Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:13:42.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group-level traits can be studied with standard evolutionary theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

Thomas C. Scott-Phillips  and
Thomas E. Dickins
Thomas C. Scott-Phillips
Affiliation:
Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group, Durham University, Dawson Building, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK. [email protected]://thomscottphillips.wordpress.com
Thomas E. Dickins
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London NW4 4BT, UK. [email protected]://dissentwithmodification.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smaldino's target article draws on and seeks to add to a literature that has partially rejected orthodox, gene-centric evolutionary theory. However, orthodox theory has much to say about group-level traits. The target article does not reference or refute these views, and provides no explicit arguments for this narrow approach. In this commentary we: (i) give two examples of topics that the target article might and probably should have discussed (cultural epidemiology and the psychology of individual differences); and (ii) argue that the orthodox approach has much more to say about the emergence of group-level traits than the target article recognises, or gives credit for.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 273 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Atran, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2004) Religion's evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(6):713–30.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. & Sperber, D. (2002) Kinship and evolved psychological dispositions: The mothers' brother controversy reconsidered. Current Anthropology 43(5):723–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P. & Petersen, M. B. (2012) The naturalness of (many) social institutions: Evolved cognition as their foundation. Journal of Institutional Economics 8(1):1–25.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. & Greiling, H. (1999) Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality 67(2):209–43.Google Scholar
Dickins, T. E. & Rahman, Q. (2012) The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1740):2913–21.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. & Grafen, A. (2009) Capturing the superorganism: A formal theory of group adaptation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22(4):659–71.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N., Kendal, J. R. & Brown, G. R. (2007) The niche construction perspective: Implications for evolution and human behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 5(1):51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., Feldman, M. W. & Kendal, J. (2009) Conceptual barriers to progress within evolutionary biology. Foundations of Science 14(3):195–216.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2006) The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. The American Psychologist 61(6):622–31.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2007) Individual differences. In: Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology, ed. Dunbar, R. I. M. & Barrett, L., pp. 479–90. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. & Müller, G. B. eds. (2010) Evolution: The extended synthesis. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (2012) The false allure of group selection. Available at: http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. (2012) Comment on Steven Pinker's Edge essay. Available at: http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/06/28/peter-j-richerson-comment-on-steven-pinkers-edge-essay/ Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. (2005) Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E. & West, S. A. (2011) Evolutionary theory and the ultimate–proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1):38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Hirschfeld, L. A. (2004) The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1):40–46.Google Scholar
West, S. A., El Mouden, C. & Gardner, A. (2011) Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 32(4):231–62.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. & Sober, E. (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17(4):585–607.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. & Wilson, E. O. (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 82(4):327–48.Google Scholar