which models human culture at the individual level and views culture as the result of a dynamic evolutionary process at the population level. [69][70]

[edit] Human Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology

Human sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists try to understand how maximizing genetic fitness, in either the modern era or past environments, can explain human behavior. To the human sociobiologist and evolutionary psychologist, culture is either trivial or so bound by genetic fitness that is unimportant. When faced with a common and seemingly maladaptive trait, practitioners from these disciplines try to determine how the trait actually increases genetic fitness (maybe through kin selection or by speculating about early evolutionary environments). Dual Inheritance theorists, in contrast, will consider a variety of genetic and cultural processes in addition to natural selection on genes.

[edit] Human Behavioral Ecology

Human behavioral ecology (HBE) and DIT have a similar relationship to what ecology and evolutionary biology have in the biological sciences. HBE is more concerned about ecological process and DIT more focused on historical process. One difference is that human behavioral ecologists often assume that culture is a system that produces the most adaptive outcome in a given environment. This implies that similar behavioral traditions should be found in similar environments. However, this is not always the case. A study of African cultures showed that cultural history was a better predictor of cultural traits than local ecological conditions.[71].

[edit] Memetics

Memetics, which comes from the meme idea described in Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, is similar to DIT in that it treats culture as an evolutionary process that is distinct from genetic transmission. However, there are some philosophical differences between memetics and DIT.[72] One difference is that memetics' focus is on the selection potential of the cultural variant (meme) within meme populations, where DIT allows for cultural transmission of non-replicators. Also, DIT does not always view cultural traits as replicators or that replicators are necessary for cumulative adaptive evolution, although in DIT models often assume that cultural variants are replicated (i.e., they model memes). DIT also more strongly emphasizes the role of genetic inheritance in shaping the capacity for cultural evolution. But perhaps the biggest difference is a difference in academic lineage. While Memetics is much better known in popular culture, it is less influential in academia. Authors performing memetic research often do not use the memetic label, perhaps because this can invite controversy. Memetics is often criticized as lacking empirical support or being conceptually ill-founded, and questions are often raised about whether there is hope for the memetic research program succeeding. [73]

[edit] References

[edit] Key Books

Lumsden, C. J. and E. O. Wilson. 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cavalli-Sfornza, L. L. and M. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durham, W. H. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Shennan, S. J. 2002. Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. London: Thames and Hudson.

Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 2005. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[edit] Related Books

Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pulliam, H. and C. Dunford. 1980. Programmed to Learn: An Essay on the Evolution of Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.

Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[edit] Reviews

Smith, E. A. 1999. Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, and W. Irons, (Eds.) Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Henrich, J. and R. McElreath. 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123-135.

Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten, and K. N. Laland. 2006. Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329-383

Gintis, H. 2006. Behavioral and Brain Sciences A framework for the integration of the behavioral sciences Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30:1-61

Bentley, R.A., C. Lipo, H.D.G. Maschner and B. Marler 2007. Darwinian Archaeologies. In R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippendale (Eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham (MD): AltaMira Press.

McElreath, R. & Henrich, J. 2007. Modeling cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McElreath, R. & Henrich, J. 2007. Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[edit] Current DIT Researchers

[edit] Related Researchers

  • Herb Gintis, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts & Santa Fe Institute
  • Kevin Laland, School of Biology, University of St. Andrews
  • Ruth Mace, Department of Anthropology, University College London
  • Michael Tomassello, Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  2. ^ McElreath, R. & Henrich, J. 2007. Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Simoons, F. 1969. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: I. Review of the medical research. The American Journal of Digestive Diseases 14:819-836.
  4. ^ Simoons, F. 1970. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: II. A culture historical hypothesis. The American Journal of Digestive Diseases 15:695-710.
  5. ^ Cavalli-SFornza, L., P. Menozzi and A. Piazza. 1994. The history and geography of human genes Princeton: Princeton University Press
  6. ^ Holden, C. and R. Mace. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Human Biology 69:605-628.
  7. ^ Durham, W. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, culture and human diversity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chapter 5
  8. ^ Perry, G., N. Dominy, K. Claw, A. Lee, H> Fiegler, R. Redon, J. Werner, F. Villanea, J. Mountain, R. Misra, N. Carter, C. Lee, A. Stone. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation. Nature Genetics 39:1256-1260.
  9. ^ Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 199-202.
  10. ^ Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 169-182.
  11. ^ Kroeberm A. and C. Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture; A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  12. ^ Fox, R. and B. King. 2002. Anthropology Beyond Culture Oxford: Berg.
  13. ^ Richerson, P. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pg 6.
  14. ^ Boyd, R. and P. Richerson. 2000. Memes: Universal Acid or a Better Mouse Trap? In R. Aunger, Ed. Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 143-162. Full text
  15. ^ Richerson, P. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pg 7.
  16. ^ Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg. 260
  17. ^ Bentley, R.A., M.W. Hahn and S.J. Shennan. 2004. Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: 1443-1450. Full text
  18. ^ Hahn, M.W. and R. A. Bentley. 2003. Drift as a mechanism for cultural change: An example from baby names. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: S353-S356. Full text
  19. ^ Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp.9, 69
  20. ^ Feldman, M. and L. Cavalli-Sfornza. 1976. Cultural and biological evolutionary processes, selection for a trait under complex transmission. Theoretical Population Biology 9: 238-259.
  21. ^ Feldman, M and L. Cavalli-Sfornza. 1977. The evolution of continuous variation: II, complex transmission and assortive mating. Theoretical Population Biology 11:161-181.
  22. ^ Boyd, R., and P. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  23. ^ Boyd, R., and P. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  24. ^ Henrich, J. and R. McElreath. 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123-135.
  25. ^ Henrich, J. and R. McElreath. 2007. Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, eds., Ch. 38. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.
  26. ^ Henrich, J. and R. McElreath. 2007. Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, eds., Ch. 38. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.
  27. ^ Boyd, R., and P. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  28. ^ Henrich, J. and R. McElreath. 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123-135.
  29. ^ McElreath, R. & Henrich, J. 2007. Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar and L. Barrett, (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. ^ Richerson, P.J. and R. Boyd. 2000. Climate, culture, and the evolution of cognition. In C.M. Heyes and L. Huber, (Eds), The Evolution of Cognition. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  31. ^ Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
  32. ^ Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd. 2000. The pleistocene and the origins of human culture: built for speed. Perspectives in Ethology 13:1-45, 2000.
  33. ^ Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. ^ Williams, G.C. 1972. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02357-3
  35. ^ Williams, G.C.. 1986. Evolution Through Group Selection. Blackwell. ISBN 0-632-01541-1
  36. ^ Maynard Smith, J.. 1964. Group selection and kin selection 'Nature' 201:1145–1147
  37. ^ Uyenoyama, M. and M. W. Feldman. 1980. Theories of kin and group selection: a population genetics perspective. Theoretical Population Biology 17:380-414.
  38. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and M. W. Feldman. 1973. Models for cultural inheritance. I. Group mean and within group variation. Theoretical Population Biology 4:42-44.
  39. ^ Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pg. 227-240.
  40. ^ Soltis, J., Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1995. Can group-functional behaviors evolve by cultural group selection? An empirical test Current Anthropology 36:473-494
  41. ^ Mace, R., C. Holden, and S. Shennan (Eds.) 2005. The evolution of cultural diversity: a phylogenetic approach. London:University College London Press.
  42. ^ Darwin, C. 1874. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: American Home Library.
  43. ^ Campbell, D. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory, ed. H. Barringer, G. Blanksten, and R. Mack, 19-49. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.
  44. ^ Feldman, M. and Cavalli-Sforna L. 1976. Cultural and biological evolutionary processes, selection for a trait under complex transmission. Theoretical Population Biology, 9:238-59.
  45. ^ Lumsden C., and E. Wilson. 1981. Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  46. ^ Laland K. and G. Brown. 2002. Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. ^ Boyd, R. and Richardson, P. 1983. The cultural transmission of acquired variation: effects on genetic fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 100:567-96.
  48. ^ Laland K. and G. Brown. 2002. Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. ^ Cavalli-Sfornza, L. and M. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  50. ^ Boyd, R., and P. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  51. ^ Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 2005. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg. 294-299.
  52. ^ Haag, Allison. 2006. The synthesizer. SEED, 2(7): 46.
  53. ^ Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg 290.
  54. ^ Herb Gintis Amazon.com review: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0198508840/
  55. ^ McElreath, R., M. Lubell, P. J. Richerson, T. M. Waring, W. Baum, E. Edsten, C. Efferson, and B. Paciotti. 2005. Applying formal models to the laboratory study of social learning: The impact of task difficulty and environmental fluctuation. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 483-508.
  56. ^ Efferson, C, R. Lalive, P. J. Richerson, R. McElreath, and M. Lubell. Conformists and mavericks in the lab: The structure of frequency-dependent social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior (in press).
  57. ^ Baum, W. M., P. J. Richerson, C. M. Efferson, B. M. Paciotti. 2004. Cultural evolution in laboratory micro-societies including traditions of rule-giving and rule-following. Evolution and Human Behavior 25: 305-326. 2004.
  58. ^ Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis (Eds). 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  59. ^ Cavalli-Sfornza, L. L. and M. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  60. ^ Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  61. ^ McElreath, R. 2004. Social learning and the maintenance of cultural variation: An evolutionary model and data from East Africa. American Anthropologist 106:308-321.
  62. ^ Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis (Eds). 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  63. ^ Soltis, J., Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 1995. Can group-functional behaviors evolve by cultural group selection? An empirical test Current Anthropology 36:473-494
  64. ^ Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten, and K. N. Laland. 2006. Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329-383.
  65. ^ Gintis, H. 2006. Behavioral and Brain Sciences A framework for the integration of the behavioral sciences Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30:1-61
  66. ^ Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg. 287-319.
  67. ^ Richerson, P. and R. Boyd. 2001. Culture is part of human biology: Why the superorganic concept serves the human sciences badly. In M. Goodman and A. S. Moffat(Eds.) Probing Human Origins. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
  68. ^ Gintis, H. 2007. A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 30:1-61.
  69. ^ Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pg. 5-8
  70. ^ Richerson, P. and R. Boyd. 2001. Culture is part of human biology: Why the superorganic concept serves the human sciences badly. In M. Goodman and A. S. Moffat(Eds.) Probing Human Origins. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
  71. ^ Guglielmino, C. R., Viganotti, C., Hewlett, B., and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1995. Cultural variation in Africa: role of mechanism of transmission and adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92:7585-7589.
  72. ^ Boyd, R. and P.J. Richerson. 2000. Memes: universal acid or better mouse trap. In R. Auger (Ed), Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg 143–162.
  73. ^ Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pg. 289-290.
Languages