We stand on the shoulders of cultural giants

By Razib Khan | June 21, 2011 3:23 am

ResearchBlogging.orgIn reading The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation in PNAS I couldn’t help but think back to a conversation I had with a few old friends in Evanston in 2003. They were graduate students in mathematics at Northwestern, and at one point one of them expressed some serious frustration at the fact that so many of the science and business students in his introductory calculus courses simply wanted to “learn” a disparate set of techniques, rather than understand calculus. The reality of course is that the vast majority of people who ever encounter calculus aim to learn it for reasons of utility, not so that they can grok the fundamental theorem of calculus. With the proliferation of tools such as Mathematica and powerful portable calculators fewer and fewer people are getting their hands dirty with calculus in an analytic sense, and more often see it as simply a “requirement” which they have to pass.

Calculus, and mathematics generally, is a clean and crisp human invention. In the late 17th century Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz originated calculus as we understand it. Later thinkers extended their work. But for the vast majority of humans who have ever learned calculus it is simply a “black box” set of techniques which work rather magically. They did not contribute anything new to the body of knowledge which they drew upon. Mathematics is part of our cultural patrimony, we implicitly stand upon the shoulders of giants without apology. Such is to be human.


In a The cultural niche Robert Boyd, Peter J. Richerson, and Joseph Henrich sketch out the broad thesis about the nature of human culture which is explored in more depth in works such as Not by Genes Alone and The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Though the subject which they tackle is vast, the powers of precise description and crisp inference can sometimes lead to surprising conclusions:

In the last 60,000 y humans have expanded across the globe and now occupy a wider range than any other terrestrial species. Our ability to successfully adapt to such a diverse range of habitats is often explained in terms of our cognitive ability. Humans have relatively bigger brains and more computing power than other animals, and this allows us to figure out how to live in a wide range of environments. Here we argue that humans may be smarter than other creatures, but none of us is nearly smart enough to acquire all of the information necessary to survive in any single habitat. In even the simplest foraging societies, people depend on a vast array of tools, detailed bodies of local knowledge, and complex social arrangements and often do not understand why these tools, beliefs, and behaviors are adaptive. We owe our success to our uniquely developed ability to learn from others. This capacity enables humans to gradually accumulate information across generations and develop well-adapted tools, beliefs, and practices that are too complex for any single individual to invent during their lifetime.

The authors use examples of foraging societies which have “lost” knowledge through population crashes to illustrate the collective nature of human knowledge. It is reputedly an African proverb that “when an old man dies a library burns.” This was certainly the case when a particular group of Greenland Inuit experienced a population collapse which impacted their older cohorts to the point where they all expired before passing on their knowledge and skills. The community forgot the techniques of hunting caribou or making kayaks! The younger individuals who survived understood that these were possibilities, but none of them had the suite of skills necessary to replicate the abilities of past generations.

Let’s use a more contemporary example. Imagine you had hand 200 business students who had completed a term of differential calculus. Now give them a year to infer what they would have learned in integral calculus. I’m not sure even with a knowledge of differential calculus that a random set of 200 business students would be able to derive much of integral calculus. Part of the issue here is that often students who must take mathematics, but are not of a mathematical bent themselves, have no “big picture” grasp, but master a set of discrete techniques. They solve problems of a specific form, but are not able to improvise anew from first principles, because they’re rarely asked to do such things.

As humans we always take for granted an enormous store of cultural knowledge, which we absorb both implicitly and explicitly. We are adapted to be cultural creatures. This is why the authors posit the “cultural niche” rather than “cognitive niche” hypothesis in terms of the transmission of sets of ideas. The cognitive niche hypothesis emphasizes the individual competencies of humans. We have relatively advanced general intelligence aptitudes, and we are master imitators. Therefore, once an innovation occurs, instead of reinventing the wheel, humans replicate. This is far cheaper than the act of invention. A sequential and synergistic set of imitations can then lead to a ratchet effect of cultural evolution, as beneficial memes sweep through populations.

But there is a problem with this thesis: imitation can be viewed as a “free rider” strategy. Why think for yourself when you can let others do the heavy lifting for you! Don’t worry about the large menu, just have what “he’s having.” The problem is that this cheap and effective strategy is liable to spread, and over time more and more imitators anchor on upon a few keystone innovators. These hard working de facto altruists though eventually become not keystones, but weak links. If one of them is gifted not with prudence and intellect, but arrogance and blindness, then a whole population can find itself hurtling over the cliff. Imitation is the root of irrational herds and chaotic mass social behavior.

What’s the solution to this? Naturally it is not a fixation upon a given strategy, but a facultative flexibility in learning from others. We don’t just imitate anyone, we imitate prestigious and successful individuals. Ergo, endorsements by sporting figures of seemingly unrelated products. And the nature of the environment impacts how liable we are to imitate or innovate. In a world subject to stasis the cost of individual innovation has few upsides. Best to simply do as “the ancestors did.” Collective cultural memory plays a critical role in passing down “best practices.” But sometimes this can become maladaptive when circumstances change. European peasants resisted the attempts by their rulers to promote the cultivation of potato for centuries because of its resemblance to nightshade. There was a deep-seated custom, which resulted in generations of suspicion which had to be overcome. Today the potato is a “customary” and “traditional” crop in many of these societies. Conservatism had its costs, as another food crop may have buffered famines in France and Russia.

An implication of this broader dynamic might be that environments which change more will have less pressure to enforce imitative conformity. I suspect that the protean social and technological milieu of the developed world does fit this description. “Doing your own thing” makes good sense when traditions and customs can never take hold because the background conditions of your environment are always in flux. Instead of vertical transmission of collective memory over time you see horizontal sweeps of fads and fashions across sets of peers, with each set of norms being overturned in rapid succession by that of the next cohort.

But let’s go back to the beginning: what does culture have to do with human evolution? The figure to the left was generated by Luke Jostins using hominin data sets. By this, I mean individuals who are not anatomically or behaviorally modern humans before ~200,000 years before the present at the outer limit. The story told above leans heavily on the “standard model” of recent human evolution, whereby modern humans arose ~50,000 years ago in Africa, and swept like wildfire around the world. The reason that modern humans conquered all before them is laid out explicitly in the paper: we are an incredibly flexible cultural creature. And because of the demands of culture you see a rapid encephalization of cranial capacities over the last “500,000″ years. From Luke’s data it looks like actually it was more the last ~250,000 years, before which there was a more gentle ascent upwards. In any case, we may also be living through a revision of the old model of recent human origins. The details are yet to be written, but it looks like the story is going to be a little more complex and multi-layered that one East African tribe of African Eve exploding outward from its ancestral territory.

But the way I see it that only makes the idea of human adaptation to a cultural environment more plausible. Instead of a singular mutation ~50,000 years ago conferring the ability to speak, as Richard Klein would have it, it may have been a co-evolutionary process where the brain and culture operated in tandem, ratcheting toward modernity step by step. Still, one would have to revise the thesis that this is the hallmark of a sui generis behaviorally modern human lineage. Neandertals, for example, seem to have been subject to the same long term dynamics of encephalization….

Citation: Robert Boyd, Peter J. Richerson, & Joseph Henrich (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation PNAS : 10.1073/pnas.1100290108

  • Aleksandar Kuktin

    There is more truth to this hypothesis than meets the eye.

  • Darkseid

    Yeah, Im not a high IQ person so my personality is basically a mish

  • bob sykes

    It is generally true that engineers (I R 1) don’t care about the logic behind the calculus, or, for that matter, chemistry, physics, geology, ad nauseam. And the even dumber business types care even less. (How long did it take Excel to report the statistics of the trend lines? Version 3 or 4?)

    However, that said, note the enormous amount of highly creative output these dumb utilitarian engineers and business managers produced. Like our civilization? Like the internet, browsers, electricity et al that allow me to read your blogs. All this is a prime example of how we depend on each other. How many Cromagnons could actually make a good arrow head?

    By the way, I would like to whine again about eye-ball lines on graphs. The last set of hominin date suggest that the “line” got a lot steeper around 50,000 ybp. Tufte (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information) has a whole chapter on how to mislead (oneself, too) by drawing lines through data.

  • Darkseid

    ….mash of smarter people’s intellects. Not much original info comin’ outta this brain but, at least, I’m good as a middle man. Link digging/sending is how i contribute.

  • AG

    Copy-right is double edges sword for this human flexibility. Indeed, so called creativity is mostly only small step improvement from known knowlage. Verbal-bragging is often key for inflated achievement. Such braggings often deny predecessors achievement.

  • jb

    Hmmm, so collective cultural memory can sometimes be maladaptive. In other words:

    If I have seen less far, it is by standing in the footprints of giants!

    (Someone had this as their Usenet signature, back in the day, and I found it enormously amusing. I miss Usenet!)

  • gm

    Didn’t Newton invent the calculus as an algorithmic way to solve difficult problems, and say that he feigned “no hypothesis” as to the true nature of gravity?

  • http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com ohwilleke

    “We don’t just imitate anyone, we imitate prestigious and successful individuals.”

    Quite a few customs associated with major holidays such as Christmas, that are now considered “traditional” and of “obscure origin” originated with voluntary copying of the practices of a reigning monarch or ruling President’s household.

    It is also the case that the dominant dialect of a language in emerging societies tends to be the dialect used in the ruling court (or more recently in the mass media), although it isn’t entirely obvious how much of that is prestige imitating voluntary self-improvement and how much of it is or was enforced (e.g. by mandatory grammar curricula).

    Arguably, the entire genre of biography exists to faciliate this process.

    In population genetics, one of the standard strategies to gain acceptance of researchers in a studied population is to start by publicly using community leaders at the first Guinea pigs. (For example, such an approach was used in the first whole genome typing in Southern Africa.)

    One of the characteristic features of imitation without understanding is that both functional and non-functional aspects of what is imitated are copied (not necessarily a bad idea since many seemingly non-functional aspects of culture have ill understood but functional purposes).

    Thus, Ataturk had his people imitate not just Western political and economic practices, but Western fashions, for example. Or, to use another example, Italians imitating (and ultimately reinventing) the modern business suit made creases a standard part of the design even though the only reason that the suits that they imitated were creased was that they had been folded into trunks by the travellers they imitated. As a third example, it is common for Japanese people who want to be trendy to wear clothing with English words on it, even if the meaning is irrelevant, absurd or non-sensical for the person wearing it (in fairness, Americans do much the same thing with Japanese or Chinese characters put in tattoos rather than on T-shirts).

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    However, that said, note the enormous amount of highly creative output these dumb utilitarian engineers and business managers produced. Like our civilization? Like the internet, browsers, electricity et al that allow me to read your blogs. All this is a prime example of how we depend on each other. How many Cromagnons could actually make a good arrow head?

    what the fuck does that have to do with this post?

  • Larry, San Francisco

    When I was younger I always wondered how Newton and Leibnitz came up with the fundamental theorem of calculus. It was not until I was teaching a class where I demonstrated that you can get the total from adding up the changes that I grokked where the fundamental theorem of calculus came from and then realized that it was in a non-obvious way, obvious.

  • Terry Urich

    So what you’re saying is that the singularity really happened ~50-60 kya?

  • Charles Nydorf

    I recall the opposite experience from calculus class in about 1965. I found the definitions and proofs, which weren’t stressed in our class, fascinating and the problem solving techniques boring.

  • http://lawnchairanthropology.blogspot.com zacharoo

    Cool post, Razib! I’ve never heard/used the term “grok” before, but reading this made me remember that one thing that has always driven me nuts is that I can’t grok all there is to grok out there. Calculus is definitely one of those things.

  • http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com TGGP

    What happened to the GNXP classic site? It keeps redirecting to the Discover Magazine one. Using /blog/index.php avoids redirection but only goes up to February 2010. Using /wp redirects. I can only see the latest post (dated today) on savantism through google’s cache, but can’t read the comments for the redirect.

  • Sayash Kumar

    Great stuff! Very accessible and insightful.

    Reminds me of a conversation I was having where we had divided people into 2 classes – those who tend to copy and those who tend to correct. It’s particularly annoying when a student and a professor say the same thing, but only one will be believed. Very few people put in the mental investments required to understand something and align their thinking with truth.

    Our hypothesis was that if you hear 2 people say the same thing, you’re more likely to believe it. And, now with me included, we are 3 who can spread a thought. That’s viral. And right by the end of that sentence, my confidence in what I knew started to shake up!

    Your post got me thinking… Do we understand the signals that a human must be given to encourage them to innovate rather than imitate?

    The obvious answer would be education, but I haven’t seen it being very successful in making thinkers. My bias, and based on your article, is that there is a very definite cognitive switching-of-modes that must be taking place.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »