Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:20:30.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-interested agents create, maintain, and modify group-functional culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Manvir Singh ,
Luke Glowacki  and
Richard W. Wrangham
Manvir Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.manvir.orghttp://scholar.harvard.edu/glowacki/home
Luke Glowacki
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.manvir.orghttp://scholar.harvard.edu/glowacki/home
Richard W. Wrangham
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.manvir.orghttp://scholar.harvard.edu/glowacki/home
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree that institutions and rules are crucial for explaining human sociality, but we question the claim of there not being “alternatives to CGS [that] can easily account for the institutionalized cooperation that characterizes human societies” (target article, sect. 7). Hypothesizing that self-interested individuals coercively and collaboratively create rules, we propose that agent-based hypotheses offer viable alternatives to cultural group selection (CGS).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e52
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2010) Transmission coupling mechanisms: Cultural group selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 365(1559):3787–95. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flack, J. C., de Waal, F. B. M. & Krakauer, D. C. (2005) Social structure, robustness, and policing cost in a cognitively sophisticated species. The American Naturalist 165(5):E126–39. doi:10.1086/429277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, J. C., Girvan, M., de Waal, F. B. M. & Krakauer, D. C. (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439(7075):426–29. doi: 10.1038/nature04326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R. W. (2013) The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Human Nature 24(4):444–60. doi:10.1007/s12110-013-9178-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howitt, A. W. (1885) The Jeraeil, or initiation ceremonies of the Kurnai tribe. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 14:301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, R. C. (1980) Etoro social structure: A study in structural contradiction. The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. & Hoebel, E. A. (1941) The Cheyenne way: Conflict and case law in primitive jurisprudence. University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1926) Crime and custom in savage society. Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
McDowell, A. (2004) Real property, spontaneous order, and norms in the gold mines. Law and Social Inquiry 29(4):771–818. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747--4469.2004.tb01076.x/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norenzayan, A., Shariff, A. F., Gervais, W. M., Willard, A. K., McNamara, R. A., Slingerland, E. & Henrich, J. (2016) The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14001356.Google ScholarPubMed
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, H. K. (1992) Queen activation of lazy workers in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat. Nature 358:147–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapera, I. (1970) Tribal innovators: Tswana chiefs and social change, 1795–1940. The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Singh, M. & Boomsma, J. J. (2015) Policing and punishment across the domains of social evolution. Oikos 124(8): 971–82. doi:10.1111/oik.02064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, B. & Gillen, F. J. (1927) The Arunta: A study of a Stone Age people. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. I. (1981) Knowledge and praxis in Sanumá food prohibitions. In: Working Papers on South American Indians: Food taboos in Lowland South America, vol. 3, ed. Kensinger, K. M. & Kracke, W. H.. Bennington College.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. (2002) The vines of complexity: Egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of inequality among the Enga. Current Anthropology 43(2):233–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar