Fidelity and the grain problem in cultural evolution

Abstract

High-fidelity cultural transmission, rather than brute intelligence, is the secret of our species’ success, or so many cultural evolutionists claim. It has been selected because it ensures the spread, stability and longevity of beneficial cultural traditions, and it supports cumulative cultural change. To play these roles, however, fidelity must be a causally-efficient property of cultural transmission. This is where the grain problem comes in and challenges the explanatory potency of fidelity. Assessing the degree of fidelity of any episode or mechanism of cultural transmission always depends upon an investigator’s choice of grain of description at which cultural traditions are being studied. The fidelity of cultural transmission then appears to be relative to the granularity at which one approaches cultural variation, and since there is a multiplicity of grains of description by which the same tradition can be studied, there results a multiplicity of measures of fidelity for a same event or mechanism of cultural transmission. If this is correct, because fidelity is always relative to the grain of description dictated by the local and specific research interests of the investigator, then there seems to be no fact of the matter as to whether cultural transmission is faithful or not, independently from a researcher’s framework of analysis. The aims of this paper are to offer a conceptual clarification of the grain problem in cultural evolution, to assess its causes, to unpack its epistemological implications, and to examine its reach and consequences for a science of cultural evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

adapted from O’Brien et al. 2001)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Each element of the story has had its share of criticisms (e.g., Charbonneau 2015a, 2020; Claidière et al. 2014; Claidière and André 2012; Heyes 2018; Morin 2016; Shea 2009; Sperber 2000).

  2. 2.

    Charbonneau (2020) refers to fidelity as an outcome as ‘episodic fidelity’ and fidelity as a process as ‘propensity fidelity’. Although we use different labels, our categories map on those used by Charbonneau.

  3. 3.

    Several expressions are used in the literature to refer to what we call ‘grain of description’. Acerbi and Mesoudi (2015) speak of ‘granularity of analysis’. Boudry (2018) speaks of ‘level of resolution’ and ‘level of abstraction’; Godfrey-Smith (2012) of ‘contrast’. Hoppitt and Laland (2013) speak of the ‘size’ of (action) units; Scott‐Phillips et al, (2018, p. 165) of ‘levels of detail and granularity’. Etc.

  4. 4.

    Our example of projectile point features is based on morphometrical analysis alone. More complexity can be added by considering the specific techniques used to produce the features, in which case even the flute feature may be more complex than a mere presence/absence trait [see Charbonneau (2015a, 2018) for discussion of the implications of dealing with the variation of production techniques in addition to morphological variation].

  5. 5.

    We thank an anonymous referee for asking us to clarify this point.

  6. 6.

    A similar kind of abuse could be made by systematically opting for a grain of description so fine that any cultural trait will be seen as unique, and thus always different in some respect from another, consequently leading to the impossibility of any form of replication. We know of no actual instances of such abuse, so we decided to focus on actual abuses rather than hypothetical ones.

  7. 7.

    It is important to note that the philosophical program developed by Dennett (2017)—showing how intelligent design can emerge from non-intelligent design—is not affected by the argument developed here. This is because, for Dennett’s argument to work, all that is required is that those cultural traits that bring about competence without comprehension do so on a rather coarse grain of description at which they replicate (e.g., cognitive traits such as counting, reading, formal logic, etc.), not that replication be a pervasive property of cultural learning. We do not deny some cultural variants are better studied with such grain, and so our argument does not challenge Dennett’s philosophical program.

  8. 8.

    Although sometimes these details do count, as fermented dairy products such as yogurt or cheese contain less lactose than milk, and therefore can be consumed by lactose intolerant populations (Gerbault et al. 2011).

  9. 9.

    We thank Maria Kronfeldner for pointing to this idea (personal discussion, MC).

  10. 10.

    The grain problem is not unique to cultural evolution. For instance, it has a rich history in the philosophy of biology, where several authors have discussed how choosing a grain at which a population, adaptations, or even the environment are described affects assessments about natural selection (Abrams 2009, 2014; Beatty 1984; e.g., Brandon 1990). For instance, see a similar discussion about the grain problem in evolutionary psychology in Sterelny and Griffiths (1999, chapter 13).

  11. 11.

    Hoppitt and Laland (2013) prefer the expression ‘behaviorial level’ (p. 53).

  12. 12.

    In fact, most if not all evolutionary models arguing in favour of some form of social learning (or a capacity for social learning in general) as a fitness-enhancing adaptation for culture in fact do not model how some specific cognitive mechanisms were selected to serve that role, but instead model in which ecological conditions some behaviourally-characterized form of social learning—i.e., learning patterns spelled out in terms of input and output classes of observed cultural variation—would be adaptative (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1995). This strategy is akin to adopting a cultural analog to the phenotypic gambit (Laland 2004).

References

  1. Abrams, M. (2009). What determines biological fitness? The problem of the reference environment. Synthese, 166(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9255-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abrams, M. (2014). Environmental grain, organism fitness, and type fitness. In G. Barker, E. Desjardins, & T. Pearce (Eds.), Entangled Life (Vol. 4, pp. 127–151). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7067-6_7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acerbi, A., Jacquet, P. O., & Tennie, C. (2012). Behavioral constraints and the evolution of faithful social learning. Current Zoology, 58(2), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Acerbi, A., & Mesoudi, A. (2015). If we are all cultural Darwinians what’s the fuss about? Clarifying recent disagreements in the field of cultural evolution. Biology & Philosophy, 30, 481–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aoki, K. (1986). A stochastic model of gene-culture coevolution suggested by the “culture historical hypothesis” for the evolution of adult lactose absorption in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83, 2929–2933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beatty, J. H. (1984). Chance and natural selection. Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boudry, M. (2018). Replicate after reading: On the extraction and evocation of cultural information. Biology & Philosophy, 33(27), 66.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bourrat, P. (2019). Natural selection and the reference grain problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 80, 1–8.

  10. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1987). Simple models of complex phenomena: The case of cultural evolution. In J. Dupré (Ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1995). Why does culture increase human adaptability? Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1996). Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88, 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2000). Memes: Universal acid or a better mousetrap? In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing Culture (pp. 143–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Charbonneau, M. (2015a). All innovations are equal, but some more than others: (Re)integrating modification processes to the origins of cumulative culture. Biological Theory, 10(4), 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Charbonneau, M. (2015b). Mapping complex social transmission: Technical constraints on the evolution cultures. Biology & Philosophy, 30, 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Charbonneau, M. (2018). Technical constraints on the convergent evolution of technologies. In M. J. O’Brien, B. Buchanan, & M. I. Eren (Eds.), Convergent evolution in stone-tool technology (pp. 73–89). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Charbonneau, M. (2020). Understanding cultural fidelity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1209–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chesterfield, R., & Ruddle, K. (1979). Traditional agricultural skill training among peasant farmers in Venezuela. Anthropos, 74, 549–565.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Claidière, N., & André, J.-B. (2012). The Transmission of genes and culture: A questionable analogy. Evolutionary Biology, 39, 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Claidière, N., Scott-Phillips, T. C., & Sperber, D. (2014). How Darwinian is cultural evolution? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1642), 66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Csibra, G. (2008). Action mirroring and action understanding: An alternative account. Sensorymotor Foundations of Higher Cognition. Attention and Performance, XXII, 435–459.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dean, L. G., Vale, G. L., Laland, K. N., Flynn, E., & Kendal, R. L. (2014). Human cumulative culture: A comparative perspective. Biological Reviews, 89, 284–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eerkens, J. (2000). Practice makes within 5% of perfect: The role of visual perception, motor skills, and human memory in artifact variation and standardization. Current Anthropology, 41, 663–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Falconer, D. S., & Mackay, T. F. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Feldman, M. W., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1989). On the theory of evolution under genetic and cultural transmission with application to the lactose absorption problem. In M. W. Feldman (Ed.), Mathematic evolutionary theory (pp. 145–173). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gandon, E., Roux, V., & Coyle, T. (2014). Copying errors of potters from three cultures: Predictable directions for a so-called random phenomenon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 33, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gerbault, P., Liebert, A., Itan, Y., Powell, A., Currat, M., Burger, J., et al. (2011). Evolution of lactase persistence: An example of human niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1566), 863–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2012). Darwinism and cultural change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2160–2170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2008). Five Misunderstandings about cultural evolution. Human Nature, 19, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heyes, C. (2016). Blackboxing: Social learning strategies and cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Holden, C. J., & Mace, R. (1997). Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Human Biology, 69, 605–628.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Social learning: An introduction to mechanisms, methods, and models. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Laland, K. N. (2004). Social Learning Strategies. Learning and Behavior, 32, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Laland, K. N. (2017). Darwin’s unfinished symphony: how culture made the human mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lewontin, R. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Miton, H., Claidière, N., & Mercier, H. (2015). Universal cognitive mechanisms explain the cultural success of bloodletting. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morin, O. (2016). How traditions live and die. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2016). Innovation in the collective brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nakahashi, W. (2013). Evolution of improvement and cumulative culture. Theoretical Population Biology, 83, 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., & Lyman, R. L. (2001). Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaelogical phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 115–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Mesoudi, A., & VanPool, T. L. (2010). Cultural traits as units of analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3797–3806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rogers, A. R. (1988). Does biology constrain culture? American Anthropologist, 90(4), 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Roux, V. (2003). Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying degrees of specialization. American Antiquity, 68(4), 768–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ruddle, K., & Chesterfield, R. (1977). Education for traditional food procurement in the Orinoco Delta. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). Copying-error and the cultural evolution of “additive” vs. “reductive” material traditions: An experimental assessment. American Antiquity, 79(1), 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Scott-Phillips, T., Blancke, S., & Heintz, C. (2018). Four misunderstandings about cultural attraction. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 27(4), 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shea, N. (2009). Imitation as an inheritance system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2429–2443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture (pp. 163–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sperber, D. (2006). Why a deep understanding of cultural evolution is incompatible with shallow psychology. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 431–449). New York: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sterelny, K. (2017). Cultural evolution in California and Paris. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 62, 42–50.

  62. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Strachan, J. W., Curioni, A., Constable, M. D., Knoblich, G., & Charbonneau, M. (2020). A methodology for distinguishing copying and reconstruction in cultural transmission episodes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 3433–3439.

  64. Tamariz, M. (2019). Replication and emergence in cultural transmission. Physics of Life Reviews, 30, 47–71.

  65. Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: On the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2405–2415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Whiten, A., McGuigan, N., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Hopper, L. M. (2009). Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2417–2428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wilson, J. (2017). Determinables and determinates. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/determinate-determinables/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Ildikó Király and György Gergely for sharing their unpublished results, and to Ildikó Király for discussing them. MC was was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement (Number 609819), SOMICS. PB was supported by a Macquarie University Research Fellowship and a Large Grant from the John Templeton Foundation (Grant ID 60811).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Charbonneau.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Charbonneau, M., Bourrat, P. Fidelity and the grain problem in cultural evolution. Synthese (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03047-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cultural evolution
  • Fidelity
  • Cultural transmission
  • Grain of description