Scan barcode
joshholder's review against another edition
4.0
This felt like a more intellectually rigorous Sapiens. Made it a great read, but also a little less engaging towards the end of the book, if I’m being honest.
Still, though, fascinating and convincing theses
Still, though, fascinating and convincing theses
miq33l's review against another edition
5.0
The Secret of Our Success is one of these books that really shines light on the evolution of human species. Written by Joseph Henrich, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard, this book is one these few that really change how I see the world. An example of the book that had similar impact for me would be "Who's in charge" by Gazzaniga, or General Semantics by Korzybski.
The premise of the book is simple, but profound. Humans are cultural animals, and culture helped us evolve into the dominant species that we are now. More importantly, culture created evolutionary pressures, enabling selection for traits best adjusted to not only environmental, but also cultural factors.
Henrich's book is extremely well researched, referencing hundreds of peer reviewed articles in the areas of anthropology, genetics, economy and evolution. Each of the claims the author is making is backed up by wealth of research, and synthesizes ideas from a variety of disciplines. For a skeptical reader, the range of original research sources referenced in the book should be a valuable resource in reviewing the claims made in the book.
And these claims are what really makes this book special. It explains how the culture affects the learning process, knowledge transfer, skill retention, prestige, but also biological adaptations, and gene expressions. Some of the implications of the claims made in the book, particularly about how prestige affects individuals, made me a little uneasy, but only considering what is seeing as prestigious right now.
If you are interested in evolution of human species, in what makes us, humans, special and in what is affecting our future right now, read this book. Its worth it.
The premise of the book is simple, but profound. Humans are cultural animals, and culture helped us evolve into the dominant species that we are now. More importantly, culture created evolutionary pressures, enabling selection for traits best adjusted to not only environmental, but also cultural factors.
Henrich's book is extremely well researched, referencing hundreds of peer reviewed articles in the areas of anthropology, genetics, economy and evolution. Each of the claims the author is making is backed up by wealth of research, and synthesizes ideas from a variety of disciplines. For a skeptical reader, the range of original research sources referenced in the book should be a valuable resource in reviewing the claims made in the book.
And these claims are what really makes this book special. It explains how the culture affects the learning process, knowledge transfer, skill retention, prestige, but also biological adaptations, and gene expressions. Some of the implications of the claims made in the book, particularly about how prestige affects individuals, made me a little uneasy, but only considering what is seeing as prestigious right now.
If you are interested in evolution of human species, in what makes us, humans, special and in what is affecting our future right now, read this book. Its worth it.
mahir007's review against another edition
5.0
اللعبة التطورية الثقافية
يقول عالم النفس التطوري (جوزيف هنريش) في كتابه : The Secret Of Our Success :
في استكشاف التطور المشترك للجينات الثقافية ، بدأنا نرى مدى فعالية التعلم الثقافي لاكتساب الأذواق لأداء جميع أنواع الإجراءات المكلفة ، بما في ذلك تفضيلات الطعام التي تتطلب التغلب على آفاتنا الفطرية ، كما في حالة الفلفل الحار.
بناءً على هذه الملاحظات التجريبية ، استخدم الباحثون التطوريون أدوات النمذجة الرياضية لطرح هذا السؤال: ماذا يحدث عندما يتعلم الناس ثقافياً من الآخرين ، ثم تلك السلوكيات أو الاستراتيجيات أو المعتقدات أو الدوافع المكتسبة تدخل في تفاعلات اجتماعية مستقبلية؟
الجواب من نظرية اللعبة التطورية الثقافية هو أن المعايير الاجتماعية تظهر بشكل تلقائي. غالبًا ما تنتهي مجموعات الأفراد الذين ينخرطون في تفاعلات اجتماعية ويتعلمون من بعضهم البعض باستخدام إشارات مثل النجاح والسمعة بمشاركة سلوكيات أو استراتيجيات أو توقعات أو تفضيلات متشابهة ، ويتم معاقبة أو عدم معاقبة الانحراف عن هذه المعايير المشتركة.
أو في بعض الحالات ، يتقاسم الأفراد معايير لتقييم التميز غير المألوف ، ومكافأة الأفراد على تجاوزهم المعايير. وفي كلتا الحالتين ، تكون الأنماط السلوكية المستقرة مستقرة بمعنى أنها تميل إلى تحمل ومقاومة الجهود التي يبذلها فرد أو بضعة أفراد لتغييرها
في كل من العالم الحقيقي وفي العديد من هذه النماذج الرياضية ، تتم معاقبة منتهكي القواعد من قبل أصحاب السمعة. عندما يكسر الأفراد الأعراف الاجتماعية ، فإن ذلك لا يؤثر في الغالب على الفور ، رغم أنه قد يؤثر فورا أحياناً.
لذلك ، ينشر مراقبوا الانتهاك كلمة حول ما حدث ، ويكون لهذه الثرثرة عواقب سلبية على الفرد . غالبًا ما يكون التقدير هو أن السمعة بحد ذاتها هي مجرد نوع من المعلومات الثقافية التي تنتشر بسبب العديد من القدرات النفسية نفسها التي تدعم أنواع الثقافة الأخرى. بمجرد أن يتمكن أسلافنا من التعلم من بعضهم البعض ، والتحدث عن الأطعمة التي يجب تناولها أو كيفية صنع أداة ، يمكننا أيضًا أن نتعلم من بعضنا البعض عن الأشخاص الذين لا يريدون بناء علاقة طويلة الأمد لأنشطة مثل الصيد والمشاركة والتزاوج. اللغة المتطورة ليست ضرورية ، لأنني أستطيع أن أنقل مشاعري تجاه منتهك القواعد إلى صديق بالطريقة نفسها التي أنقل بها مشاعري حول الهوت دوغ النباتية إلى زوجتي (باستخدام تعبيري المشمئز).
نتيجتان مثيرتان نشأتا من الدراسات التي استخدمت نظرية اللعبة التطورية الثقافية. أولاً : اتضح أن أي سلوكيات ، تدعمها بعض المعتقدات أو الاستراتيجيات أو الدوافع ، تدعو الأفراد إلى دفع التكاليف الشخصية ، مثل عدم تناول نوع لذيذ من الطعام (مثل لحم الخنزير المقدد) أو عدم ممارسة الجنس مع شخص قريب جذاب (ابن العم)، يمكن أن تستمر هذه السلوكيات من خلال التطور الثقافي ، على سبيل المثال ، وذلك عبر الإضرار بالسمعة. تعمل القواعد أيضًا على جعل السلوك غير الاجتماعي (مثل العادة السرية) إجتماعيا ، لأن الطرف الثالث غير المتورط يهتم بمثل هذا السلوك.
ثانياً : تميل الأعراف الاجتماعية إلى البقاء مستقرة حتى عندما لا تساعد المجموعة ولا الفرد. في الواقع ، يمكن للتطور الثقافي أن ينتج قواعد اجتماعية لزجة سيئة للجميع. الأمثلة الإثنوغرافية عديدة وتتراوح بين قطع البظر للفتيات الصغيرات (قطع الأعضاء التناسلية للإناث) إلى تناول أدمغة الأقارب القتلى في الجنازات (التي يمكن أن تنقل مرض بريون قاتل).
#Maher_Razouk
#ماهررزوق
يقول عالم النفس التطوري (جوزيف هنريش) في كتابه : The Secret Of Our Success :
في استكشاف التطور المشترك للجينات الثقافية ، بدأنا نرى مدى فعالية التعلم الثقافي لاكتساب الأذواق لأداء جميع أنواع الإجراءات المكلفة ، بما في ذلك تفضيلات الطعام التي تتطلب التغلب على آفاتنا الفطرية ، كما في حالة الفلفل الحار.
بناءً على هذه الملاحظات التجريبية ، استخدم الباحثون التطوريون أدوات النمذجة الرياضية لطرح هذا السؤال: ماذا يحدث عندما يتعلم الناس ثقافياً من الآخرين ، ثم تلك السلوكيات أو الاستراتيجيات أو المعتقدات أو الدوافع المكتسبة تدخل في تفاعلات اجتماعية مستقبلية؟
الجواب من نظرية اللعبة التطورية الثقافية هو أن المعايير الاجتماعية تظهر بشكل تلقائي. غالبًا ما تنتهي مجموعات الأفراد الذين ينخرطون في تفاعلات اجتماعية ويتعلمون من بعضهم البعض باستخدام إشارات مثل النجاح والسمعة بمشاركة سلوكيات أو استراتيجيات أو توقعات أو تفضيلات متشابهة ، ويتم معاقبة أو عدم معاقبة الانحراف عن هذه المعايير المشتركة.
أو في بعض الحالات ، يتقاسم الأفراد معايير لتقييم التميز غير المألوف ، ومكافأة الأفراد على تجاوزهم المعايير. وفي كلتا الحالتين ، تكون الأنماط السلوكية المستقرة مستقرة بمعنى أنها تميل إلى تحمل ومقاومة الجهود التي يبذلها فرد أو بضعة أفراد لتغييرها
في كل من العالم الحقيقي وفي العديد من هذه النماذج الرياضية ، تتم معاقبة منتهكي القواعد من قبل أصحاب السمعة. عندما يكسر الأفراد الأعراف الاجتماعية ، فإن ذلك لا يؤثر في الغالب على الفور ، رغم أنه قد يؤثر فورا أحياناً.
لذلك ، ينشر مراقبوا الانتهاك كلمة حول ما حدث ، ويكون لهذه الثرثرة عواقب سلبية على الفرد . غالبًا ما يكون التقدير هو أن السمعة بحد ذاتها هي مجرد نوع من المعلومات الثقافية التي تنتشر بسبب العديد من القدرات النفسية نفسها التي تدعم أنواع الثقافة الأخرى. بمجرد أن يتمكن أسلافنا من التعلم من بعضهم البعض ، والتحدث عن الأطعمة التي يجب تناولها أو كيفية صنع أداة ، يمكننا أيضًا أن نتعلم من بعضنا البعض عن الأشخاص الذين لا يريدون بناء علاقة طويلة الأمد لأنشطة مثل الصيد والمشاركة والتزاوج. اللغة المتطورة ليست ضرورية ، لأنني أستطيع أن أنقل مشاعري تجاه منتهك القواعد إلى صديق بالطريقة نفسها التي أنقل بها مشاعري حول الهوت دوغ النباتية إلى زوجتي (باستخدام تعبيري المشمئز).
نتيجتان مثيرتان نشأتا من الدراسات التي استخدمت نظرية اللعبة التطورية الثقافية. أولاً : اتضح أن أي سلوكيات ، تدعمها بعض المعتقدات أو الاستراتيجيات أو الدوافع ، تدعو الأفراد إلى دفع التكاليف الشخصية ، مثل عدم تناول نوع لذيذ من الطعام (مثل لحم الخنزير المقدد) أو عدم ممارسة الجنس مع شخص قريب جذاب (ابن العم)، يمكن أن تستمر هذه السلوكيات من خلال التطور الثقافي ، على سبيل المثال ، وذلك عبر الإضرار بالسمعة. تعمل القواعد أيضًا على جعل السلوك غير الاجتماعي (مثل العادة السرية) إجتماعيا ، لأن الطرف الثالث غير المتورط يهتم بمثل هذا السلوك.
ثانياً : تميل الأعراف الاجتماعية إلى البقاء مستقرة حتى عندما لا تساعد المجموعة ولا الفرد. في الواقع ، يمكن للتطور الثقافي أن ينتج قواعد اجتماعية لزجة سيئة للجميع. الأمثلة الإثنوغرافية عديدة وتتراوح بين قطع البظر للفتيات الصغيرات (قطع الأعضاء التناسلية للإناث) إلى تناول أدمغة الأقارب القتلى في الجنازات (التي يمكن أن تنقل مرض بريون قاتل).
#Maher_Razouk
#ماهررزوق
branch_c's review against another edition
4.0
Darwin himself could be said to have embraced group selection when he wrote "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." (The Descent of Man, p. 86).
But of course Darwin's work, brilliant though it was, is filled with speculation and is a product of a time before genes were identified. So when today the majority of evolutionary biologists write that the evidence for group selection (or multi-level selection) is lacking, I tend to trust them, especially when this majority includes scientists like Pinker, Coyne, and Dawkins, who have demonstrated their knowledge on related topics. I haven't read the arguments from the heavy hitters Wilson (Edward O.) or Wilson (David Sloan) in the opposing crowd, though I have read some of Matt Ridley's and Jonathan Haidt's thoughts on the subject.
With this book, Henrich places himself in that opposing crowd, stating that "not only are kin selection and reciprocal altruism insufficient to explain cooperation in the modern world, they are insufficient to explain cooperation in small-scale societies, including nomadic hunter-gatherers" (p 142).
Whether or not he makes that case, this is a fascinating and insightful book. In particular, Henrich does present convincing evidence for cultural evolution. One of the best examples is in the chapter "on the origin of faith" (by which Henrich means not necessarily religious faith, but taking without evidence that what ones elders say is true). The specific example deals with the complex processing needed to transform the manioc tuber from a potential source of poison into a nutritious dietary staple (p. 97). The point made here is that only the elders know the proper methods, and they teach it to the younger members of the tribe without any of them knowing why it's effective or even necessary. But when other tribes attempted to adopt the manioc as a food source without following these methods, the result was high incidences of poisoning. So the group has "evolved" to gain this knowledge. Clearly this is a cultural artifact that helps a particular group survive better than other groups without this knowledge. And maybe it's even something that Henrich calls "gene-culture co-evolution". But is this really "group selection"? That seems less clear.
Henrich points to the expansion of some hunter-gatherer tribes at the expense of others as evidence of intergroup competition, and it seems plausible that some of these cultural artifacts played a role in their success. I'm not sure that proves, however, that group selection is a necessary component of evolution. Even if there are some cases where cultural change appears to have contributed to a group's success, it seems possible that these were special circumstances, and not necessarily examples of a general rule such as that represented by kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The concept of the collective brain expanded upon in chapter 12 also seems reasonable and likely correct. Of course it's a phenomenon that could only have arisen with the sophisticated individual brains that humans possess, as demonstrated in the experiment in which children competed against chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys (p. 224).
Henrich expands nicely on this point in chapter 16, "Why us?", in which he states clearly that we are a special case, and his argument in this book is, after all, concerning humans in particular. This leads to a need to the question that titles the chapter, and it's answered with an admittedly speculative but well-reasoned sequence shown in a diagram that proposes a "know-how" pathway linked to a "socialite-care" pathway (p. 300).
So Henrich presents his case well here, with clear reasoning and careful statements of caution regarding controversial points. Perhaps strangely, the book contains a (very) few grammatical errors, which I only mention because for the most part the writing is polished, although the fact he refers to Darwin's work as "Origin of the Species" instead of "On the Origin of Species" is a mistake that should be below such an otherwise masterful writer!
I still find Pinker's argument convincing (https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection) but in his response to critics of that essay, including Henrich, he seems to be saying that the idea of group selection is not so much wrong as superfluous. That may be technically true, but this book is still a worthwhile read for anyone interested in how evolution has made us what we are.
But of course Darwin's work, brilliant though it was, is filled with speculation and is a product of a time before genes were identified. So when today the majority of evolutionary biologists write that the evidence for group selection (or multi-level selection) is lacking, I tend to trust them, especially when this majority includes scientists like Pinker, Coyne, and Dawkins, who have demonstrated their knowledge on related topics. I haven't read the arguments from the heavy hitters Wilson (Edward O.) or Wilson (David Sloan) in the opposing crowd, though I have read some of Matt Ridley's and Jonathan Haidt's thoughts on the subject.
With this book, Henrich places himself in that opposing crowd, stating that "not only are kin selection and reciprocal altruism insufficient to explain cooperation in the modern world, they are insufficient to explain cooperation in small-scale societies, including nomadic hunter-gatherers" (p 142).
Whether or not he makes that case, this is a fascinating and insightful book. In particular, Henrich does present convincing evidence for cultural evolution. One of the best examples is in the chapter "on the origin of faith" (by which Henrich means not necessarily religious faith, but taking without evidence that what ones elders say is true). The specific example deals with the complex processing needed to transform the manioc tuber from a potential source of poison into a nutritious dietary staple (p. 97). The point made here is that only the elders know the proper methods, and they teach it to the younger members of the tribe without any of them knowing why it's effective or even necessary. But when other tribes attempted to adopt the manioc as a food source without following these methods, the result was high incidences of poisoning. So the group has "evolved" to gain this knowledge. Clearly this is a cultural artifact that helps a particular group survive better than other groups without this knowledge. And maybe it's even something that Henrich calls "gene-culture co-evolution". But is this really "group selection"? That seems less clear.
Henrich points to the expansion of some hunter-gatherer tribes at the expense of others as evidence of intergroup competition, and it seems plausible that some of these cultural artifacts played a role in their success. I'm not sure that proves, however, that group selection is a necessary component of evolution. Even if there are some cases where cultural change appears to have contributed to a group's success, it seems possible that these were special circumstances, and not necessarily examples of a general rule such as that represented by kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The concept of the collective brain expanded upon in chapter 12 also seems reasonable and likely correct. Of course it's a phenomenon that could only have arisen with the sophisticated individual brains that humans possess, as demonstrated in the experiment in which children competed against chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys (p. 224).
Henrich expands nicely on this point in chapter 16, "Why us?", in which he states clearly that we are a special case, and his argument in this book is, after all, concerning humans in particular. This leads to a need to the question that titles the chapter, and it's answered with an admittedly speculative but well-reasoned sequence shown in a diagram that proposes a "know-how" pathway linked to a "socialite-care" pathway (p. 300).
So Henrich presents his case well here, with clear reasoning and careful statements of caution regarding controversial points. Perhaps strangely, the book contains a (very) few grammatical errors, which I only mention because for the most part the writing is polished, although the fact he refers to Darwin's work as "Origin of the Species" instead of "On the Origin of Species" is a mistake that should be below such an otherwise masterful writer!
I still find Pinker's argument convincing (https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection) but in his response to critics of that essay, including Henrich, he seems to be saying that the idea of group selection is not so much wrong as superfluous. That may be technically true, but this book is still a worthwhile read for anyone interested in how evolution has made us what we are.
adamchalmers's review against another edition
5.0
Absolutely essential read for anyone who wants to understand humans and human nature. Why did humans dominate the planet and every other animal species? The usual answer is "we're the smartest." WRONG. An individual human is only slightly smarter than an individual ape. It's because of culture. We can learn and teach over generations. Cultural evolution, not genetic evolution, has been the dominant force of human history. Absolutely must read book.
erikars's review against another edition
5.0
In The Secret of Our Success Joseph Henrich makes a detailed argument that cultural evolution has been a key force shaping humanity. This force has been around longer than homo sapiens and has shaped our bodies, our minds, and our societies.
Cultural evolution is the idea that culture — the accumulation of knowledge across generations —has been a key influence in the biological evolution of humanity. Cultural learning, not intelligence, is the secret of our success.The book gives a number of examples how, unlike most animals, if you put people in an unfamiliar-but-livable environment, our intelligence alone is not enough to help us survive. Our culture is a critical part of our ability to survive and thrive
Because of this, there are many ways in which humans have evolved to learn. We seek out people to imitate. We form mental models of their goals, techniques, and motivations. We live in large groups where there are many people we can learn from, and we have kinship ties which help others around us tolerate our initial incompetence.
To illustrate that culture has really evolved us and is not merely a layer on top of an evolved substrate, the book spends quite a while discussing specific ways in which culture has interacted with genetic evolution, including changes in the structure of our bodies, our digestive system, and various genes that control our physiology.
Groups are key to cultural evolution. Groups can be more innovative than individuals because there are more people to learn from, leading to more effective accumulation of cultural innovations. The innovative ability of groups is the key factor leading to accelerating cultural evolution. Group innovations include things individuals can use on their own, such as learning a particular hunting technique. However, cultural evolution goes beyond the individual. It also drives the emergence of procedures, techniques, and social norms which embody knowledge that has been learned over time. This knowledge is often not explicitly visible to those who use those procedures. For example, food preparation often has many elaborate steps which reduce toxins, although it isn't always clear how. Social norms and taboos often work to increase sharing and cooperation even when they are driven by concerns about reputation or evoking negative supernatural effects.
Group norms spread through intergroup competition. This can include violence, but often does not. Effective group norms also spread through imitation, higher survival rates, higher reproduction rates, and migration patterns which favor successful groups.
It seems fairly clear that once the cycle of cultural evolution starts, it can keep building on itself, but how and when did it start? For when, Henrich looks at archeological evidence. The spread of tools indicates that imitative cultural learning existed millions of years ago. By 750,000 years ago, we see archeological evidence of technology which implies cultural evolution and we see physical change to human predecessors which imply the influence of culture evolution (e.g., food processing methods changing our jaw and digestive systems). Somewhere between the emergence of cultural learning and 750,000 years ago, cultural evolution kicked off.
How did this happen? As noted above, groups were a critical part of this. Henrich hypothesizes that human predecessors lived in larger, more stable groups than other primates. They were terrestrial which may have encouraged them to live together. They also may have had more stable social groups because of pair bonding and kin networks which arose from the need to take care of offspring with long developmental periods.
Overall, Henrich makes a compelling case for the role of cultural evolution as the key factor which drove human society to a complexity not matched by any of our fellow creatures.
Cultural evolution is the idea that culture — the accumulation of knowledge across generations —has been a key influence in the biological evolution of humanity. Cultural learning, not intelligence, is the secret of our success.The book gives a number of examples how, unlike most animals, if you put people in an unfamiliar-but-livable environment, our intelligence alone is not enough to help us survive. Our culture is a critical part of our ability to survive and thrive
Because of this, there are many ways in which humans have evolved to learn. We seek out people to imitate. We form mental models of their goals, techniques, and motivations. We live in large groups where there are many people we can learn from, and we have kinship ties which help others around us tolerate our initial incompetence.
To illustrate that culture has really evolved us and is not merely a layer on top of an evolved substrate, the book spends quite a while discussing specific ways in which culture has interacted with genetic evolution, including changes in the structure of our bodies, our digestive system, and various genes that control our physiology.
Groups are key to cultural evolution. Groups can be more innovative than individuals because there are more people to learn from, leading to more effective accumulation of cultural innovations. The innovative ability of groups is the key factor leading to accelerating cultural evolution. Group innovations include things individuals can use on their own, such as learning a particular hunting technique. However, cultural evolution goes beyond the individual. It also drives the emergence of procedures, techniques, and social norms which embody knowledge that has been learned over time. This knowledge is often not explicitly visible to those who use those procedures. For example, food preparation often has many elaborate steps which reduce toxins, although it isn't always clear how. Social norms and taboos often work to increase sharing and cooperation even when they are driven by concerns about reputation or evoking negative supernatural effects.
Group norms spread through intergroup competition. This can include violence, but often does not. Effective group norms also spread through imitation, higher survival rates, higher reproduction rates, and migration patterns which favor successful groups.
It seems fairly clear that once the cycle of cultural evolution starts, it can keep building on itself, but how and when did it start? For when, Henrich looks at archeological evidence. The spread of tools indicates that imitative cultural learning existed millions of years ago. By 750,000 years ago, we see archeological evidence of technology which implies cultural evolution and we see physical change to human predecessors which imply the influence of culture evolution (e.g., food processing methods changing our jaw and digestive systems). Somewhere between the emergence of cultural learning and 750,000 years ago, cultural evolution kicked off.
How did this happen? As noted above, groups were a critical part of this. Henrich hypothesizes that human predecessors lived in larger, more stable groups than other primates. They were terrestrial which may have encouraged them to live together. They also may have had more stable social groups because of pair bonding and kin networks which arose from the need to take care of offspring with long developmental periods.
Overall, Henrich makes a compelling case for the role of cultural evolution as the key factor which drove human society to a complexity not matched by any of our fellow creatures.
trent24's review against another edition
4.0
The content was worth 5 stars, but it was a very slow burn so giving it 4. Great perspective on the relationship between culture and evolution.
rhyslindmark's review against another edition
4.0
Great overview on the co-evolutionary process between culture, biology, and genes.
kahawa's review against another edition
5.0
2 4.5 stars.
Slow start, but it really got going around the halfway point. I probably didn't love it as much as 'WEIRDest', but it was still full of excellent data, research and extrapolations. There were a few times when evolutionary explanations veered into 'just-so'ism, but mostly it was plausible and backed up and qualified. I suspect Dawkins might critique some of Henrich's claims about the mechanism of evolution. Personally I think cultural adaptation is an emergent (and thus dependent) property of genetic adaptation, so the gene is probably still king - at least when it comes to biological evolution. But cultural evolution probably has its own type of mutation, reproduction and selection that produces sophisticated cultures. I'm just not sure that's what Henrich was talking about.
I'd consider reading this again one day.
Oh, and I really appreciated his explanation of the difference between biology and genetics. I hadn't heard that articulated quite so well before. In short, biological differences are real and significant, but they're mostly (when comparing humans to humans) the product of culture, not genes. Genes don't produce that kind of diversity. The differences are 'real', but not genetic, just culture that impacts biology (such as brain development, etc). The example given is literacy - if exposed at a young age, brains of literate people will be biologically different in some ways from brains of non literate people; but it's a biological difference, not a genetic one. Most of the significant variation in humans is really biological coming from cultural adaptation, not genetic coming from differences in genes and DNA.
Slow start, but it really got going around the halfway point. I probably didn't love it as much as 'WEIRDest', but it was still full of excellent data, research and extrapolations. There were a few times when evolutionary explanations veered into 'just-so'ism, but mostly it was plausible and backed up and qualified. I suspect Dawkins might critique some of Henrich's claims about the mechanism of evolution. Personally I think cultural adaptation is an emergent (and thus dependent) property of genetic adaptation, so the gene is probably still king - at least when it comes to biological evolution. But cultural evolution probably has its own type of mutation, reproduction and selection that produces sophisticated cultures. I'm just not sure that's what Henrich was talking about.
I'd consider reading this again one day.
Oh, and I really appreciated his explanation of the difference between biology and genetics. I hadn't heard that articulated quite so well before. In short, biological differences are real and significant, but they're mostly (when comparing humans to humans) the product of culture, not genes. Genes don't produce that kind of diversity. The differences are 'real', but not genetic, just culture that impacts biology (such as brain development, etc). The example given is literacy - if exposed at a young age, brains of literate people will be biologically different in some ways from brains of non literate people; but it's a biological difference, not a genetic one. Most of the significant variation in humans is really biological coming from cultural adaptation, not genetic coming from differences in genes and DNA.