Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

According to Dawkins and the standard evolutionary model, evolution can create different behavioural 'strategies' within the same species. So rather than genes making everyone 'selfish' (a common misunderstanding springing from Dawkins very unwise use of the term 'selfish gene'), you actually get, say, a mix of 'selfish' and 'cooperative' behaviours, both within populations and within a single animal. So you might get, say, 60% cooperative behaviour and 40% selfish as a stable equilibrium (note that in the human case this is an explanatory not a normative statement and has nothing to do with how we *should* behave).

This is all very plausible for other animals and would seemingly be an interesting thing to talk about when you talk about 'human nature' - which I think it is possible to talk about, whatever the fashion might be in the social sciences. But when you come to humans there's the problem of culture. It is demonstrably true that within evolutionary insignificant timescales human behaviour can change considerably. You could argue for instance that in this country behaviour is more selfish and less cooperative than 500 years ago.

So my question is, to what degree can the science of genetic evolution ever say anything about 'human nature' when culture seems to have such a strong influence? Can science provide useful information about 'human nature' at all when 'culture' is too complex a phenomenon for it to explain? Should whatever can be said about human nature be left to psychologists and social scientists (who take account of culture), or is it possible to discuss certain norms from the evolutionary angle?

I get a rash when I think of anything "evolutionary", the way it's thought of/advocated today, without thinking twice, as it were...

Science, by the very nature of it's [partial] object/subject of study and its methodology, can more or less describe a part of reality. Once one starts thinking of "wider/deeper" subjects one is not a scientist any longer and hence Philosophers should have a real go at such vain attempts... like I'm gonna do now...

To think about a whole of human experience and perhaps towards the causes of a phenomenon, to think about the essence of what makes us Human - I think we're looking at a very "short tool" to cover it, really, if it's the socio-biology thing we're asking about...

They do not ask where they got their notions/tools from and Marx already notes that Mr Darwin sees his native land wherever he looks, interestingly enough [or words to that effect]...

In other words, a Critical Theory methodology, of trying to understand how we are influenced by our own societies, how the aparatus we have is affected by the society we socialised into and how it [our societal structures, the essential relationships in a given society, our customs, education etc.] affects research and thinking on the subject, would do them well...

But I see very little proper effort on the subject.

It is well known that Wallace/Darwin expressly admitted that "everything became clear after reading Malthus!"

Now, imagine this rather unpleasant fact, which should put anyone off socio-biology's "objectivity": the whole impetus and methodological aparatus, the manner of thinking, which gives "facts" their "factualness" [see Fichte for details!!!], came to biology from social sciences...

Then, it was "forgotten", rather conveniently...

Now, "we" think we have the tools towards explaining Human Society and no less than Human Nature by an allegedly objective tool, coming from evolutionary this-that-or-the-other...

Had we not seen how that can be taken from biology into social theory [see Hitler or any such ideas, held by Churchill etc.] I maybe inclined to entertain the idea, if only for academic purposes... Alas...

In conclusion: from Social Theory [Malthus: eugenics etc. advocated], to Science {Darwin] and back to Social Theory {Socio-Biology, Social Darwinism, "evolutionary psychology" etc.] but without critically thinking about it - well, that spells disaster to my mind...

The worst Stalinism did was allegedly turning "theory" into "practice", without any careful, proper, step-by-step mediation between the realms of theory and Reality. And it seems like it's happening right here, if somewhat differently... Neo-Cons are having a big larf on all our counts, as we seem, by and large, taken by this type of "thinking" [rather uncritically] on the subject, as it's rather convenient and easy, simplistic and gives us "silver bullet solutions"...

Utter rubbish, when it comes to Human Beings, Human Society, "Human Nature" questions, societal problems/potential solutions etc. etc. - if you ask me...

gorski said:

They do not ask where they got their notions/tools from and Marx already notes that Mr Darwin sees his native land wherever he looks, interestingly enough [or words to that effect]...

Click to expand...

Have a look at Stephen Jay Gould's essay 'Kropotkin was no crackpot' (available on libcom) for an interesting read about the russian take on darwinian theory - very much along the lines that Darwin's work was too influenced by the UK and its conditions at the time.

Thanx!

You know, I was thinking about this very question myself the other day. ie. to what extent does 'culture' affaect genetic inheritance.

Some evolutionists would argue that the birth of 'culture' conincided with, and then reinforced, the devlopment of our larger brains. This brought a new factor to the table - as well as sexual selection and selection by fitness, heredity could now select by 'intellect' or eg. who could make the best flint arrowheads - thus selecting for intelligence and even larger brain size (and simultaneously selecting thatn cultural information for inheritance)

Crispy said:

You know, I was thinking about this very question myself the other day. ie. to what extent does 'culture' affaect genetic inheritance.

Some evolutionists would argue that the birth of 'culture' conincided with, and then reinforced, the devlopment of our larger brains.

Click to expand...

That's a possibility, but what I'm getting at is more that 'culture' distorts and undermines the game theory model of genetically-induced behaviours because we can radically change behaviours without any genetic change.

Brainaddict said:

That's a possibility, but what I'm getting at is more that 'culture' distorts and undermines the game theory model of genetically-induced behaviours because we can radically change behaviours without any genetic change.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Well Dawkins would come right back atcha with the whole 'meme' concept. Or at least take a holistic view that the mode of inheritance doesn't matter. As long as information that alters behaviour is passed on from one generation to the next, then you have evolution. Doesn't matter if it's mitochondrial DNA, regular DNA, intestinal bacteria colonies or the knowledge of fire.

But you're right - the mechanisms of cultural inheritance are so much quicker, and the information so much more fluid, that it probably moves much faster than genetic inheritance can 'keep up with'

Over the long term, some elements of culture may have affected our genetic inheritance - You could speculate that 20,000 years of making the same sort of stone tools would select for a certain hand and finger shape for example.

But we are now moving so fast that we're never going to evolve 'email fingers'

Brainaddict said:

That's a possibility, but what I'm getting at is more that 'culture' distorts and undermines the game theory model of genetically-induced behaviours because we can radically change behaviours without any genetic change.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Can anyone claim any significant "genetic change" in the last, say 2500 years, for instance? Our "nature", however, has changed essentially!

Crispy said:

But you're right - the mechanisms of cultural inheritance are so much quicker, and the information so much more fluid, that it probably moves much faster than genetic inheritance can 'keep up with'

Click to expand...

Not only that - it makes it at least partially redundant - genetic evolution is not *needed* in order for our behaviour to change.

I dunno, I used to quite like the ideas of evolutionary psychology but I'd never thought about the culture issue so much before - the more I do the more I think that it's very difficult for evolutionary psychology to say much (with any authority) about humans at all.

Brainaddict said:

I dunno, I used to quite like the ideas of evolutionary psychology but I'd never thought about the culture issue so much before - the more I do the more I think that it's very difficult for evolutionary psychology to say much (with any authority) about humans at all.

Click to expand...

Only the really obvious stuff like the child-mother bond or competitive behaviour for mates/status etc.

Crispy said:

Only the really obvious stuff like the child-mother bond or competitive behaviour for mates/status etc.

Click to expand...

But on competition for mates, surely some societies are more competitive than others. For instance in low-resource arctic environments it has not been unknown for women to have several male partners who cooperate in looking after her and the offspring.

Interesting. Let me think a little more and I'll see if I can think of a single example of neuropsych that works

Brainaddict said:

But on competition for mates, surely some societies are more competitive than others. For instance in low-resource arctic environments it has not been unknown for women to have several male partners who cooperate in looking after her and the offspring.

Click to expand...

Himalayah as well: multiple male partners.

More than that: the mating values and hence rituals and all connected to it changes drastically as we/our society changes.

Once women were passive in it all! Had nothing to say about any of it. They were given away/bought and sold by their families and even their very lives depended on male's whim [together with children and slaves]. Draw the rest of conclusions from there...

So, that "explanation" [aiming at "natural laws of behaviour"] is totally flawed [and I'm chosing my words carefully here]... But it does frequently have this underlying claim that this society, living in acordance with such "laws", is now the best it can ever become...

This thread should be in science forum!

For me the answer to the problem of culture/evolution nods towards Lamarck and the relationship between consciousness and evolution.

I think it is fair to say that culture is symbiotic with "knowledge" and knowledge is a product of consciousness. Perhaps you could even say that culture = pooled knowledge (it's nutoriously hard to define culture).

I think the argument made in the 60's that the "missing link" between primates and homosaps was the digestion of psychactive plants and funghi shouldnt be dismissed as hippy dreaming - it is very possible that the boosts in consciousness that such insightful experiences have would significantly alter the "culture" (pooled knowledge) of groups.


The fact is that science still struggles with the role of consciousness in all processes, and particularly in evolution - IMO.

I've been meaning to start a thread about pigeons, but I think this thread may be the perfect place - and it gives us a concrete example to talk about, aside from man.

My question about city pigeons is, how come this seems to be the only breed of bird that has become so fearless amongst humans, and lives by scavenging of us? Surely the same opportunities are there for all birds, and perhaps even better for smaller, faster birds.

You do maybe get a starling that will go for your crumbs, but nothing like on the scale pigeons do - nor with the same confidence. How has this evolutionary act come to be, and in the evolutionary short space of time since cities arose?

The pigeons we see in the city are a bread known as Rock Pigeon, becasue theire natural habitat is on cliff faces.


The pigeons in the city are descended from Rock Pigeons, and are supposedly 'the same', but are actually descended from pigeons that have been kept by man for racing etc., that have gone back to the 'wild' - and are therefore called feral pigeons.


What this suggests is that even though feral city pigeons are wild, the experience of their recent ancestors of being handeled by humans has made them fearless to human activity, whilst rock pigeons, in every other way the same bird, still stay away from cities, and continue to live on cliffs.

What this suggests to me (and please correct me if I'm worng) is that the conscious experience of being handeled has been intergrated into the genes of a breed of pigeon that is now wild, and incorporated at a fantastic evolutionary rate compared to what is normaly proposed for evolutionary changes in behaviour.

Is this 'feral pigeon culture'? And if so, why does it appaear to be utterly genetically based (as real Rock PIgeons refuse to scavenge like Feral Pigeons)? - I'd love to know what you think>>>

Niksativa I think the rules change (in terms of how long it takes a species to change in the genetic sense) if the species is bred by humans specifically to encourage particular traits - think how quickly new breeds of dogs (with different behaviours from other dogs) can arise. So in the case of pigeons, there was intensive selection of the ones that didn't mind being handled so much.

Brainaddict said:

So in the case of pigeons, there was intensive selection of the ones that didn't mind being handled so much.

Click to expand...

Yep. Artificial selection is way way faster than the natural kind. If you're breeding pigeons and some of them keep fussing and biting you, you don't bother breeding those ones. Aggression and fear is easily bred out.

I swear that I once read an argument that humans have effectively domesticated themselves. Behaviours with genetic roots that are harmful to the social group/farm/village/power structure tend not to get passed on, as those individuals find themselves shunned or killed. Dangerous radicals get quickly taken out. We have effectively bred ourselves for subservience.

Crispy said:

Aggression and fear is easily bred out.

Click to expand...

Of course! I never thought of that... thanks.

Crispy said:

I swear that I once read an argument that humans have effectively domesticated themselves. Behaviours with genetic roots that are harmful to the social group/farm/village/power structure tend not to get passed on, as those individuals find themselves shunned or killed. Dangerous radicals get quickly taken out. We have effectively bred ourselves for subservience.

Click to expand...

That rings true - I think humans are "instinctually" conservative, and recoil at the turmoil of revolution - utterly understandable really, particualry from an evolutioanary standpoint.

niksativa said:

That rings true - I think humans are "instinctually" conservative, and recoil at the turmoil of revolution - utterly understandable really, particualry from an evolutioanary standpoint.

Click to expand...

Got to be careful with this argument though. Because when you start to argue about when this supposed domestication happened, you raise the possibility that it didn't happen to all humans and that therefore some humans are inherently genetically superior...

Crispy said:

I swear that I once read an argument that humans have effectively domesticated themselves. Behaviours with genetic roots that are harmful to the social group/farm/village/power structure tend not to get passed on, as those individuals find themselves shunned or killed.

Click to expand...

But surely all social animals do this to some extent. It is definitely a mechanism by which culture can influence genetic make-up though.

Brainaddict said:

But surely all social animals do this to some extent. It is definitely a mechanism by which culture can influence genetic make-up though.

Click to expand...

All social animals do it - but in our case it's not a self-regulating system, but one that we've actively participated in - via our 'culture'

Crispy said:

All social animals do it - but in our case it's not a self-regulating system, but one that we've actively participated in - via our 'culture'

Click to expand...

You wouldn't want to exaggerate the effect of culture on who we fuck though - a lot of it is down to chemistry and lust in the end For that reason alone I don't think it will ever be directly comparable to selective breeding of animals.

Also, I'm not sure if there have been any 'cultures' that have been in a steady state for long enough to affect the gene pool by a statisticly significant amount. Power structures break down, other ones invade, people interbreed. I suppose a very geographically isolated culture might survive long enough to affect its breeding. But then that very isolation would probably push natural selection too.

Meh. All too complicated to tease the truth out.

We are born with some instinctual inheritance, I think.

I'd suggest the fear of spiders, snakes and heights; possibly fire. We recognise other life forms very readily (too readily sometimes, seeing life where there is only a wisp of mist or smoke, or a tumbling leaf). We easily, perhaps naturally, develop a repugnance for faeces and rotting flesh as our brains mature. We don't need to be taught how to copulate; nor to drink when thirsty, or to eat when hungry, to fight against threats, or to run or hide from danger. Who can deny that feeding, fucking, and fighting all come to us rather naturally!

That's a list of vague, undifferentiated drives; and a few hard wired responses to dangers that have been around long before any type of ape or human ever existed. As for more specific stuff, I doubt there is even an instinct to bang the rocks together.

Except that it seems there is an instinct to create and use language. I understand that a group of deaf children (for example) reared in isolation and left largely to their own devices would develop their own gestural language. Perhaps this instinct for language is the most instructive in terms of the OP.

I mean, it may be human nature to create and use language -- but that is not to say that human nature shapes the specific form our languages may adopt. So it may be in our nature to create and share culture; but the cultures we create and share are yet strangely independent of the rather amorphous drives that impel us in that direction.

Jonti said:

1) We are born with some instinctual inheritance, I think.

2) ...drives

3) I understand that a group of deaf children (for example) reared in isolation and left largely to their own devices would develop their own gestural language.

4) I mean, it may be human nature to create and use language

Click to expand...

Sorry, Jonti but I must respond and I hope you will see I have not attacked you personally in any way! I actually like you and your attitude/values in general. So, quite the opposite is the case and I'm making an effort in the same manner in which you instructed me [with my sincere thanx, as you saw] in your field of expertise [if I'm correct] - since this is my more narrow field of interests and formal education...

Ergo, this is purely on issues/topics and nowt to do with you, I honestly hope you see it [far too many on this board who can't distinguish the two for the life of them...]...

1) I am afraid you will find that proposition seriously objected to, from many a social scientist and philosopher, psychologist etc. - depending on how we define "instincts": a complex set of behavioural patterns ["built into us", i.e. which don't have to be learned] where we are on auto-pilot from birth is NOT one of our "inherited" traits... A reflex to suckle when breastfed is not an instinct. Neither is a blink when something is about to hit our eye. Just a reflex, like swallowing... And boy, don't we have to learn how to "fuck"... At least "well", so both parties are cool with it...

2) Drives [like a sexual drive] are not to be mixed with instincts. About the other examples - we have to learn about sharp or hot objects and so forth. Spiders likewise etc. Faeces are not immediately felt about with disgust [or even danger?], as you mention. But I know you dismiss Freud out of hand, so won't go into details... And so forth...

3) Which means that they were not completely isolatad but exposed to plenty of culture and then filled in the gaps themselves. It speaks of our potential - no instincts involved... Creating structures/ideas in accordance with our potential [as opposed to a Koala, for instance] is inherent to us, yes but... Jumping to conclusions re. instincts is dependent on our definition of "instincts" and how we understand our drives or reflexes etc.

The argument you put forward doesn't work for this reason: if you remember the "wolf kids" - found too late to kick-start their human potential, they never managed to develop any cultural traits, from language [about 50 words only] or morals etc. Their "natural responses" to stimuli was much more akin to a member of a wolf pack.

4) Largely agreed, yes.

Nature v. nurture is always gonna be interesting...

gorski said:

Nature v. nurture is always gonna be interesting...

Click to expand...

It seems rather straightforward to me - nurture acting on nature, a genetic set-up that develops within a particular environment, both shaping and being shaped by that environment.

As such, I'm not sure it is valid to separate the two - nature/nurture are two aspects of the same thing.

Nurture can turn against nature and even to the point of [self]destruction...

They can be separated, if only for analytical purposes.

We need to understand better what goes where.

Methodically, not temporally, which is prior to which, in essentially human sense of the word, is an important aspect of who we are...

Not that we may find all the answers.

But the fun is in searching!

There is evidence for genetic inheritance of some 'instinctive' behaviours in animals. The famous example is the baby birds reacting with fear to the sillhouette of a hawk moving the way a hawk does. But make it move backwards and the chicks show no fear. This behaviour happens right from hatching and is not learnt.

There is no reason to assume that humans do not also have similar built in behaviours.

Nurture can turn against nature and even to the point of [self]destruction...

They can be separated, if only for analytical purposes.

We need to understand better what goes where.

Methodically, not temporally, which is prior to which, in essentially human sense of the word, is an important aspect of who we are...

Not that we may find all the answers.

But the fun is in searching!

Sorry for the double posting, I got a message about a databse error and so I clicked on Post again...

Crispy said:

There is evidence for genetic inheritance of some 'instinctive' behaviours in animals. The famous example is the baby birds reacting with fear to the sillhouette of a hawk moving the way a hawk does. But make it move backwards and the chicks show no fear. This behaviour happens right from hatching and is not learnt.

There is no reason to assume that humans do not also have similar built in behaviours.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, that's animals - no one disputes that. But to immediately presume the same for us... that's quite a jump... And I see no evidence for it. Can you provide some, please? I mean, where does your reasoning come from?