Evolutionary psychology and culture

Last updated

Evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors, determined by species-typical psychological adaptations. Considerable work, though, has been done on how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989). [1] Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989), among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured and patterned ways, to be used as a rich (but by no means the only) source of information out of which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence, this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect." (Tooby and Cosmides 1989). [1]

Contents

Epidemiological culture

The Epidemiology of representations, or cultural epidemiology, is a broad framework for understanding cultural phenomena by investigating the distribution of mental representations in and through populations. [2] The theory of cultural epidemiology was largely developed by Dan Sperber to study society and cultures. The theory has implications for psychology and anthropology. Mental representations are transferred from person to person through cognitive causal chains. Sperber (2001) identified three different, yet interrelated, cognitive causal chains, outlined in Table 1. A cognitive causal chain (CCC) links a perception to an evolved, domain-specific response or process. For example:

On October 31, at 7:30 p.m., Mrs. Jones’s doorbell rings. Mrs. Jones hears the doorbell, and assumes that there is somebody at the door. She remembers it is Halloween: she enjoyed receiving treats as a child, and now, as an adult, she enjoys giving them. She guesses that there must be children at the door ready to trick-or-treat, and that, if she opens, she will be able to give them the candies she has bought for the occasion. Mrs. Jones decides to open the door, and does so. [2]

Social Cognitive Causal Chains (SCCC) are inter-individual CCCs. Here, a CCC is used as an act of communication between people (i.e. the mental representation is shared between multiple people). Elaborating on the previous example:

On October 31, at 7:30 p.m., Mrs. Jones’s doorbell rings. Mrs. Jones hears the doorbell, and assumes that there is somebody at the door. She remembers it is Halloween: she enjoyed receiving treats as a child, and now, as an adult, she enjoys giving them. She guesses that there must be children at the door ready to trick-or-treat, and that, if she opens, she will be able to give them the candies she has bought for the occasion. Mrs. Jones decides to open the door, and does so. [2]

Cultural Cognitive Causal Chains (CCCCs) are those SCCCs which are shared and reproduced widely among a population.

Cognitive causal chain (CCC)

A causal chain where each causal link instantiates a semantic relationship

Social cognitive causal chain (SCCC)

A CCC that extends over several individuals

Cultural cognitive causal chain (CCCC)

A social CCC that stabilizes mental representations and public productions in a population and its environment

Table 1: Overview of cognitive causal chains constituting the epidemiology of representations (from [2] ).

The stability and longevity of these representations relies on their relevance and domain-specificity. This separates the epidemiology of representations from other evolutionary accounts of cultural transmission, namely memetics. [3]

Culture and other evolutionary disciplines

Evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution

Evolutionary psychological accounts of culture, especially cultural epidemiology, may seem at odds with other disciplines in psychology and anthropology, especially research in cultural evolution (e.g. Boyd and Richerson, 1985, 2005). [4] [5] Cultural evolution, the domain of research focused on how culture changes through time due to different individual transmission mechanisms and population-level effects, often uses models derived from population genetics, in which agents are passive recipients of cultural traits (e.g. Bentley et al., 2004 [6] ). While evolutionary psychology has focused on how behavior may result from species-typical psychological programs which led to greater fitness in ancestral environments, this work has been criticized for neglecting how behavior may be shaped by culturally transmitted information. In contrast to genetic programs, cultural evolution investigates how culture itself may evolve (Mesoudi, 2009 [7] ). Gene-culture coevolution studies how culture and genetic evolution influence each other, ultimately shaping behavior, as well. Cultural evolution and evolutionary psychology may not be as disparate as one may think, though. Rather than a passive receptacle of cultural material, Boyd and Richerson (1985, 2005) [4] [5] suggest that our minds consist of psychological mechanisms which direct our attention to and imitate cultural traits depending on the frequency of that trait, the content of it, who carries it, etc. In this way, cultural evolution may be viewed as a particular kind of “scaling up” from the individual-level processes to population-level ones. In neither account of culture is the mind a blank slate or empty bin for cultural material (Tooby and Cosmides, 1992 [8] ). Some evolutionary psychologists have suggested that culturally-transmitted culture may pass through a number of lenses and filters shaped by natural selection to catch fitness-relevant information and behaviors; these filters may change due to local environmental conditions, sex, and other factors (Gangestad et al., 2006 [9] ). Boyer (2000) [10] argued that evolutionary psychology, and anthropology in general, should investigate how these cognitive predispositions to cultural material affect their representation in following generations. This research program may help to unify the two fields (Boyer, 2000). Others have suggested that evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and cultural evolution all fit nicely with each other, ultimately answering different questions on human behavioral diversity; gene-culture coevolution may be at odds with other research programs though by placing more emphasis on socially-learned behavior and its influence on human evolution (Brown et al., 2011). [11]

Evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology

Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) studies how ecology and social factors shape human behavioral variability. A key assumption of human behavioral ecology is that individuals will act in response to environmental factors in ways that enhance their fitness. [12] While both HBE and evolutionary psychology are both concerned with fitness benefits and natural selection, HBE is not typically concerned with mechanisms or how humans display adaptive behaviors in novel environments. [13] If the human mind took its present form and evolved in the African Pleistocene, why should one expect to behave adaptively in the present and in so many new environments? [14] Human Behavioral Ecologists may respond by stating that humans evolved as ecological generalists and display a wide range of variable behaviors to maximize fitness. [15] Where cooperation and food-sharing among extant hunter-gatherers may be seen as the result of kin-selection psychological mechanisms by an evolutionary psychologist, a human behavioral ecologist may attribute this behavior to optimal risk-reduction strategies and reciprocal altruism. [16] [17] For Human Behavioral Ecology, cultural behaviors should tend towards optimality (i.e. higher fitness) in their current environment. For evolutionary psychology, cultural behaviors are the result of psychological mechanisms which were selected for in ancestral environments.

Evoked and transmitted culture

The difference between cultural behaviors acquired through selective transmission mechanisms and behaviors resulting from psychological adaptations has resulted in some researchers differentiating between evoked and transmitted culture (Tooby and Cosmides, 1992 [8] ). Evoked cultural behaviors are those that are the outputs of shared psychological mechanisms in response to local environmental cues [8] Fessler et al., 2015 [18] ). Transmitted cultural behaviors are those behaviors which are learned from one’s social group, regardless of environment. As such, investigating evoked culture may well rest in the domain of evolutionary psychology and transmitted culture studied by culture evolution, social psychology, and other disciplines. Differentiating between the two is more difficult than it may appear, however. For example, given the level of cross-cultural variation in human societies, variation between any two cultures may result from separate histories and cultural evolutionary pathways or different evoked cultures, based on different local environmental cues, while uniformity across cultures could result from convergent cultural evolution or similarly functioning psychological adaptations (Fessler et al., 2015 [18] ). Specifically, if two cultures exhibit similar behaviors to avoid pathogens, can one differentiate between either the two groups independently inventing similar behaviors or the groups displaying the same underlying psychological adaptation for pathogen avoidance? As well, the issue of behavioral variation and transmitted culture may be seen as a major point of contention between evolutionary psychology and other disciplines, especially gene-culture coevolution. Evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology both admit to cultural transmission as a source of behavioral variation but do not see it as an evolutionary process or its potential to have significantly affected human evolution. Gene-culture coevolution would argue that culture traits may have altered genetic change and selection pressures, ultimately affecting cognition. However, as Brown et al. (2011) [11] states:"Whether human behavioural ecologists and evolutionary psychologists are willing to accommodate the idea that some portion of human behavioural diversity could result from genetic differences that have arisen via selection pressures imposed by socially transmitted behaviour remains to be seen."

While this may difficult, some evolutionary psychologists, such as Gangestad, Haselton, and Buss (2006) [9] have argued that the future of the discipline rests on unifying transmitted and evoked culture. In order to do so, the authors suggest that a more comprehensive definition of culture needs to be developed since different cultural phenomena need different kinds of analysis to investigate their effects. As they state, “Culture, however, is not a "thing" with singularity; it's an umbrella concept subsuming a collection of extraordinarily varied phenomena, each of which requires scientific analysis” (Gangestad et al., 2006). [9] Ultimately, the issues of behavioral variation through evoked or transmitted culture must rest on empirical evidence.

Psychology, culture, and human evolution

While most researchers would accept the notion that psychological adaptations, shaped by natural selection, underlie culture, some would stress the strength of cultural behaviors on shaping selection pressures (Boyd and Richerson, 2005) [5] or emphasize cultural niche construction (Laland et al., 2000). [19] Still others have argued for a kind of cognitive niche construction, where culture changes the selection pressures on cognition, resulting in emergent psychological modules (e.g. Wheeler and Clark, 2008 [20] ). Wheeler and Clark (2008) have named this interplay between genes, culture, and embodiment the “triple helix.” The authors suggest that self-created environmental structures and reliance on culturally-transmitted information selected for cognitive modules for continual bootstrapping and increases in computational complexity. Their argument relies on cognitive niche construction, where culturally-learned behaviors create a space for new feedback cycles. By shaping the physical space around oneself, for example, the culturally-transmitted practice transform problem solving for new forms of thought. The feedback cycle, as they and others argue, will alter selection pressures for cognitive developmental programs which bolster these abilities. [20] [21] As they state, “Triple helix models of mind recognize the role of genetic biases in sculpting key developmental trajectories, and the resulting space both for strong forms of genetically specified cognitive modularity and for weaker forms of emergent modularity resulting from trajectories marked by multiple bouts of culturally scaffolded experience and the self- selection of environments” (Wheeler and Clark, 2008. [20] Other authors have suggested that borrowing methods of dynamical systems analysis may help unravel this tangled web of genes, cognition, and culture (Kenrick et al., 2003 [22] ). The answers to these type of questions have impacts on anthropology, social psychology, and other behavioral sciences (Mesoudi, 2009 [7] ).

Evolved responses to intergroup conflict

War and intergroup conflict is a strong evolutionary factor. The so-called regality theory describes how human psychological traits are responding to either a hostile or a peaceful environment. Humans show authoritarian reactions and preferences for a strong leader in case of war or perceived collective danger. The evolutionary function of this so-called regal reaction is that it allows a strong leader to solve the collective action problem in war and suppress free riding. The whole society and culture is shaped by the regal psychological reactions of its members. A regal society is characterized by an authoritarian and hierarchical organization, strict discipline, intolerance, and xenophobia.

The opposite of the regal reaction is called kungic. The kungic reaction is seen when a group of people are living in peace and security. People will not tolerate a tyrannical leader who can exploit all resources to enrich himself. Instead, people will prefer an egalitarian and tolerant society when they live in an environment of collective safety. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

Modularity of mind is the notion that a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or mental modules which have distinct, established, and evolutionarily developed functions. However, different definitions of "module" have been proposed by different authors. According to Jerry Fodor, the author of Modularity of Mind, a system can be considered 'modular' if its functions are made of multiple dimensions or units to some degree. One example of modularity in the mind is binding. When one perceives an object, they take in not only the features of an object, but the integrated features that can operate in sync or independently that create a whole. Instead of just seeing red, round, plastic, and moving, the subject may experience a rolling red ball. Binding may suggest that the mind is modular because it takes multiple cognitive processes to perceive one thing.

The Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES) is an interdisciplinary, international society of researchers, primarily from the social and biological sciences, who use modern evolutionary theory to help to discover human nature — including evolved emotional, cognitive and sexual adaptations. It was founded on October 29, 1988 at the University of Michigan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological adaptation</span> Psychological theory

A psychological adaptation is a functional, cognitive or behavioral trait that benefits an organism in its environment. Psychological adaptations fall under the scope of evolved psychological mechanisms (EPMs), however, EPMs refer to a less restricted set. Psychological adaptations include only the functional traits that increase the fitness of an organism, while EPMs refer to any psychological mechanism that developed through the processes of evolution. These additional EPMs are the by-product traits of a species’ evolutionary development, as well as the vestigial traits that no longer benefit the species’ fitness. It can be difficult to tell whether a trait is vestigial or not, so some literature is more lenient and refers to vestigial traits as adaptations, even though they may no longer have adaptive functionality. For example, xenophobic attitudes and behaviors, some have claimed, appear to have certain EPM influences relating to disease aversion, however, in many environments these behaviors will have a detrimental effect on a person's fitness. The principles of psychological adaptation rely on Darwin's theory of evolution and are important to the fields of evolutionary psychology, biology, and cognitive science.

The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language. The timeline of human evolution spans approximately seven million years, from the separation of the genus Pan until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. The first three million years of this timeline concern Sahelanthropus, the following two million concern Australopithecus and the final two million span the history of the genus Homo in the Paleolithic era.

The term standard social science model (SSSM) was first introduced by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides in the 1992 edited volume The Adapted Mind. They used SSSM as a reference to social science philosophies related to the blank slate, relativism, social constructionism, and cultural determinism. They argue that those philosophies, capsulized within SSSM, formed the dominant theoretical paradigm in the development of the social sciences during the 20th century. According to their proposed SSSM paradigm, the mind is a general-purpose cognitive device shaped almost entirely by culture.

Leda Cosmides is an American psychologist, who, together with anthropologist husband John Tooby, pioneered the field of evolutionary psychology.

John Tooby was an American anthropologist who, together with his psychologist wife Leda Cosmides, pioneered the field of evolutionary psychology.

Dual inheritance theory (DIT), also known as gene–culture coevolution or biocultural evolution, was developed in the 1960s through early 1980s to explain how human behavior is a product of two different and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. Genes and culture continually interact in a feedback loop: changes in genes can lead to changes in culture which can then influence genetic selection, and vice versa. One of the theory's central claims is that culture evolves partly through a Darwinian selection process, which dual inheritance theorists often describe by analogy to genetic evolution.

Evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP) is a research paradigm that applies the basic principles of evolution by natural selection, to understand the development of human behavior and cognition. It involves the study of both the genetic and environmental mechanisms that underlie the development of social and cognitive competencies, as well as the epigenetic processes that adapt these competencies to local conditions.

Cultural selection theory is the study of cultural change modelled on theories of evolutionary biology. Cultural selection theory has so far never been a separate discipline. However it has been proposed that human culture exhibits key Darwinian evolutionary properties, and "the structure of a science of cultural evolution should share fundamental features with the structure of the science of biological evolution". In addition to Darwin's work the term historically covers a diverse range of theories from both the sciences and the humanities including those of Lamark, politics and economics e.g. Bagehot, anthropology e.g. Edward B. Tylor, literature e.g. Ferdinand Brunetière, evolutionary ethics e.g. Leslie Stephen, sociology e.g. Albert Keller, anthropology e.g. Bronislaw Malinowski, Biosciences e.g. Alex Mesoudi, geography e.g. Richard Ormrod, sociobiology and biodiversity e.g. E.O. Wilson, computer programming e.g. Richard Brodie, and other fields e.g. Neoevolutionism, and Evolutionary archaeology.

<i>The Adapted Mind</i> 1992 book by Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby

The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture is a 1992 book edited by the anthropologists Jerome H. Barkow and John Tooby and the psychologist Leda Cosmides. First published by Oxford University Press, it is widely considered the foundational text of evolutionary psychology (EP), and outlines Cosmides and Tooby's integration of concepts from evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology, as well as many other concepts that would become important in adaptationist research.

Evolutionary educational psychology is the study of the relation between inherent folk knowledge and abilities and accompanying inferential and attributional biases as these influence academic learning in evolutionarily novel cultural contexts, such as schools and the industrial workplace. The fundamental premises and principles of this discipline are presented below.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify and understand human psychological traits that have evolved in much the same way as biological traits, through adaptation to environmental cues. Furthermore, it tends toward viewing the vast majority of psychological traits, certainly the most important ones, as the result of past adaptions, which has generated significant controversy and criticism from competing fields. These criticisms include disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses, cognitive assumptions such as massive modularity, vagueness stemming from assumptions about the environment that leads to evolutionary adaptation, the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues in the field itself.

A cognitive module in cognitive psychology is a specialized tool or sub-unit that can be used by other parts to resolve cognitive tasks. It is used in theories of the modularity of mind and the closely related society of mind theory and was developed by Jerry Fodor. It became better known throughout cognitive psychology by means of his book, The Modularity of Mind (1983). The nine aspects he lists that make up a mental module are domain specificity, mandatory operation, limited central accessibility, fast processing, informational encapsulation, "shallow" outputs, fixed neural architecture, characteristic and specific breakdown patterns, and characteristic ontogenetic pace and sequencing. Not all of these are necessary for the unit to be considered a module, but they serve as general parameters.

The history of evolutionary psychology began with Charles Darwin, who said that humans have social instincts that evolved by natural selection. Darwin's work inspired later psychologists such as William James and Sigmund Freud but for most of the 20th century psychologists focused more on behaviorism and proximate explanations for human behavior. E. O. Wilson's landmark 1975 book, Sociobiology, synthesized recent theoretical advances in evolutionary theory to explain social behavior in animals, including humans. Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby popularized the term "evolutionary psychology" in their 1992 book The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and The Generation of Culture. Like sociobiology before it, evolutionary psychology has been embroiled in controversy, but evolutionary psychologists see their field as gaining increased acceptance overall.

The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology are the general and specific scientific theories that explain the ultimate origins of psychological traits in terms of evolution. These theories originated with Charles Darwin's work, including his speculations about the evolutionary origins of social instincts in humans. Modern evolutionary psychology, however, is possible only because of advances in evolutionary theory in the 20th century.

Epidemiology of representations, or cultural epidemiology, is a theory for explaining cultural phenomena by examining how mental representations get distributed within a population. The theory uses medical epidemiology as its chief analogy, because "...macro-phenomena such as endemic and epidemic diseases are unpacked in terms of patterns of micro-phenomena of individual pathology and inter-individual transmission". Representations transfer via so-called "cognitive causal chains" ; these representations constitute a cultural phenomenon by achieving stability of public production and mental representation within the existing ecology and psychology of a populace, the latter including properties of the human mind. Cultural epidemiologists have emphasized the significance of evolved properties, such as the existence of naïve theories, domain-specific abilities and principles of relevance.

There are two main approaches currently used to analyze archaeological remains from an evolutionary perspective: evolutionary archaeology and behavioral ecology. The former assumes that cultural change observed in the archaeological record can be best explained by the direct action of natural selection and other Darwinian processes on heritable variation in artifacts and behavior. The latter assumes that cultural and behavioral change results from phenotypic adaptations to varying social and ecological environments. 

The theory of regal and kungic societal structures, or regality theory, is a theory that seeks to explain certain cultural differences based on perceived collective danger and fear.

References

  1. 1 2 Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1989). "Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part I. Theoretical considerations". Ethology and Sociobiology. 10: 29–49. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(89)90012-5.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Sperber, D. (2001). "Conceptual tools for a natural science of society and culture (Radcliffe-Brown Lecture in Social Anthropology 1999)". Proceedings of the British Academy. 111: 297–317.
  3. ↑ Sperber, D. (2000). Aunger, Robert (ed.). Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford.
  4. 1 2 Boyd, R.; Richerson, P.J. (1988). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0226069333.
  5. 1 2 3 Boyd, R.; Richerson, P.J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0195181456.
  6. ↑ Bentley, R.A.; Hahn, M.W.; Shennan, S.J. (2004). "Random drift and culture change". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 271 (1547): 1443–1450. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2746. PMC   1691747 . PMID   15306315.
  7. 1 2 Mesoudi, A. (2009). "How cultural evolutionary theory can inform social psychology and vice versa". Psychological Review. 116 (4): 929–952. doi:10.1037/a0017062. PMID   19839691.
  8. 1 2 3 Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1995). Barkow, J.H.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (eds.). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture . Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0195101072.
  9. 1 2 3 Gangestad, S.W.; Haselton, M.G.; Buss, D.M. (2006). "Authors' Response: Toward an Integrative Understanding of Evoked and Transmitted Culture: The Importance of Specialized Psychological Design". Psychological Inquiry. 17 (2): 138–151. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1702_3. S2CID   448323.
  10. ↑ Boyer, P. (2000). "Evolutionary Psychology and Cultural Transmission". American Behavioral Scientist. 43 (6): 987–1000. doi:10.1177/00027640021955711. S2CID   144440417.
  11. 1 2 Brown, G.R.; Dickins, T.E.; Sear, R.; Laland, K.N. (2011). "Evolutionary Accounts of Human Behavioural Diversity". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 366 (1563): 1029–1046. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0267. PMC   3013476 . PMID   21199836.
  12. ↑ Laland, K.N.; Brown, G.R. (2006). "Niche Construction, Human Behavior, and the Adaptive-Lag Hypothesis". Evolutionary Anthropology. 15 (3): 95–104. doi: 10.1002/evan.20093 .
  13. ↑ Symons, D. Crawford, C.; Smith, M.; Krebs, D. (eds.). Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
  14. ↑ Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1990). "The Past Explains the Present: Emotional Adaptations and the Structure of Ancestral Environments". Ethology and Sociobiology. 11: 375–424. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(90)90017-z .
  15. ↑ Smith, E.A.; Wishnie, M. (2000). "Conservation and Subsistence in Small-scale Societies". Annual Review of Anthropology. 29: 493–524. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.493. S2CID   7165162.
  16. ↑ Hawkes, K.; O'Connell, J.F.; Blurton Jones, N. (2001). "Hadza Meat Sharing". Evolution and Human Behavior. 22 (2): 113–142. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00066-0. PMID   11282309.
  17. ↑ Kaplan, H.S.; Hill, K. (1985). "Food-sharing Among the Ache: Tests of Explanatory Hypotheses". Current Anthropology. 26: 223–245. doi:10.1086/203251. S2CID   144447219.
  18. 1 2 Fessler, D.M.T.; Clark, J.A.; Clint, E.K. (2015-11-02). Buss, D.M. (ed.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Wiley. pp. 1029–1046. ISBN   978-1-118-76399-5.
  19. ↑ Laland, K.N.; Odling-Smee, J.; Feldman, M.W. (2000). "Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change". The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 23 (1): 131–146. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00002417. PMID   11303338. S2CID   13893525.
  20. 1 2 3 Wheeler, M.; Clark, A. (2008). "Culture, embodiment and genes: unravelling the triple helix". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 363 (1509): 3563–3575. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0135. PMC   2607343 . PMID   18801719.
  21. ↑ Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a hostile world: the evolution of human cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ISBN   978-0631188872.
  22. ↑ Kenrick, D.T.; Li, N.P.; Butner, J. (2003). "Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Individual Decision Rules and Emergent Social Norms". Psychological Review. 110 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.3. PMID   12529056. S2CID   43306158.
  23. ↑ Fog, Agner (2017). Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Open Book Publishers. doi: 10.11647/OBP.0128 . ISBN   978-1-78374-403-9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.