Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence

Peter Richerson, Ryan Baldini, Adrian V. Bell, Kathryn Demps, Karl Frost, Vicken Hillis, Sarah Mathew, Emily K. Newton, Nicole Naar, Lesley Newson, Cody Ross, Paul E. Smaldino, Timothy M. Waring, Matthew Zefferman

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    72 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity kin selection and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is "no" then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence including quantitative evidence that the answer to all of the questions is "yes" and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)e30
    JournalBehavioral and Brain Sciences
    Volume39
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

    evidence
    Group
    Group Selection
    Cultural Groups
    deviant behavior
    reciprocity
    Genes
    driver
    society
    Adequacy
    Gene
    Evolutionary
    Deviance
    Cultural Transmission
    Proximal
    Kin Selection
    Evolutionist
    Inheritance System

    Keywords

    • Competition
    • Culture
    • Evolution
    • Group selection
    • Heritable variation
    • Institutions
    • Norms

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Behavioral Neuroscience
    • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
    • Physiology
    • Language and Linguistics
    • Linguistics and Language

    Cite this

    Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation : A sketch of the evidence. / Richerson, Peter; Baldini, Ryan; Bell, Adrian V.; Demps, Kathryn; Frost, Karl; Hillis, Vicken; Mathew, Sarah; Newton, Emily K.; Naar, Nicole; Newson, Lesley; Ross, Cody; Smaldino, Paul E.; Waring, Timothy M.; Zefferman, Matthew.

    In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 39, 2016, p. e30.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Richerson, P, Baldini, R, Bell, AV, Demps, K, Frost, K, Hillis, V, Mathew, S, Newton, EK, Naar, N, Newson, L, Ross, C, Smaldino, PE, Waring, TM & Zefferman, M 2016, 'Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence' Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 39, pp. e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400106X
    Richerson, Peter ; Baldini, Ryan ; Bell, Adrian V. ; Demps, Kathryn ; Frost, Karl ; Hillis, Vicken ; Mathew, Sarah ; Newton, Emily K. ; Naar, Nicole ; Newson, Lesley ; Ross, Cody ; Smaldino, Paul E. ; Waring, Timothy M. ; Zefferman, Matthew. / Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation : A sketch of the evidence. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016 ; Vol. 39. pp. e30.
    @article{56f04c0a5dc74a6392f55a101fe9d631,
    title = "Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence",
    abstract = "Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity kin selection and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is {"}no{"} then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence including quantitative evidence that the answer to all of the questions is {"}yes{"} and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.",
    keywords = "Competition, Culture, Evolution, Group selection, Heritable variation, Institutions, Norms",
    author = "Peter Richerson and Ryan Baldini and Bell, {Adrian V.} and Kathryn Demps and Karl Frost and Vicken Hillis and Sarah Mathew and Newton, {Emily K.} and Nicole Naar and Lesley Newson and Cody Ross and Smaldino, {Paul E.} and Waring, {Timothy M.} and Matthew Zefferman",
    year = "2016",
    doi = "10.1017/S0140525X1400106X",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "39",
    pages = "e30",
    journal = "Behavioral and Brain Sciences",
    issn = "0140-525X",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation

    T2 - A sketch of the evidence

    AU - Richerson, Peter

    AU - Baldini, Ryan

    AU - Bell, Adrian V.

    AU - Demps, Kathryn

    AU - Frost, Karl

    AU - Hillis, Vicken

    AU - Mathew, Sarah

    AU - Newton, Emily K.

    AU - Naar, Nicole

    AU - Newson, Lesley

    AU - Ross, Cody

    AU - Smaldino, Paul E.

    AU - Waring, Timothy M.

    AU - Zefferman, Matthew

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity kin selection and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is "no" then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence including quantitative evidence that the answer to all of the questions is "yes" and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

    AB - Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity kin selection and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is "no" then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence including quantitative evidence that the answer to all of the questions is "yes" and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

    KW - Competition

    KW - Culture

    KW - Evolution

    KW - Group selection

    KW - Heritable variation

    KW - Institutions

    KW - Norms

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969651366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969651366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0140525X1400106X

    DO - 10.1017/S0140525X1400106X

    M3 - Article

    VL - 39

    SP - e30

    JO - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    JF - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    SN - 0140-525X

    ER -