Chapter 5- Evolution, Culture, and the Emergence of Modern Humans Flashcards
becoming human is considered from two perspectives
evolutionary or phylogenetically, and developmentally from birth to death or ontogenetically
Phylogenesis
(from Greek phulon ‘race’ or ‘tribe’ and genesis ‘origin’) is the evolutionary development and diversification of a species or a group of organisms (Soanes & Stevenson, 2008). In psychology, this term is used to describe the evolutionary emergence of the mental capabilities of the human mind together with the specifically human sociocultural environment.
Ontogenesis
(from Greek ont ‘being’ and genesis ‘origin’) is the development of an individual organism from the earliest stages [the fertilization of the egg] to maturity [final adult form]
Phylogenetic Approach
Explored by evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists
Ontogenetic Research
-Conducted by developmental scientists, psychologists, and anthropologists
Within both perspectives, Culture is the crucial factor that influences the development of humans as the species Homo sapiens and as individuals
The Phylogenetic Understanding of the Evolution of Humans and Culture
Human Evolution and Unique Characteristics
Humans evolved with distinct characteristics including consciousness, language, rational thinking, abstract thought, and cultural creation.
These traits differentiate humans from other species and pose questions about their evolutionary development and the role of culture.
Overview of Human Evolution
Fossils of hominoids, including humans and their ancestors, date back 20 million years.
The lineage of humans and great apes diverged about 5-8 million years ago.
Pre-modern humans include Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, and Homo ergaster.
Geographic Distribution of Hominin Fossils
Hominin fossils have been found in Africa, Europe, Indonesia, India, and China.
Homo neanderthalensis coexisted with modern humans and went extinct around 28,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens emerged in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago, with behaviorally modern humans appearing around 50,000 years ago.
Human Evolution and Cultural Emergence
Modern humans share evolutionary history and genetic heritage with great apes.
The distinction between humans and great apes lies in the emergence of culture, a symbolic, conventional, and normative reality.
Interdisciplinary research seeks to understand the origins of human cognitive abilities, social organizations, and culture.
Hypotheses about Human Evolution and Culture
Sociobiological Approach:
-Believes biological evolution solely shaped human abilities.
-Suggests culture emerged as a result of biological evolution.
Culture-Centric Approach:
-Emphasizes culture’s role in human evolution.
-Views cultural evolution alongside genetic evolution.
Key Figures and Fields
Sociobiology and Human Sociobiology:
-Introduced by E. O. Wilson.
-Applies evolutionary principles to human behavior.
Human Behavioral Ecology:
-Applies evolutionary models to study human behavior.
-Focuses on pre-industrialized societies.
Human Ethology:
-Rooted in Lorenz, von Fish, and Tinbergen’s work.
-Applies ethological principles to human behavior.
Evolutionary Psychology:
-Applies sociobiological thinking to understand human behavior.
-Initiated by Cosmides and Tooby.
Role of Culture in Human Evolution
Group 1 Perspective:
-Culture is a product of biological evolution.
-Believes culture minimally shaped human evolution.
Group 2 Perspective:
-Culture is integral to human evolution.
-Facilitates transmission of behaviors beyond genetics.
Challenges of Investigating Human Evolution
Human evolution occurs over thousands to millions of years, making direct observation impossible.
Researchers rely on indirect evidence such as fossils, comparative studies, and genetic analysis to infer evolutionary processes.
Statements about human evolution are hypotheses subject to falsification with new evidence.
Application of Evolutionary Thinking in Psychology
Evolutionary theories in psychology are based on empirical data and take various forms.
Primary theories include human sociobiology, human behavioral ecology, human ethology, evolutionary psychology, social intelligence theories, and cultural evolution theories.
Each theory proposes mechanisms and conditions driving human evolution, leading to theoretical diversity and controversy.
Biological and Cultural Co-evolution Theories
Second Group Perspective:
-Human traits result from interactions of genetic and cultural inheritance.
-Cultural evolution, alongside biological evolution, crucial in the emergence of modern humans.
Key Theories:
-Cultural evolution (Mesoudi, 2016)
-Gene-culture co-evolution hypothesis (Durham, 1991; Gintis, 2011)
-Dual inheritance theory (Boyd & Richerson, 2005)
Memetics:
Based on Richard Dawkins’ concept of memes.
Memes are cultural units analogous to genes.
Hypothesizes memes self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.
Gene-Culture Coevolution Theory
Proposed by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Mark Feldman, Robert Boyd, and Peter Richerson.
Genetic and cultural evolution continuously interact and influence each other.
Shared Intentionality Theory
Developed by Michael Tomasello:
Human sociality and culture crucial in human evolution.
Emphasizes early humans’ social arrangements and cooperation.
Traces the development of human cognitive abilities, communication, and culture from apes to modern humans.
Evolutionary Psychologists’ Perspective
Culture is viewed as the product of evolved psychological mechanisms in individuals living in groups.
According to Tooby & Cosmides (1992), culture is a manufactured product of evolved psychological mechanisms.
Memetics Interpretation
Culture is seen as a set of memes, which are units of cultural information that replicate in human minds through imitation and teaching.
Barrett, Dunbar, & Lycett (2002) define culture as a collection of memes transmitted through social transmission.
Cultural Evolutionists’ View
Culture is considered as information capable of influencing behavior acquired through teaching, imitation, and social transmission.
Richerson & Boyd (2005) describe culture as socially transmitted information affecting individuals’ behavior.
Evolutionary Anthropologists’ Definition
Culture is minimally defined as socially transmitted information.
Alvard (2003) and Henrich & McElreath (2003) view culture as socially learned information stored in people’s brains.
Coevolutionist Approach
Culture is seen as a human-made phenomenon incorporating everything within culturally defined meanings, values, and beliefs.
Caporael (1997) describes culture as a framework for perception, thought, and action.
Shared Intentionality Theory
Culture is interpreted as collectively intentional, normative, and conventional models and practices regulating people’s behaviors in a group.
Tomasello (2014) defines culture as models and practices regulating group behavior.
Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology
Sociobiology proposes that human behaviors are genetic adaptations shaped by genetic selection.
Evolutionary psychology builds upon sociobiological principles to understand the emergence of human mental and behavioral traits.
Psychological Foundations of Culture
Cosmides and Tooby’s integrated causal model explains the evolution of psychological mechanisms during the Pleistocene epoch.
These mechanisms regulate cognition and behaviors, shaping human cultures along with their practices and representations.
Culture as a Product of Evolved Psychological Mechanisms
Culture is viewed as the product of evolved psychological mechanisms situated in individuals living in groups.
The role of culture in shaping human evolution is minimized in this perspective, with biological evolution considered as the primary driver.
Universal Human Nature
Evolutionary psychologists identify various psychological mechanisms, such as mate preference, incest avoidance, and fear responses, as components of universal human nature.
The goal is to empirically verify these components across cultures to establish universal human characteristics.
Cross-Cultural Psychology and Universalism
Cross-cultural psychologists aim to discover universal human nature through intensive cross-cultural research.
The onion peeling and stratigraphic hypotheses illustrate the layers of biological, psychological, social, and cultural regulation shaping human functioning.
Culture-as-Adaptation Theory
Culture-as-adaptation theorists aim to understand why cultures are created and their purpose.
According to this theory, cultures are created by groups of people with universal psychological mechanisms to adapt to their environment and meet basic survival needs.
Definition of Culture
Matsumoto and Juang (2013) define Culture as a unique meaning and information system shared by a group, allowing them to meet basic survival needs, pursue happiness, and derive meaning from life.
Culture is seen as an exclusively human-specific survival tool or adaptation.
Universal Psychological Toolkit
Humans are endowed with a universal psychological toolkit including language, complex social cognition, memory, emotions, personality traits, and morality.
This toolkit allows humans to address basic needs and motives in various ecological niches and environments
Emergence of Culture
Cultures emerge as functional survival tools created by people with essential psychological abilities to manage their lives in different environments.
The adaptationist theory suggests a time-sequence with psychological capabilities developing first, followed by the emergence of cultures.
Theory of Shared Intentionality
The theory proposes hypotheses on the emergence and mechanisms of human sociality, cognition, communication, and culture.
It suggests that early humans needed to cooperate to survive, leading to the development of specialized cognitive and communicative skills.
Importance of Cooperation
Bands of early humans required cooperation to survive, leading to the development of specialized cognitive and communicative abilities.
Human cooperative sociality and related abilities contributed to the emergence of culture as a new level of behavior regulation.
Evolution of Human Mental Capacities
Tomasello’s hypothesis suggests a hierarchy of cognitive regulations: individual intentionality, joint intentionality, and collective intentionality.
The development of these levels of regulation during hominin evolution contributed to the emergence of modern humans with their intellectual capacities and culture.
Levels of Socio-Cognitive Regulation
Individual intentionality involves understanding one’s own intentions and goals.
Joint intentionality involves shared goals and intentions between individuals.
Collective intentionality involves shared goals and intentions among a group of individuals, leading to the emergence of culture.
Intentionality
means the ‘aboutness’ of an organism’s mental states. Mental states are directed toward and represent (are about) some internal states or external objects or events: needs and goals, food sources, terrain, other animals or individuals. Intentionality is a fundamental attribute of the mentality of some animals and the mental states, including consciousness, of humans
Level 1: Individual intentionality of great apes.
Defined as individually self-regulated cognitive behavior aimed at achieving individual goals.
Involves setting goals, evaluating opportunities, monitoring performance, and correcting actions based on circumstances.
Components of Individual Intentionality
Cognitive representations: Mentally represent organism’s needs, goals, preferences, and situations.
Inference and self-monitoring skills: Process information, compare outcomes to desired ones, and make corrections.
Cognitive models: Generalized representations of experienced situations stored in memory.
Purpose of Individual Intentionality
Focuses on dealing with the physical world to meet an organism’s needs.
Predominantly addresses individual well-being and operates as a one-layer structure.
Social Aspects of Great Ape Intentionality
Great apes, including chimpanzees, live in groups and face various social challenges.
They demonstrate rudimentary theory of mind abilities, understanding others’ intentions and goals.
Comparison with Human Intentionality
While similar to human individual intentionality, great ape intentionality is simpler and primarily related to competition.
Humans possess more sophisticated theories of mind linked to full-blown cooperation.
Level 2. Development of social cognition in pre-modern humans: Localized cooperation and joint intentionality.
Development of social cognition in pre-modern humans
Tomasello and colleagues suggest considering developments in early or pre-modern humans bridging the gap between great apes and modern humans
Pre-modern humans include Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, etc.
The emergence of culture, with its norms and institutions, required cognitive skills distinct from those of great apes.
Role of sociality in hominin evolution
Human evolution occurred in social groups, where cooperation was essential for survival and productivity.
Group living provided protection and efficiency through division of labor, making coordinated cooperation crucial for effective group functioning.
Transition from Individual to Joint Intentionality:
Great apes exhibit individual intentionality in their cooperative activities, primarily driven by personal goals and lacking consideration for others’ intentions.
Early humans needed efficient collaboration, leading to the development of joint intentionality, which allowed for shared goals and attention in social coordination.
Joint intentionality expanded the scope of social regulation beyond individual competition, facilitating cooperative behaviors in groups.
Development of Social Traits and Motivations
Early humans developed more tolerant, pro-social personalities conducive to enhanced cooperation compared to great apes.
New motivations emerged, such as concern for peer evaluation and acceptance as cooperating partners, further fostering cooperative activities and communication.
Significance of Joint Intentionality
Joint intentionality bridged the gap between the individual intentionality of great apes and the symbolic, perspectival, and collective intentionality of modern humans that gave rise to cultures.
It allowed early humans to form relatively small, face-to-face bands of 30-50 individuals, where cooperative activities like foraging were primary, promoting effective social coordination.
Formed smaller units for cooperative activities, with foraging being primary
Groups large enough to develop new social skills but not too large to make cooperation unmanageable
Illustrative Example:
In a hunting scenario, a small group of individuals collaborates to hunt large game, recognizing the benefits of cooperation in obtaining substantial food resources for the entire group.
Cooperative hunting is seen as more beneficial for individual and collective survival compared to individualistic hunting for small animals.
Role of Group Size:
- Influences human biological and psychological traits.
- Evolutionary pressures within groups shape unique cognitive, affective, and perceptual processes.
Linnda Caporael’s Hypothesis:
- Three core groups identified:
a. Work/family groups (~5 individuals)
b. Bands or tribes (~30 persons)
c. Macrobands (~300 individuals) - Work/family groups focus on daily survival tasks.
- Bands organize families, accumulate skills, and generate common knowledge.
- Macrobands foster cultural development and shared social realities.
Hierarchical Organization:
- Core social groups are hierarchically organized.
- Adaptations at lower levels are incorporated and advanced at higher levels.
- Humans are “obligatory interdependent,” emphasizing the role of social arrangements, mental abilities, and culture.
Robin Dunbar’s Hypothesis:
- Optimal group size for human cognitive capacities is ~150 individuals.
- Corresponds to independent, self-regulated, and sustainable groups across human communities.