Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered template type. Add: bibcode, pmc, pmid, isbn, pages, date, title, chapter, authors 1-2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Chris Capoccia | #UCB_toolbar |
m Reverted edits by 2803:D680:3007:1922:D010:FF90:7231:4921 (talk): disruptive edits (HG) (3.4.13) |
||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
{{more citations needed|date=March 2023}}
'''Dual inheritance theory''' ('''DIT'''), also known as '''gene–culture coevolution''' or '''biocultural evolution''',<ref>{{cite web|last=O'Neil|first=Dennis|title=Glossary of Terms|url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/glossary.htm#sectB|work=Modern Theories of Evolution|access-date=28 October 2012|archive-date=10 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170910175215/http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/glossary.htm#sectB|url-status=dead}}</ref> was developed in the 1960s through early 1980s to explain how [[human behavior]] is a product of two different and interacting [[evolution]]ary processes: [[genetic evolution]] and [[cultural evolution]]. Genes and culture continually interact in a feedback loop:<ref>{{
'Culture', in this context, is defined as 'socially learned behavior', and 'social learning' is defined as copying behaviors observed in others or acquiring behaviors through being taught by others. Most of the modelling done in the field relies on the first dynamic (copying), though it can be extended to teaching. [[Social learning theory|Social learning]], at its simplest, involves blind copying of behaviors from a model (someone observed behaving), though it is also understood to have many potential [[Biases in judgement and decision making|biases]], including success bias (copying from those who are perceived to be better off), status bias (copying from those with higher status), homophily (copying from those most like ourselves), conformist bias (disproportionately picking up behaviors that more people are performing), etc. Understanding social learning is a system of pattern replication, and understanding that there are different rates of survival for different socially learned cultural variants, this sets up, by definition, an evolutionary structure: cultural evolution.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Campbell|first1=D. T.|title=Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution|journal=Social Change in Developing Areas, A Reinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory|date=1965}}</ref>
Line 22:
===Genes and culture co-evolve===
Cultural traits alter the social and physical environments under which genetic selection operates. For example, the cultural adoptions of agriculture and dairying have, in humans, caused genetic selection for the traits to digest starch and [[lactose]], respectively.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Simoons | first1 = F | year = 1969 | title = Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: I. Review of the medical research | journal = The American Journal of Digestive Diseases | volume = 14 | issue = 12| pages = 819–836 | doi=10.1007/bf02233204 | pmid=4902756| s2cid = 22597839 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Simoons | first1 = F | year = 1970 | title = Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: II. A culture historical hypothesis | journal = The American Journal of Digestive Diseases | volume = 15 | issue = 8| pages = 695–710 | doi=10.1007/bf02235991| pmid = 5468838 | s2cid = 2140863 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Cavalli-Sforza
DIT also predicts that, under certain situations, cultural evolution may select for traits that are genetically maladaptive. An example of this is the [[demographic transition]], which describes the fall of birth rates within industrialized societies. Dual inheritance theorists hypothesize that the demographic transition may be a result of a prestige bias, where individuals that forgo reproduction to gain more influence in industrial societies are more likely to be chosen as cultural models.
==View of culture==
People have defined the word "culture" to describe a large set of different phenomena.<ref>Kroeberm A. and C. Kluckhohn. 1952. ''Culture; A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.'' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref><ref>Fox, R. and B. King. 2002. ''Anthropology Beyond Culture'' Oxford: Berg.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref> A definition that sums up what is meant by "culture" in DIT is:
{{Quotation|Culture is socially learned information stored in individuals' brains that is capable of affecting behavior.{{sfn|Richerson|Boyd|2008|p=6}}<ref
This view of culture emphasizes population thinking by focusing on the process by which culture is generated and maintained. It also views culture as a dynamic property of individuals, as opposed to a view of culture as a superorganic entity to which individuals must conform.<ref
==Genetic influence on cultural evolution==
Line 44:
'''Lactase persistence'''
One of the best known examples is the prevalence of the genotype for adult lactose absorption in human populations, such as Northern Europeans and some African societies, with a long history of raising cattle for milk. Until around 7,500 years ago,<ref name="
'''Food processing'''
Culture has driven changes to the human digestive systems making many digestive organs, such as teeth or stomach, smaller than expected for primates of a similar size,<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Aiello|first1=Leslie C.|last2=Wheeler|first2=Peter|date=1995-01-01|title=The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution|jstor=2744104|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=36|issue=2|pages=199–221|doi=10.1086/204350|s2cid=144317407}}</ref> and has been attributed to one of the reasons why humans have such large brains compared to other great apes.<ref name="Fonseca-Azevedo 18571–18576">{{
Humans living on cooked diets spend only a fraction of their day chewing compared to other extant primates living on raw diets. American girls and boys spent on average 7 to 8 percent of their day chewing respectively (1.68 to 1.92 hours per day), compared to chimpanzees, who spend more than 6 hours a day chewing.
Despite its benefits, brain tissue requires a large amount of calories, hence a main constraint in selection for larger brains is calorie intake. A greater calorie intake can support greater quantities of brain tissue. This is argued to explain why human brains can be much larger than other apes, since humans are the only ape to engage in food processing.<ref name="Fonseca-Azevedo 18571–18576"/> The cooking of food has influenced genes to the extent that, research suggests, humans cannot live without cooking.<ref name="
==Mechanisms of cultural evolution==
Line 65:
===Cultural drift===
[[Cultural drift]] is a process roughly analogous to [[genetic drift]] in evolutionary biology.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Koerper | first1 = H. | last2 = Stickel | first2 = E. | year = 1980 | title = Cultural Drift: A Primary Process of Culture Change | journal = Journal of Anthropological Research | volume = 36 | issue = 4| pages = 463–469 | doi = 10.1086/jar.36.4.3629615 | s2cid = 163932368 }}</ref><ref name="CavalliSfornza">{{cite book|last1=Cavalli-Sfornza
===Guided variation===
Line 73:
===Biased transmission===
Understanding the different ways that culture traits can be transmitted between individuals has been an important part of DIT research since the 1970s.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Feldman | first1 = M. | author-link2 = Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza | last2 = Cavalli-Sforza | first2 = L. | year = 1976 | title = Cultural and biological evolutionary processes, selection for a trait under complex transmission | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 9 | issue = 2| pages = 238–259 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(76)90047-2 | pmid=1273802| bibcode = 1976TPBio...9..238F }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Feldman | first1 = M | last2 = Cavalli-Sfornza | first2 = L. | year = 1977 | title = The evolution of continuous variation: II, complex transmission and assortive mating | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 11 | issue = 2| pages = 161–181 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(77)90024-7| pmid = 867286 | bibcode = 1977TPBio..11..161F }}</ref> Transmission biases occur when some cultural variants are favored over others during the process of cultural transmission.
====Content bias====
Content biases result from situations where some aspect of a cultural variant's content makes them more likely to be adopted.<ref name="Henrich">{{cite book |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568308.013.0038 |chapter=Dual-inheritance theory: The evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution |title=Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology |date=2012 |last1=Henrich |first1=Joseph |last2=McElreath |first2=Richard |pages=555–570 |isbn=978-0-19-856830-8 }}</ref> Content biases can result from genetic preferences, preferences determined by existing cultural traits, or a combination of the two. For example, food preferences can result from genetic preferences for sugary or fatty foods and socially-learned eating practices and taboos.<ref name="Henrich" /> Content biases are sometimes called "direct biases."
====Context bias====
Line 83:
Context biases result from individuals using clues about the social structure of their population to determine what cultural variants to adopt. This determination is made without reference to the content of the variant. There are two major categories of context biases: model-based biases, and frequency-dependent biases.
Model-based biases result when an individual is biased to choose a particular "cultural model" to imitate. There are four major categories of model-based biases: prestige bias, skill bias, success bias, and similarity bias.<ref name="McElreath" /><ref>{{cite journal |
Frequency-dependent biases result when an individual is biased to choose particular cultural variants based on their perceived frequency in the population. The most explored frequency-dependent bias is the "conformity bias." Conformity biases result when individuals attempt to copy the mean or the mode cultural variant in the population. Another possible frequency dependent bias is the "rarity bias." The rarity bias results when individuals preferentially choose cultural variants that are less common in the population. The rarity bias is also sometimes called a "nonconformist" or "anti-conformist" bias.
Line 93:
==Social learning and cumulative cultural evolution==
In DIT, the evolution of culture is dependent on the evolution of social learning. Analytic models show that social learning becomes evolutionarily beneficial when the environment changes with enough frequency that genetic inheritance can not track the changes, but not fast enough that individual learning is more efficient.<ref>Richerson, P.J. and R. Boyd. 2000. Climate, culture, and the evolution of cognition. In C.M. Heyes and L. Huber, (Eds), ''The Evolution of Cognition.'' Massachusetts: MIT Press.</ref> For environments that have very little variability, social learning is not needed since genes can adapt fast enough to the changes that occur, and innate behaviour is able to deal with the constant environment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kerr |first1=Benjamin |last2=Feldman |first2=Marcus W. |title=Carving the Cognitive Niche: Optimal Learning Strategies in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Environments |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |date=January 2003 |volume=220 |issue=2 |pages=169–188 |doi=10.1006/jtbi.2003.3146 |pmid=12468290 |bibcode=2003JThBi.220..169K }}</ref> In fast changing environments cultural learning would not be useful because what the previous generation knew is now outdated and will provide no benefit in the changed environment, and hence individual learning is more beneficial. It is only in the moderately changing environment where cultural learning becomes useful since each generation shares a mostly similar environment but genes have insufficient time to change to changes in the environment.<ref name=":7" /> While other species have social learning, and thus some level of culture, only humans, some birds and chimpanzees are known to have cumulative culture.
==Cultural group selection==
{{details|topic=cultural group selection|Cultural group selection}}
Although [[group selection]] is commonly thought to be nonexistent or unimportant in genetic evolution,<ref>[[George C. Williams (biologist)|Williams, G.C.]] 1972. ''[[Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought]]''. Princeton: Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|0-691-02357-3}}</ref><ref>[[George C. Williams (biologist)|Williams, G.C.]] 1986. ''Evolution Through Group Selection.'' Blackwell. {{ISBN|0-632-01541-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Maynard Smith | first1 = J. | author-link = John Maynard Smith | year = 1964 | title = Group selection and kin selection | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 201 | issue = 4924| pages = 1145–1147 | doi=10.1038/2011145a0 | bibcode=1964Natur.201.1145S| s2cid = 4177102 }}</ref> DIT predicts that, due to the nature of cultural inheritance, it may be an important force in cultural evolution. Group selection occurs in cultural evolution because conformist biases make it difficult for novel cultural traits to spread through a population (see above section on transmission biases). Conformist bias also helps maintain variation between groups. These two properties, rare in genetic transmission, are necessary for group selection to operate.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Uyenoyama | first1 = M. | last2 = Feldman | first2 = M. W. | year = 1980 | title = Theories of kin and group selection: a population genetics perspective | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 17 | issue = 3| pages = 380–414 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(80)90033-7| pmid = 7434256 | bibcode = 1980TPBio..17..380U }}</ref> Based on an earlier model by Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cavalli-Sforza | first1 = L. L. | last2 = Feldman | first2 = M. W. | year = 1973 | title = Models for cultural inheritance. I. Group mean and within group variation | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 4 | issue = 1| pages = 42–44 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(73)90005-1| pmid = 4726009 | bibcode = 1973TPBio...4...42C }}</ref> Boyd and Richerson show that conformist biases are almost inevitable when traits spread through social learning,
==Historical development==
In 1876, [[Friedrich Engels]] wrote a manuscript titled [[The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man]], accredited as a founding document of DIT;<ref>{{Cite book |last=Foster |first=John |title=Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature |publisher=Monthly Review Press |year=2000 |isbn=9781583670125 |___location=New York |pages=203}}</ref> “The approach to gene-culture coevolution first developed by Engels and developed later on by anthropologists…” is described by [[Stephen Jay Gould]] as “…the best nineteenth-century case for gene-culture coevolution.”<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gould |first=Stephen |title=An Urchin in the Storm |publisher=W.W. Norton |year=1987 |isbn=0-393-02492-X |___location=New York |pages=111–112}}</ref> The idea that human cultures undergo a similar evolutionary process as genetic evolution also goes back to [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]].<ref>Darwin, C. 1874. ''The descent of man and selection in relation to sex.'' 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: American Home Library.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref> In the 1960s, [[Donald T. Campbell]] published some of the first theoretical work that adapted principles of evolutionary theory to the evolution of cultures.<ref>Campbell, D. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In ''Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory'', ed. H. Barringer, G. Blanksten, and R. Mack, 19-49. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.</ref> In 1976, two developments in cultural evolutionary theory set the stage for DIT. In that year [[Richard Dawkins|Richard Dawkins's]] ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' introduced ideas of cultural evolution to a popular audience. Although one of the best-selling science books of all time, because of its lack of mathematical rigor, it had little effect on the development of DIT. Also in 1976, geneticists [[Marcus Feldman]] and [[Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza]] published the first dynamic models of gene–culture coevolution.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Feldman | first1 = M. | last2 = Cavalli-Sforna | first2 = L. | year = 1976 | title = Cultural and biological evolutionary processes, selection for a trait under complex transmission | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 9 | issue = 2| pages = 238–59 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(76)90047-2 | pmid=1273802| bibcode = 1976TPBio...9..238F }}</ref> These models were to form the basis for subsequent work on DIT, heralded by the publication of three seminal books in the 1980s.
The first was Charles Lumsden and [[E. O. Wilson|E.O. Wilson's]] ''Genes, Mind and Culture''.<ref>Lumsden C., and E. Wilson. 1981. ''Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process.'' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref> This book outlined a series of mathematical models of how genetic evolution might favor the selection of cultural traits and how cultural traits might, in turn, affect the speed of genetic evolution. While it was the first book published describing how genes and culture might coevolve, it had relatively little effect on the further development of DIT.
The second 1981 book was [[Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza|Cavalli-Sforza]] and Feldman's ''Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach''.<ref name="CavalliSfornza" /> Borrowing heavily from [[population genetics]] and [[epidemiology]], this book built a mathematical theory concerning the spread of cultural traits. It describes the evolutionary implications of [[vertical transmission]], passing cultural traits from parents to offspring; oblique transmission, passing cultural traits from any member of an older generation to a younger generation; and [[horizontal transmission]], passing traits between members of the same population.
The next significant DIT publication was [[Robert Boyd (anthropologist)|Robert Boyd]] and [[Peter Richerson]]'s 1985 ''Culture and the Evolutionary Process''.
==Current and future research==
Line 120:
[[Kevin Laland]] and [[Gillian Ruth Brown]] attribute this lack of attention to DIT's heavy reliance on formal modeling.
{{Quotation|"In many ways the most complex and potentially rewarding of all approaches, [DIT], with its multiple processes and cerebral onslaught of sigmas and deltas, may appear too abstract to all but the most enthusiastic reader. Until such a time as the theoretical hieroglyphics can be translated into a respectable empirical science most observers will remain immune to its message."
Economist [[Herbert Gintis]] disagrees with this critique, citing empirical work as well as more recent work using techniques from [[behavioral economics]].<ref>Herb Gintis Amazon.com review: https://www.amazon.com/review/product/0198508840/</ref> These behavioral economic techniques have been adapted to test predictions of cultural evolutionary models in laboratory settings<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McElreath |first1=Richard |last2=Lubell |first2=Mark |last3=Richerson |first3=Peter J. |last4=Waring |first4=Timothy M. |last5=Baum |first5=William |last6=Edsten |first6=Edward |last7=Efferson |first7=Charles |last8=Paciotti |first8=Brian |title=Applying evolutionary models to the laboratory study of social learning |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |date=November 2005 |volume=26 |issue=6 |pages=483–508 |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.04.003 |bibcode=2005EHumB..26..483M }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |
Since one of the goals of DIT is to explain the distribution of human cultural traits, [[ethnography|ethnographic]] and [[ethnology|ethnologic]] techniques may also be useful for testing hypothesis stemming from DIT. Although findings from traditional ethnologic studies have been used to buttress DIT arguments,<ref name="CavalliSfornza"/>
Herb Gintis has named DIT one of the two major conceptual theories with potential for unifying the behavioral sciences, including economics, biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology and political science. Because it addresses both the genetic and cultural components of human inheritance, Gintis sees DIT models as providing the best explanations for the ultimate cause of human behavior and the best paradigm for integrating those disciplines with evolutionary theory.<ref>{{cite journal |
==Relation to other fields==
Line 133:
Two major topics of study in both [[sociology]] and [[cultural anthropology]] are human cultures and cultural variation.
However, Dual Inheritance theorists charge that both disciplines too often treat culture as a static superorganic entity that dictates human behavior.<ref name="Richerson
===Human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology===
Evolutionary psychologists study the evolved architecture of the human mind. They see it as composed of many different programs that process information, each with assumptions and procedures that were specialized by natural selection to solve a different adaptive problem faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors (e.g., choosing mates, hunting, avoiding predators, cooperating, using aggression).<ref>Barkow, J., Cosmides, L, & Tooby, J. (1992) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref> These evolved programs contain content-rich assumptions about how the world and other people work. When ideas are passed from mind to mind, they are changed by these evolved inference systems (much like messages get changed in a game of telephone). But the changes are not usually random. Evolved programs add and subtract information, reshaping the ideas in ways that make them more "intuitive", more memorable, and more attention-grabbing. In other words, "memes" (ideas) are not precisely like genes. Genes are normally copied faithfully as they are replicated, but ideas normally are not. It's not just that ideas mutate every once in a while, like genes do. Ideas are transformed every time they are passed from mind to mind, because the sender's message is being interpreted by evolved inference systems in the receiver.<ref>Boyer, P. (2001) Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Basic Books.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref><ref>Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Blackwell.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref> It is useful for some applications to note, however, that there are ways to pass ideas which are more resilient and involve substantially less mutation, such as by mass distribution of printed media.
There is no necessary contradiction between evolutionary psychology and DIT, but evolutionary psychologists argue that the psychology implicit in many DIT models is too simple; evolved programs have a rich inferential structure not captured by the idea of a "content bias". They also argue that some of the phenomena DIT models attribute to cultural evolution are cases of "evoked culture"—situations in which different evolved programs are activated in different places, in response to cues in the environment.<ref>Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L., (1992) Psychological foundations of culture. In The Adapted Mind.{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref>
[[sociobiology|Sociobiologists]] try to understand how maximizing genetic fitness, in either the modern era or past environments, can explain human behavior. When faced with a trait that seems maladaptive, some sociobiologists try to determine how the trait actually increases genetic fitness (maybe through kin selection or by speculating about early evolutionary environments). Dual inheritance theorists, in contrast, will consider a variety of genetic and cultural processes in addition to natural selection on genes.
Line 145:
===Human behavioral ecology===
[[Human behavioral ecology]] (HBE) and DIT have a similar relationship to what ecology and evolutionary biology have in the biological sciences. HBE is more concerned about ecological process and DIT more focused on historical process.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Three
===Memetics===
[[Memetics]], which comes from the [[meme]] idea described in [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins's]] ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', is similar to DIT in that it treats culture as an evolutionary process that is distinct from genetic transmission. However, there are some philosophical differences between memetics and DIT.<ref
==Criticisms==
Other criticisms of the effort to frame culture in tandem with evolution have been leveled by [[Richard Lewontin]],<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fracchia | first1 = J. | last2 = Lewontin | first2 = R. C. | year = 1999 | title = Does culture evolve? | journal = History and Theory | volume = 38 | issue = 4| pages = 52–78 | doi=10.1111/0018-2656.00104}}</ref> [[Niles Eldredge]],<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Temkin | first1 = I. | last2 = Eldredge | first2 = N. | year = 2007 | title = Phylogenetics and material cultural evolution | journal = Current Anthropology | volume = 48 | issue = 1| pages = 146–153 | doi=10.1086/510463| s2cid = 53466862 }}</ref> and [[Stuart Kauffman]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kauffman | first1 = S | year = 1999 | title = Darwinism, neoDarwinism, and the autocatalytic model of culture: Commentary on Origin of Culture | url = http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.022 | journal = Psycoloquy | volume = 10 | issue = 22| pages = 1–4 }}</ref>
Line 172:
*Lumsden, C. J. and E. O. Wilson. 1981. ''Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process.'' Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
*[[Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza|Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.]] and M. Feldman. 1981. ''Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach.'' Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
*
*Durham, W. H. 1991. ''Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity''. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. {{ISBN|0-8047-1537-8}}
*
*Shennan, S. J. 2002. '' Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution''. London: Thames and Hudson.
*
*Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson. 2005. ''The Origin and Evolution of Cultures''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Richerson
*
*Laland, K.H. 2017. ''Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind''. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Wrangham |first1=Richard |title=[[Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human]] |date=2009 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0-7867-4478-7 }}
===Reviews===
*Smith, E. A. 1999. [http://faculty.washington.edu/easmith/ThreeStyles.pdf Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior.] In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, and W. Irons, (Eds.) ''Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective'' New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
* {{cite journal |
* {{cite journal |
*{{cite journal | last1 = Gintis | first1 = H | year = 2006 | title = A framework for the integration of the behavioral sciences | url = http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/Unity-BBS%20Print%20Version.pdf | journal = Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 30 | issue = 1| pages = 1–61 | doi=10.1017/s0140525x07000581| pmid = 17475022 | s2cid = 18887154 }}
*Bentley, R.A., C. Lipo, H.D.G. Maschner and B. Marler 2007. Darwinian Archaeologies. In R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippendale (Eds.) ''Handbook of Archaeological Theories''. Lanham (MD): AltaMira Press.
* {{cite book |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568308.013.0039 |chapter=Modelling cultural evolution |title=Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology |date=2012 |last1=McElreath |first1=Richard |last2=Henrich |first2=Joseph |pages=571–586 |isbn=978-0-19-856830-8 }}
* {{cite book |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568308.013.0038 |chapter=Dual-inheritance theory: The evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution |title=Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology |date=2012 |last1=Henrich |first1=Joseph |last2=McElreath |first2=Richard |pages=555–570 |isbn=978-0-19-856830-8 }}
*{{cite book|last=Sterelny|first=Kim|others=Stephen Shennan|title=Review Genes, Memes and Human History|publisher=Thames and Hudson|___location=London|year=2002|pages=304|url=http://www.vuw.ac.nz/phil/staff/documents/sterelny-papers/tripod.pdf#search='dual%20inheritance%20theorypdf'}}
*{{cite journal | last1 = Laland | first1 = K.N. | last2 = Odling-Smee | first2 = J. | last3 = Myles | first3 = S. | year = 2010 | title = How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together | journal = Nature Reviews Genetics | volume = 11 | issue = 2| pages = 137–148 | doi=10.1038/nrg2734 | pmid=20084086| s2cid = 10287878 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Ovcharov |first1=Dmitry |title=The ideas of genetic and cultural evolution in the Philosophy of the 20th Century: a Historical and philosophical analytical review |journal=Bulletin of the Moscow State Pedagogical University. The "Philosophical Sciences" Series |date=2023 |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=79–88 |doi=10.25688/2078-9238.2023.45.1.6 }}
===Journal articles===
* {{cite book |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310139.003.0002 |chapter=Culture, Adaptation, and Innateness |title=The Innate Mind: Volume 2: Culture and Cognition |date=2007 |last1=Boyd |first1=Robert |last2=Richerson |first2=Peter J. |pages=23–38 |isbn=978-0-19-531013-9 }}
* {{cite journal |
==External links==
Line 221 ⟶ 223:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dual Inheritance Theory}}
[[Category:1960s introductions]]
[[Category:Theories]]
[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Behavioural genetics]]
| |||