Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Limit of Gene-Culture Co-evolutionary Theory

  • Lee, Min-seop (Program in History and Philosophy of Science Seoul National University) ;
  • Jang, Dayk (College of Liberal Studies Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.09.27
  • Accepted : 2017.09.30
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The theories of cultural evolution hold subtly or clearly different stances about definition of culture, pattern of cultural evolution, biases that affect cultural evolution, and relationship between culture and organism. However, the cultural evolution theories have a common problem to solve: As the evolutionary theory of life tries to explain the early steps and the origin of life, the cultural evolution theories also must explain the early steps of the cultural evolution and the role of the human capability that makes cultural evolution possible. Therefore, explanations of the human's unique traits including the cultural ability are related to determine which one is the most plausible among many cultural evolution theories. Theories that tried to explain human uniqueness commonly depict the coevolution of gene (organism) and culture. We will explicitly call the niche construction theory and the dual inheritance theory the 'gene-culture co-evolutionary theory'. In these theories, the most important concept is the 'concept of positive feedback'. In this paper, we distinguish between core positive feedback and marginal positive feedback, according to whether the trait that the concept of positive feedback explains is the trait of human uniqueness. Both types of positive feedback effectively explain the generality of human uniqueness and the diversity of human traits driven by cultural groups. However, this positive feedback requires an end, in contrast to negative feedback which can be continued in order to maintain homeostasis. We argue that the co-evolutionary process in the gene-culture co-evolutionary theories include only the positive feedback, not covering the cultural evolution after the positive feedback. This thesis strives to define the coevolution concept more comprehensively by suggesting the potential relationships between gene and culture after the positive feedback.

Keywords

References

  1. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.
  2. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Feldman, M. W. (2000). Niche construction earns its keep. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(01), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0044241X
  3. Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press.
  4. Sterelny, K. (2011). From hominins to humans: how sapiens became behaviourally modern. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1566), 809-822. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0301
  5. Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York City: Oxford University Press.
  6. Blackmore, S. (2000). The meme machine. Oxford University Press.
  7. Dennett, D. C. (2002). The new replicators. The Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1, E83-E92.
  8. Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal cognition, 8(3), 164-181 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6
  9. Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. brain, 9(10), 178-190.
  10. Bingham, P. M. (1999). Human uniqueness: a general theory. Quarterly Review of Biology, 133-169.
  11. Bingham, P. M. (2000). Human evolution and human history: A complete theory. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(6), 248-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:6<248::AID-EVAN1003>3.0.CO;2-X
  12. Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  13. Claidiere, N., Scott-Phillips, T. C., & Sperber, D. (2014). How Darwinian is cultural evolution? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1642), 20130368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0368
  14. Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In Robert Aunger(ed.). Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science, Oxford University Press, 163-173.
  15. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2008). Five misunderstandings about cultural evolution. Human Nature, 19(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-008-9037-1
  16. Mesoudi, A. (2009). How cultural evolutionary theory can inform social psychology and vice versa. Psychological review, 116(4), 929-952. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017062
  17. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Taylor & Francis.
  18. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103
  19. Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice. MIT Press.
  20. Dennett, D. C. (2001). The evolution of culture, The Monist, 84(3), 305-324. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200184316