Good post. I think the gene-culture coevolution model is generally better then the culture-as-extended-phenotype model. Consider something like the breakdown of marriage in the United States after the 1960s. After the incentives changed thanks to Great Society welfare programs and Second Wave feminism (a cultural difference), marriage collapsed almost instantly among blacks (the subject of Moynihan's famous report on the black family), who reverted to something closer to their ancestral mating pattern. Among whites, however, the institution initially remained fairly strong, albeit in altered form. But over the span of a few decades, without significant genetic change, whites also began to follow the new incentives (this is the subject of Charles' Murray's Coming Apart). Whites are more "genetically monogamous" then blacks, and thus responded to changing culture differently, but both groups were affected.
What is true is that the extreme homogenization of global culture and institutions (due to colonialism, the end of the Cold War, English as lingua franca, and improved communications, especially the Internet) makes genetics much more dominant as the major source of group differences. But this was not always true! Cultural transmission used to be much slower, allowing for large cultural differences even among very similar populations (see French vs other northwestern European, or Quebecer, marital fertility, 1760-1870 or so). These days, the only way to maintain those sorts of differences is with extreme cultural barriers (think Haredi Jews or the Amish).
The change in marriage pattern over many decades can easily be explained with extended-phenotype model, the ecology has changed because of the phenotype of other(ideologues, cultural producers, innovators, politicians, bankers, conspirators)and therefore behaviour also, in accordance with predisposition of individuals and races.
I think you're hitting on a profoundly important area of research here. One that could have enormous explanatory and revelatory power. I hope you'll explore and report on it further.
There is also the European ancestor cult that requires a legitimate son by a legitimate wife to take up his father’s office as chief-priest-judge in charge of the sacred hearth sited over the ancestors’ grave. He would lead the religious corporation called the Household which is be held as a sacred trust from his fathers to his descendants and to govern it with the power of life and death in according with his fathers’ customs with advise of the family council. This made their home an inalienable private property because you cannot worship elsewhere and you most certainly don’t wanted to make the powerful dead angry with unacceptable behavior or people, leading to curses.
For this reason, the bride must be made acceptable to the dead through initiation into the ancestral cult before she can share home and sacred feast and give the chief a son. The bastards are simply not a part of the Household corporate cult. (Same with slaves and children, and other dependents, they must undergo the initiation to be made acceptable to the gods) Divorces are excessively rare and only on condition of being barren. Many cultures have different rules to protect the wives such as a eight year’s wait time before divorce. This is the real root of the European monogamy and rare divorce, though it can varies in different places.
What is the role of human memory/mimicry/repetition/learning/differentiation/retention (right/wrong - Mom/Dad/teacher/friend/ colleague/supervisor boss did/said?) - what worked/did not, in previous environments/situations?
And within and between and across other species with our own? - or does instinct always rule?
Thinking of dogs and cats I have known well, all the instinct bells and whistles, but also apparent joint skill teaching/learning - or was that only my perception/one-way projected anthropomorphic sentiment on my part, and reward for behavior on theirs?
Very good, though the extended phenotype theory reminds me to the human civilizations as biocultural systems hyphotesis proposed by Hippolyte Taine, are they related?
Recent genetic change matters a lot. See "A Farewell to Alms" and the "10,000 Year Explosion." Scandinavians, were different before the (North)Western European Marriage Pattern really took off after the Black Death (summary of its significance here: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-western-european-marriage-pattern).
Good post. I think the gene-culture coevolution model is generally better then the culture-as-extended-phenotype model. Consider something like the breakdown of marriage in the United States after the 1960s. After the incentives changed thanks to Great Society welfare programs and Second Wave feminism (a cultural difference), marriage collapsed almost instantly among blacks (the subject of Moynihan's famous report on the black family), who reverted to something closer to their ancestral mating pattern. Among whites, however, the institution initially remained fairly strong, albeit in altered form. But over the span of a few decades, without significant genetic change, whites also began to follow the new incentives (this is the subject of Charles' Murray's Coming Apart). Whites are more "genetically monogamous" then blacks, and thus responded to changing culture differently, but both groups were affected.
What is true is that the extreme homogenization of global culture and institutions (due to colonialism, the end of the Cold War, English as lingua franca, and improved communications, especially the Internet) makes genetics much more dominant as the major source of group differences. But this was not always true! Cultural transmission used to be much slower, allowing for large cultural differences even among very similar populations (see French vs other northwestern European, or Quebecer, marital fertility, 1760-1870 or so). These days, the only way to maintain those sorts of differences is with extreme cultural barriers (think Haredi Jews or the Amish).
The change in marriage pattern over many decades can easily be explained with extended-phenotype model, the ecology has changed because of the phenotype of other(ideologues, cultural producers, innovators, politicians, bankers, conspirators)and therefore behaviour also, in accordance with predisposition of individuals and races.
I don't know if Scandinavians are individualists taking their long-standing social-ists goverments
The genetic grounding makes this discussion on culture infinitely more coherent and useful than the myriad of critical theory deconstructions.
I think you're hitting on a profoundly important area of research here. One that could have enormous explanatory and revelatory power. I hope you'll explore and report on it further.
See also Peter Frost’s War on Murder (https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/06/making-europeans-kinder-gentler.html?m=1)
There is also the European ancestor cult that requires a legitimate son by a legitimate wife to take up his father’s office as chief-priest-judge in charge of the sacred hearth sited over the ancestors’ grave. He would lead the religious corporation called the Household which is be held as a sacred trust from his fathers to his descendants and to govern it with the power of life and death in according with his fathers’ customs with advise of the family council. This made their home an inalienable private property because you cannot worship elsewhere and you most certainly don’t wanted to make the powerful dead angry with unacceptable behavior or people, leading to curses.
For this reason, the bride must be made acceptable to the dead through initiation into the ancestral cult before she can share home and sacred feast and give the chief a son. The bastards are simply not a part of the Household corporate cult. (Same with slaves and children, and other dependents, they must undergo the initiation to be made acceptable to the gods) Divorces are excessively rare and only on condition of being barren. Many cultures have different rules to protect the wives such as a eight year’s wait time before divorce. This is the real root of the European monogamy and rare divorce, though it can varies in different places.
What is the role of human memory/mimicry/repetition/learning/differentiation/retention (right/wrong - Mom/Dad/teacher/friend/ colleague/supervisor boss did/said?) - what worked/did not, in previous environments/situations?
And within and between and across other species with our own? - or does instinct always rule?
Thinking of dogs and cats I have known well, all the instinct bells and whistles, but also apparent joint skill teaching/learning - or was that only my perception/one-way projected anthropomorphic sentiment on my part, and reward for behavior on theirs?
The mole cricket is another example, in this case building a chamber that amplifies its mating call. Check out Insect Bioacoustics.
I was also reminded of this talk, where John Vervaeky says "Relevance realisation basically does the same thing evolution does."
https://youtu.be/pzndbpwJtX0&t=3460
Very good, though the extended phenotype theory reminds me to the human civilizations as biocultural systems hyphotesis proposed by Hippolyte Taine, are they related?
Recent genetic change matters a lot. See "A Farewell to Alms" and the "10,000 Year Explosion." Scandinavians, were different before the (North)Western European Marriage Pattern really took off after the Black Death (summary of its significance here: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-western-european-marriage-pattern).