Theory of Regal and Kungic Societal Structures

Last updated

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. [1]

Contents

People will show a psychological preference for a strong leader and strict discipline if they live in a society full of conflict and danger, while people in a peaceful and safe environment will prefer an egalitarian and tolerant culture, according to this theory. The psychological preferences of the individual members of a social group is reflected in the social structure and culture of the whole group. A dangerous and conflict-filled environment will drive the culture in the direction of strict hierarchy and authoritarianism. This type of culture is called regal. The opposite situation is seen in a safe and peaceful environment, where the culture is developing in the direction of egalitarianism and tolerance. This type of culture is called kungic. Most cultures and societies are found somewhere between these two extremes. [1] [2] [3] Both of these societal types may be impacted by other groups, and the likelihood of conflict with neighbor groups. [1] [2] In addressing these psychological response effects on cultural structures, the theory applies at the individual-level as well as the social group-level. Precursors to this regality theory are cultural r/k theory [4] and cultural selection theory. [2] [5]

Theoretical foundations and conceptual connections

Evolutionary psychology is the major discipline that the regal and kungic society theory falls under. Evolutionary psychology focuses on the psychological adaptations thought to be specific to an entire species that are displayed and observed by individuals of the species. [6] [7] [8] These psychological adaptations are then suggested to explain elements of culture in that they are linked to social organization patterns based on the way that the individuals creating and perpetuating the culture are thinking of their surrounding world, which is considered a worldview. The regal and kungic society theory poses that the social group environment triggers psychological adaptations that are meant to address whatever collective dangers come from that environmental setting. The modeling of regality theory is also attributed to evolutionary game theory and biological life history theory. [1] [9] In particular, regality theory is focusing on the free-rider problem in war or inter-group conflict. A strong leader can suppress free riding in war by rewarding brave warriors and punishing defectors. This is an advantage for the whole group because it improves the chances of winning the conflict. Therefore, it is advantageous for all members of the group to support a strong leader in this situation. A strong leader is a disadvantage, however, when there is no conflict and no need for collective action, because a strong and powerful leader may be despotic and take advantage of everybody else. Individuals fighting for the collective social group (parochial altruism or self-sacrifice) can be explained by the regal reaction. [1]

Life history theory's connection to regality theory comes from the shared expectations of reproduction patterns based on ecological settings. [1] [10] This also connects the theory of regal and kungic societal structures to the discipline of evolutionary ecology as both theories are addressing events that are considered the universal stages/events of life across all organisms- birth, reproduction, death. [2] [11]

Other theories that link threat to intolerance and authoritarianism include Integrated threat theory, authoritarianism theory and the theory of tight and loose cultures.

Agner Fog

Agner Fog is considered the main writer and investigator of regality theory. Fog is attributed with coining the term "regality theory." He is currently an associate professor at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), and has been present at DTU since 1995. [12] In this time, Fog has studied and published works of research that focus on cultural and evolutionary anthropology (includes regality theory), computer science (the field he predominantly lectures), and social systems. [12] Fog has also developed some forms of computer modeling that are meant to model some elements of cultural patterns. [13] He developed this regal and kungic societal patterning theory through the 1990s to the 2010s, but the term "regality theory" is directly used in his 2017 work, Warlike and Peaceful Societies: the Interaction of Genes and Culture. [1] However, first versions of the regal and kungic society theory by Fog are present in his book, Cultural Selection, which was published in 1999. In it, he uses the terms "regal" and "kungic" or "kalyptic" in the identical fashion as his 2017 book. [1] [2]

Warlike and peaceful societies: The interaction of genes and culture

This is the book that breaks down the theory of regal and kungic soocietal structures in the greatest detail under the name of "regality theory". [1] This book, published in 2017, is meant to explore the regal and kungic conditions to understand how collective dangers (real or perceived) impact the psychological dispositions of social group members that lead to the preference for conditions of strong leadership and hierarchy or for egalitarian, peaceful social systems. Typical characteristics of regal and kungic societies are summarized in the following table. Societies may be placed on a continuous scale from the extremely regal to the extremely kungic, where most societies are found somewhere between these two extremes. [1] [2] [3]

Regal societyKungic society
The world is seen as full of dangers and enemiesThe world is seen as peaceful and safe with little or no distinction between us and them
A hierarchical political system with a strong leaderA flat and egalitarian political system
Strong feelings of national or tribal identityHigh individualism
Strict discipline and punishment of deviantsLax discipline and high tolerance of deviants
XenophobiaTolerance of foreigners
Belief that individuals exist for the benefit of societyBelief that society exists for the benefit of individuals
Strict religionReligion has little or no disciplining power
Strict sexual moralsHigh sexual freedom
High birth rateLow birth rate
Low parental investment, i.e. short childhood and low educationLong childhood and education
Art and music is perfectionist, highly embellished, and follows specific schemesArt and music express individual fantasy with appreciation of individuality and innovativeness

Regal society

By this theory of regality, under harsh or hostile environmental conditions, the regal reaction is anticipated. It is the societal pattern that the term "warlike" is referring to. Individuals that live in these settings are likely to prefer an organization where there is a strong leader that is perceived as adequate enough to handle collective danger, whether it is real or perceived. [1] [2] [14] This leadership based condition would then address what is known as the collective action problem. This problem is understood as the need for all members of the collective to behave cooperatively or altruistically where they "fight" for the collective good no matter the individual level cost, which may be resource loss, injury, and/or death, but there is a failure to do this if group level interest are in conflict with the individual's interests. [15] These individual interests are thought to outweigh the cost and potential benefits of group/joint action. Should leadership employ their centralized power well enough across members of the social group, this collective action problem can be addressed and the potential of free-riding is lessened, which eradicates the occurrence of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma, a concept from game theory (and subsequently evolutionary game theory), refers to the expected strategy choices of individuals in reference to obtaining some form of benefit/payoff(s). In this dilemma, there is the defector (cheater) and the cooperator. [1] [2] [16] The idea suggests that individuals will choose to behave (defect/cooperate) based on which choice will most likely incur the greatest payoff and/or lowest cost. The idea of the regal condition/response will have an authoritarian figure strong enough to ensure the cooperation of the social group members as it is perceived such cooperation will ensure the defeat of the collective danger, which is typically war or intergroup conflict. [1] [17] It is mentioned as well that, in this condition, tyranny becomes possible as the collective is upholding a central power that could, by exploiting the fear of the group interference to the collective danger (real or not), monopolize resources and further their power. The characteristics expected in a society at this regal level would include authoritarianism, hierarchy, xenophobia (intolerance to minorities and out-groups), territoriality, and discipline of high degree. [1] [2] [3] [18]

Kungic society

A kungic society is then the resulting community formation from environments of collective safety and general peace, [1] and is considered the opposite condition to the regal condition, which suggests a dichotomous structure. There is little to no expected, perceived, or real collective danger that would trigger psychological adaptations specific to addressing dangers. The security of resources, territory, and within-group peace would result in the psychological dispositions towards an egalitarian system. [1] [2] The theory poses that there would be greater equality/equity across the group members at this level and that leadership would be little or at least not centralized as in the regal counterpart. In the kungic society, it is also anticipated that tyranny would not be possible, as the collective would not tolerate an opportunity for a centralized power to exploit resources and members of the group for their own self-enrichment. The characteristics expected for this societal pattern would include an egalitarian system, tolerance of minorities and out-groups (opposite of xenophobia), peacefulness, little separation of "us" and "them", and less specialization. [1] [18]

Authoritarian personality theory

Authoritarian personality theory is similar to regality theory, particularly at the regal level. [1] An authoritarian personality would entail an individual having attitudes depicted as belief of absolute obedience/submission to authority. This submission or belief in submission is accomplished via the oppression of those not in power (typical members of the social group) by the centralized authority. [19] [17] It is currently understood in two sections based on two identified worldviews. The worldview that the world is a dangerous place perpetuates the right-wing authoritarian personality type, while the psychological understanding of the world as a dog-eat-dog world will lead to social dominance orientation. [20] The perception of collective danger and the expected response to such danger described by authoritarian personality theory allow for the connection between this theory and regality theory. The difference between the two and the justification for the consideration of regality theory over authoritarian personality theory is that regality theory allows for greater empirical research via statistical analysis of causal relationships as well as regality theory's better avoidance of political bias. [1] [2] [19] [20]

Applications

Methods of study

It is important to note that forms of study used to empirically observe regality of a culture are still developing. The most common form seen is to retroactively attempt to find evidence of the regal and kungic designs on studies already completed. [18] [21] Thus, studies particularly designed with instruments to study regal and kungic are somewhat limited. A study was done by taking data of 186 non-industrial societies in the form of a standard cross-cultural sample and ethnographic records that created a sub-sample set. The study utilized various statistical methods and was retroactively performed on data from explorers of the 19th and 20th centuries. [18] Exploratory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and multiple correlation analysis were all run on this data and found that cultural variables such as political integration, sex morals, trends in autonomy, class stratification, and high gods, are correlated with intergroup conflict in the directions that regality theory would predicts. [18] Studies that are considered related to this are studies that look that also attempt to isolate the relationship of cultural variables to collective dangers. Variations of factorial analyses appear to be most common statistical method that might be applied to regal and kungic society studies. [18]

There is suggestion that archaeological data may also prove regal and kungic societal structures of ancestral populations. [5] [22] Artifacts, by regality theory, reveal in their design whether a researcher is looking at a piece from a kungic society or a regal society. This connection is considered exemplified by the organization of a design. If the design appears uniform and orderly, then is it likely from a regal society in that this condition would have higher value for these styles of detail- this is if one is to believe that identify may be derived form artifact. An artifact of a kungic society might then have design that is more abstract, disorderly, and lacking uniform. [5]

War and intergroup conflict response

Intergroup conflict and war are the major evolutionary factors thought to make up the collective dangers a social group might encounter. [1] [2] This makes them two evolutionary factors very relevant to regality theory. War and intergroup conflict response is what the psychological dispositions that select for a regal society are theorized to be meant for. [1] A major objective of studying regal and kungic (kalyptic) responses is that one might be able to isolate universal conditions leading to war and intergroup conflict and the needed conditions for peace-building and peace-keeping. [23] [24] [25] [26] This real-world application connects this regality theory to political psychology.

Regal/Kungic social patterning in non-human species

Considering the study of regality theory among real world human communities is relatively new, studies of regal and kungic level societies amongst non-humans remains basically non-existent and potentially more contentious than at the human level. [1] [3] It would involve utilizing a definition of culture that is not human specific. Defining culture remains a contentious topic across the whole of social sciences. The empirical compromise has been studying patterns of social organization across non-human species that doesn't necessarily require definitive use of a culture definition that allows for the inclusion of non-human species. [27] Still, this is based on regal-like and kungic-like behaviors and this does not address the needed psychological flexibility for regality theory and culture as a whole.

Studies of the social structures of non-human primates, some social carnivores, and hymenoptera may show regal and kungic societal patterns. Non-human primates, as human's closest relative, are subject to the most studies to observe "human-unique" characteristics in non-human species as a whole. Chimpanzees and bonobos make the most popular example of non-human species potentially displaying regal and kungic societal patterns, though studies of their social organization were not necessarily targeting evidence of regality theory. [28] [29] Chimpanzees typically exist in smaller temporary co-ed groups of males and females where males have rank of high or low, which impacts mating opportunity. [30] Aggressive behavior is observed amongst chimpanzees with some authoritative characteristics which allows for their consideration as regal society types. [1] [2] Bonobos are observed to have a kungic society based on kungic-like societal expression. Like chimpanzees, they exist in co-ed groups and follow a fission-fusion pattern. In these groups, females are usually associated with rank and aggressive behavior between individuals is rare for this species. Unlike chimpanzees, the infants and young of the group are more so tolerated by the group males [31] These egalitarian patterns allow for their consideration as a kungic type. [2]

Social carnivores like wolves, lions, meerkats & dolphins have also been subject to lengthy recordings of their social organization. [32] [27] Wolves and lions are considered to follow regal-like societal structures. [5] Meerkats, however, hold an odd placing. They are known to share burrowing space with other burrowing species harmoniously, though meerkat communities also have an alpha-pair that will scent-mark subordinate group members' space to assert dominance/authority. Also, there is killing of young in these communities, often by the subordinate members on the alpha pair's young. [27] [33] [34] This is meant to increase fitness and opportunity of the subordinate young. Their tolerance of outgroups hinders their direct fit into the regal or kungic society theory dynamics. [1] [2]

Dolphins are also of interest in that they are one of the few non-human species that are considered to show signs of culture. [27] [35] [36] This is based on their adults teaching young to make and use tools, which is considered cultural transmission of learned behaviors. They vary in behaviors based on species and environment so deciding if they follow a kungic-like of regal-like societal pattern cannot be universally applied. However, they are all social, form strong social bonds and typically cooperative. [37]

Hymenoptera refers to insects such as bees, wasps and ants. They are considered to be the species that perfected the police state social system, [38] and thus they are prime examples of the regal societal structure. [27] [38] [19] In these groups, there is authoritarian structure- queens, workers, soldiers- and often aggressive behavior that is lethal to individuals that do not fit into the collective. [38]

Etymology

Regal: From Latin: Regalis, royal.

Kungic: From the ǃKung people, who traditionally were particularly peaceful and tolerant. [2]

Criticism

The shortcomings of regality theory include its relative newness and that the study of the theory seems highly specialized to Agner Fog, though there are kin theories of cultural dimensions and organization. [3] [2] [18] [39] In several theories of cultural design there is some question as to this theory being potentially misused in negative explanations of some cultures/groups of people. The potential marginalization of people groups is compounded by the dichotomous design of the theory. Like the argument of personality as either states or traits, regality theory poses that cultures/societies are a collection of traits and that they create only two levels- regal/warlike or kungic/peaceful. [40] [41] It suggests two general worldviews when there is no evidence found to suggest that all humans only think in these two ways.

See also

Related Research Articles

Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self. Individuals or groups that subscribe to a collectivist worldview tend to find common values and goals as particularly salient and demonstrate greater orientation toward in-group than toward out-group. The term "in-group" is thought to be more diffusely defined for collectivist individuals to include societal units ranging from the nuclear family to a religious or racial/ethnic group.

Evolutionary psychology Application of evolutionary theory to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Some evolutionary psychologists apply the same thinking to psychology, arguing that the modularity of mind is similar to that of the body and with different modular adaptations serving different functions. These evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.

Ethnocentrism Judging another culture solely by the values and standards of ones own culture

Ethnocentrism in social science and anthropology—as well as in colloquial English discourse—means to apply one's own culture or ethnicity as a frame of reference to judge other cultures, practices, behaviors, beliefs, and people, instead of using the standards of the particular culture involved. Since this judgement is often negative, some people also use the term to refer to the belief that one's culture is superior to, or more correct or normal than, all others—especially regarding the distinctions that define each ethnicity's cultural identity, such as language, behavior, customs, and religion. In common usage, it can also simply mean any culturally biased judgment. For example, ethnocentrism can be seen in the common portrayals of the Global South and the Global North.

Socialization Lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies

In sociology, socialization is the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society. Socialization encompasses both learning and teaching and is thus "the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained".

Prejudice Affective feeling towards a person or thing based on perceived group membership

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.

Political psychology is an interdisciplinary academic field, a branch of social psychology dedicated to understanding politics, politicians and political behavior from a psychological perspective. The relationship between politics and psychology is considered bidirectional, with psychology being used as a lens for understanding politics and politics being used as a lens for understanding psychology. As an interdisciplinary field, political psychology borrows from a wide range of other disciplines, including: anthropology, sociology, international relations, economics, philosophy, media, journalism and history.

The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people. Conceptually, the term authoritarian personality originated from the writings of Erich Fromm, and usually is applied to men and women who exhibit a strict and oppressive personality towards their subordinates.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

In psychology, the right-wing authoritarian is a personality type that describes somebody who is naturally submissive to his authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior. The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality. With the American population, the prevalence is somewhere between 20% and 25% of the population.

In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live, or to describe the significance of different actions. Value systems are prospective and prescriptive beliefs; they affect ethical behavior of a person or are the basis of their intentional activities. Often primary values are strong and secondary values are suitable for changes. What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good".

Personality development encompasses the dynamic construction and deconstruction of integrative characteristics that distinguish an individual in terms of interpersonal behavioral traits. Indeed, personality development is ever-changing and subject to contextual factors and life-altering experiences. Personality development is also dimensional in description and subjective in nature. That is, personality development can be seen as a continuum varying in degrees of intensity and change. It is subjective in nature because its conceptualization is rooted in social norms of expected behavior, self-expression, and personal growth.

Fearmongering or scaremongering is a form of manipulation which causes fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, seeking to explain how they remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors, serving to disguise privilege as “normal”. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy using two factors: 1) support for group-based dominance and 2) generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the in-group’s position in the power structure. Though the scale is used in other social and political psychology studies with disparate goals including those exploring the causes of the orientation, social dominance theory’s perspective is that explaining the orientation cannot explain group based dominance due to its role as just one of many factors that act as both partial effect as well as partial cause of group based dominance.

National character studies is a set of anthropological studies conducted during and immediately after World War II. This involves the identification of people, ethnicity, and races according to specific, indomitable cultural characteristics. While a number of investigations were considered benign, there were some scholars of the opinion that these studies should never have been attempted at all. This is demonstrated in the case of social Darwinism, which holds that a successful people - as demonstrated in a victory in war or economic development - is presumed to have advanced in the evolutionary tree ahead of a vanquished nation or those people in developing or poor countries. An essay on National Character, as applied to foreign economic aid to developing nations, is contained in Ludwig Rudel's Memoir Agent for Change in International Development. Shortly after the end of World War II, the U.S. undertook programs to provide economic assistance on a global scale, initially to rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan, then under Truman's Point Four program. The U.S. was soon accused of imposing our system on other societies which had their own, very different, value systems and behavior patterns. The U.S. was said to be making other countries into its own image with a "one size fits all" approach. The International Cooperation Administration and then USAID took this criticism seriously. A battery of anthropologists and sociologists was hired to correct this bias. There was recognition that societies do not all follow some universal standard of behavior. What may work well in one country to serve its social objectives, may not work in another. It was argued that one should not be judgmental about the efficacy of one societal behavior system over another. A major work on national character is Ruth Benedict's book, "Patterns of Culture", written in 1934. In it, she argues that, "A culture, like an individual, is a more or less consistent pattern of thought and action". Margaret Mead, in her foreword to the book, summarizes Benedict's conception as "human cultures being personality writ large". Benedict was one of the cultural anthropologists recruited by the US government after our entry into World War II. She played a major role in grasping the place of the Emperor of Japan in popular Japanese culture and formulated the recommendation to President Roosevelt that the continuation of the Emperor's reign should be part of the surrender offer.

Realistic conflict theory, also known as realistic group conflict theory, is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Criminology Study of the causes and manifestations of crime

Criminology is the study of crime and deviant behaviour. Criminology is an interdisciplinary field in both the behavioural and social sciences, which draws primarily upon the research of sociologists, political scientists, economists, psychologists, philosophers, psychiatrists, biologists, social anthropologists, as well as scholars of law.

Human mating strategies Courtship behavior of humans

In evolutionary psychology and behavioral ecology, human mating strategies are a set of behaviors used by individuals to select, attract, and retain mates. Mating strategies overlap with reproductive strategies, which encompass a broader set of behaviors involving the timing of reproduction and the trade-off between quantity and quality of offspring.

Michele J. Gelfand

Michele J. Gelfand is a cultural psychologist, best known for being an expert on tightness–looseness theory, which explains variations in the strength of social norms and punishments across human groups. She is currently a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

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) 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 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.".

Agner Fog is a Danish evolutionary anthropologist and computer scientist. He is currently an Associate Professor of computer science at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), and has been present at DTU since 1995. He is best known for coining the term "Regality Theory" and for writing extensive optimization manuals for machines running the x86 architecture.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Warlike and Peaceful Societies : the Interaction of Genes and Culture. Fog, Agner. (1 ed.). UK. ISBN   9781783744039. OCLC   1012158524.CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Fog, Agner. (1999). Cultural Selection. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. ISBN   9789401592512. OCLC   851368170.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "An Evolutionary Theory of Cultural Differentiation". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2019-05-03.
  4. ↑ "Memetics and Social Contagion: Two Sides of the Same Coin?". Journal of Memetics. 2 (2): 171–185. Retrieved 2019-05-04.
  5. 1 2 3 4 "A Defense of Cultural Selection Theory". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2019-05-03.
  6. ↑ Tooby, John (1989). "ScienceDirect". Ethology and Sociobiology. 10: 29–49. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(89)90012-5.
  7. ↑ Blonder, Lee (September 1993). "The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby". American Anthropologist. 95 (3): 777–778. doi:10.1525/aa.1993.95.3.02a00690. ISSN   0002-7294.
  8. ↑ Barkow, Jerome H. (1992). The adapted mind : evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture . ISBN   9780195101072. OCLC   1040141738.
  9. ↑ Kaplan, Hillard S.; Gangestad, Steven W. (2015-09-08), "Life History Theory and Evolutionary Psychology", The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 68–95, doi:10.1002/9780470939376.ch2, ISBN   9780470939376
  10. ↑ Flatt, Thomas; Heyland, Andreas, eds. (2011-05-12). Mechanisms of Life History Evolution. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568765.001.0001. ISBN   9780199568765.
  11. ↑ Ahlström, T. (2010-01-13). "Life-history theory, past human populations and climatic perturbations". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 21 (4): 407–419. doi:10.1002/oa.1147. ISSN   1047-482X.
  12. 1 2 "Agner Fog - DTU" . Retrieved 2019-05-03.
  13. ↑ Fog, Agner (November 2000). "Simulation of Evolution in Structured Populations: The Open Source Software Package Altruist". Biotech Software & Internet Report. 1 (5): 226–229. doi:10.1089/152791600750034767. ISSN   1527-9162.
  14. ↑ "Perceived Danger Predicts Cultural Variables: A Meta-analysis of Culture Dimensions". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2019-05-04.
  15. ↑ Brown, Garrett Wallace; McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair (2018). The concise Oxford dictionary of politics and international relations. Brown, Garrett Wallace,, McLean, Iain,, McMillan, Alistair (4th ed.). [Oxford]. ISBN   9780191749568. OCLC   1020773939.
  16. ↑ Stirling, Wynn C. (2003), "Game Theory Basics", Satisficing Games and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–222, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511543456.013, ISBN   9780511543456
  17. 1 2 Spisak, Brian R.; O'Brien, Michael J.; Nicholson, Nigel; van Vugt, Mark (April 2015). "Niche Construction and the Evolution of Leadership". Academy of Management Review. 40 (2): 291–306. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0157. ISSN   0363-7425.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fog, Agner (2014-02-17). Why are cultures warlike or peaceful? Test of regality theory on 186 non-industrial societies. MISC. OCLC   958611577.
  19. 1 2 3 Bunzel, Joseph H.; Adorno, T. W.; Frenkel-Brunswik, Else; Levinson, Daniel J.; Sanford, R. Nevitt; Bettelheim, Bruno; Janowitz, Morris; Ackerman, Nathan W.; Jahoda, Marie (August 1950). "The Authoritarian Personality". American Sociological Review. 15 (4): 571. doi:10.2307/2087322. ISSN   0003-1224. JSTOR   2087322.
  20. 1 2 Duckitt, John; Sibley, Chris G. (2009-08-25). "A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice". Psychological Inquiry. 20 (2–3): 98–109. doi:10.1080/10478400903028540. ISSN   1047-840X. PMID   21039534.
  21. ↑ Fog, Agner (16 September 2020). "A Test of the Reproducibility of the Clustering of Cultural Variables". Cross-Cultural Research: 106939712095694. doi:10.1177/1069397120956948.
  22. ↑ Jacobs, Donald Trent, 1946- (2006). Unlearning the language of conquest : scholars expose anti-Indianism in America : deceptions that influence war and peace, civil liberties, public education, religion and spirituality, democratic ideals, the environment, law, literature, film, and happiness. University of Texas Press. ISBN   0292706545. OCLC   62525141.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ↑ Fry, Douglas P., 1953- (2006). The human potential for peace : an anthropological challenge to assumptions about war and violence. Oxford University Press. ISBN   0195181778. OCLC   56921107.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ↑ Fry, Douglas P; Souillac, Geneviève (2017-03-02). "The Original Partnership Societies: Evolved Propensities for Equality, Prosociality, and Peace". Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies. 4 (1). doi: 10.24926/ijps.v4i1.150 . ISSN   2380-8969.
  25. ↑ Kelly, Raymond (2000). Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.11589. ISBN   9780472097388.
  26. ↑ Harvey, Frank P. (March 2000). "Primordialism, Evolutionary Theory and Ethnic Violence in the Balkans: Opportunities and Constraints for Theory and Policy". Canadian Journal of Political Science. 33 (1): 37–65. doi:10.1017/S0008423900000032. ISSN   1744-9324.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 Laland, Kevin N.; Hoppitt, William (2003-05-19). "Do animals have culture?". Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 12 (3): 150–159. doi:10.1002/evan.10111. ISSN   1060-1538.
  28. ↑ Van Lawick-Goodall, Jane (January 1968). "The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve". Animal Behaviour Monographs. 1: 161–IN12. doi:10.1016/s0066-1856(68)80003-2. ISSN   0066-1856.
  29. ↑ Pepper, John W.; Mitani, John C.; Watts, David P. (1999). International Journal of Primatology(PDF). 20 (5): 613–632. doi:10.1023/a:1020760616641. hdl:2027.42/44563. ISSN   0164-0291 https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44563/1/10764_2004_Article_409685.pdf.Missing or empty |title= (help)
  30. ↑ Altmann, J. (1988-05-20). "Primate Societies. Barbara B. Smuts, Dorothy L. Cheney, Robert M. Seyfarth, Richard W. Wrangham, and Thomas T. Struhsaker, Eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987. xii, 578 pp., illus. $70; paper, $27.50". Science. 240 (4855): 1076–1078. doi:10.1126/science.240.4855.1076-a. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17731746.
  31. ↑ Great ape societies. McGrew, W. C. (William Clement), 1944-, Marchant, Linda F. (Linda Frances), 1951-, Nishida, Toshisada, 1941-2011., 西田, 利貞(1941- ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN   0521554942. OCLC   33104578.CS1 maint: others (link)
  32. ↑ Garfield, Zachary H.; von Rueden, Christopher; Hagen, Edward H. (2019). "ScienceDirect". The Leadership Quarterly. 30: 59–80. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.001 .
  33. ↑ Murray, Martin J (2013). "Development Dilemmas in Post-Apartheid South Africa ed. by Bill Freund and Harald Witt". Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 83 (1): 119–121. doi:10.1353/trn.2013.0021. ISSN   1726-1368.
  34. ↑ Moore, Heidi, 1976- (2004). A mob of meerkats. Chicago, Ill.: Heinemann Library. ISBN   1403446946. OCLC   52418369.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ↑ Hooper, Rowan (September 2011). "Dolphins appear to grieve in different ways". New Scientist. 211 (2828): 10. Bibcode:2011NewSc.211R..10H. doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(11)62128-3. ISSN   0262-4079.
  36. ↑ "Reason, John, (died 9 Feb. 2007), journalist and author; Rugby Union correspondent, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, 1964–94; Director, Rugby Football Books Ltd, since 1971", Who Was Who, Oxford University Press, 2007-12-01, doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u32041
  37. ↑ Díaz López, Bruno; Methion, Séverine (2017-03-18). "The impact of shellfish farming on common bottlenose dolphins' use of habitat". Marine Biology. 164 (4). doi:10.1007/s00227-017-3125-x. ISSN   0025-3162.
  38. 1 2 3 Whitfield, John (2002-04-01). "The police state". Nature. 416 (6883): 782–784. doi: 10.1038/416782a . ISSN   1476-4687. PMID   11976646.
  39. ↑ Nardon, Luciara; Steers, Richard M. (2009), "The culture theory jungle: divergence and convergence in models of national culture", Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–22, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511581151.002, ISBN   9780511581151
  40. ↑ Kandler, Christian (2017). "Open Peer Commentary and Authors' Response: Personality Traits and States: Vague Dimensional Differentiation or Genuine Integration". European Journal of Personality. 31 (5): 529–595 [549–550]. doi:10.1002/per.2128 . Retrieved 2019-05-04.
  41. ↑ Chaplin, William F.; John, Oliver P.; Goldberg, Lewis R. (1988). "Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54 (4): 541–557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.541. ISSN   0022-3514. PMID   3367279.
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.