Cooperation is a risk strategy largely mediated by probability of future encounters (kin selection can be made superfluous, but is not “wrong”, the data is just seems indeterminate in most cases). So the factors associated with “adaptive groups” (e.g. Religion) facilitate cooperation, but co-operation doesn’t necessarily lead to groups nor religions. You need between-group selection (in most cases. Nowak has explored the measures required via artificial simulations, and the cases where you don’t need between-group selection are pretty rare).

In groups with weak norms and such, cooperation is quickly extinguished. But in groups with strong norms or sever threats it emerges. What is the most parsimonious causal arrow here?

Cooperation is a natural tendency (whose expression is normally distributed) but which requires between-group selective pressure to stabilize. This logic breaks down at the family level where kin selection is more parsimonious.

I don’t think cultural-group aspects only emerged 3kya ago. That’s just wrong. They seem to have been evolving all throughout hominid history (100’s of kya). But there was certainly a punctuated change about 10-15kya ago. One hypothesis is that it is just lag associated with junk genetic change build-up. The evo-devo folks would say it takes a while until a master gene is methylated enough for phenotypical punctuation to happen. But you definitely see a see-sawing back and forth between levels of organization until successful cultural traits stabilize.

But seeing religious groups in terms of ecosystem terms is an interesting approach…Niche creation produces feedback that effects biodiversity. Apropos for the current great religious awakening and the rise of secular-progressive cults (new religious movements).

It seems a problem we quickly face regarding such cultural evolution is why such structures only appear 2500 years ago, given how rapidly they allow societies to develop. It’s somewhat analogous to the problem of human language. If language evolved around 100,000 – 150,000 years ago why did it take so long for complex culture and government to develop? Say around 10,000 years ago. (I’m not saying any of this is a problem – more that it’s a bit of a mystery)

The usual arguments, which that article touches upon, relate to agriculture and domestication of animals and plants.

I did like that they focused on the subspecies level especially in a given area where you can have fairly diverse traits. I think part of the problem – which occurs in biology as well – is figuring out what separates these groups. The tree example they give is a great one to show how that can be tricky. Oddly they don’t play up that angle. Obviously they touch upon in-group and out-group distinctions and the ways those boundaries are maintained. That’s interesting as it allows some groups in the same geographic areas to develop in unique fashions. Think say Jews in Europe. Those can given the right cues then provide information and cultural shifts into the main body. (Think of say the influence of Jewish thinking on the Renaissance, and on the rise of contemporary science in the first half of the 20th century)

I’ve only read half the article thus far. But it really is quite interesting to think about. Especially about our own religion.

The borgassian interview was interesting, but not very technical. 14:25 and on of part 2 and then part 3 is also good.

Culture is very hard to define. There is a reason why the social “sciences” and humanities tend to full descriptor approaches and are content with non-generalizable ends.

But genetic tools have made tremendous strides in the social sciences. But even quantitative evolutionary biology is subject to many of the same critiques and limitations of cultural evolution – the problems are usually just hidden from view and only crop up in obscure species. I’ll have to do a full post sometime to make a satisfactory case for Clark.

I think Rubin Report tonight has GaadSad on talking about social justice as a religion. While Gaad isn’t my favourite person, and he certainly isn’t versed in cultural evolution, it might be interesting nonetheless.

I’m not sure that is totally the case. Preachers and revivals had many of the features of spectacle and mass emotion as a rave. Also, religions in that era tended to segment by social class. I’m not sure what the dynamics of a choice of religion based on truth were for the second great awakening as compared to other social features of religion.

“What I think we are seeing now is that more and more in the west, religion has ceased to be Christian. The very questions we seek to answer regarding authority and sin no longer have play culturally.”

I think a lot of this depends on what one means by “Christian”. Is there a strong difference between secular and religious values in the West today? Are people who are dissatisfied with conservative politics expressing or rejecting Christian values? I don’t think it is at all clear.

I confess making a separation due to individuals interacting doesn’t offer much since most species interact to some degree if only sexually. However at the same time as a short hand I certainly don’t think there’s anything wrong with talking about groups.

Thanks for clarifying on fitness. I had thought you were talking more in terms of signs or memes and their success.