Adaptive behavior from random response

Campbell, Donald T.

doi:10.1002/bs.3830010204

Cited by 48 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Glenn and Madden (1995) pointed to Skinner (1953) and Campbell (1956) as the first to compare the processes of natural selection and reinforcement. Glenn and Madden argued that if the same processes that explain organic selection were applicable to behavioral selection, the understanding of one would provide valuable insights about the other.…”

Section: Natural-behavioral Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural, Behavioral and Cultural Selection-Analysis: an Integrative Approach

Couto

Sandaker

2016

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Selection by Consequences, Skinner (1981) described a causal model that explains human behavior as a joint product of three levels of selection: (a) the contingencies of survival involved in natural selection, (b) the contingencies of reinforcement involved in the selection of individual behavior, and (c) contingencies of an evolving social environment. Since then, researchers from behavior analysis and other fields such as biology and anthropology have used an evolutionist/selectionist approach to greatly improve our understanding of those three levels of analysis. As our knowledge of each level has expanded, the borders between them and their belonging to specialized academic domains has become less clear. Even though Skinner (1981, p 502) stated that "each level of variation and selection has its own discipline-the first, biology; the second, psychology; and the third anthropology," we argue that Selection by Consequences sets a milieu for behavior analysis to take part in the analysis of the integrated relation among all levels of analysis. In this commentary to Skinner's (1981) paper, we aim to point out some advances in behavior analysis that may contribute to bridging the gap between the three levels of analysis described by Skinner. In doing so, we will briefly describe some relations between natural and behavioral selection and between behavioral and cultural selection. Additionally, we discuss an alternative model to analyze selection of cultures. Natural-Behavioral SelectionLet us start with the relationship between natural and behavioral selection. Glenn and Madden (1995) pointed to Skinner (1953) andCampbell (1956) as the first to compare the processes of natural selection and reinforcement. Glenn and Madden argued that if the same processes that explain organic selection were applicable to behavioral selection, the understanding of one would provide valuable insights about the other. In organic evolution through natural selection, genes are the units of retention and replication that are transmitted generation-to-generation, enabling species survival and adaptation to environmental changes. On the other hand, in behavioral

show abstract

Section: Natural-behavioral Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural, Behavioral and Cultural Selection-Analysis: an Integrative Approach

Couto

Sandaker

2016

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long after Campbell (1974b) had pointed out the close connection between evolutionary epistemology and Popper’s philosophy of science, and Campbell (1956a, 1956b, 1959, 1960, 1974a, 1974b) and Popper had had their discussion (Popper 1972a, 1972b, 1972c), and Radnitzky and Bartley (1987) had published their book on the subject, ter Hark reopened the discussion of Popper’s development and of “evolutionary epistemology.” He mentions Campbell twice. In the text, he points out that Campbell was the first to recognize Popper’s philosophy of science as a contribution to evolutionary epistemology (ter Hark 2004, 4), and in a footnote, he notes that Popper’s evolutionary epistemology can be distinguished from Campbell’s because Popper emphasizes the descriptive and argumentative use of language (ter Hark 2004, 223).…”

Section: Ter Hark’s Failed Attempt To Reduce Popper’s Philosophy Omentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roles that Otto Selz and Karl Popper Played in 20th-Century Psychology and Philosophy of Science

Wettersten

2016

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The early research of Karl Popper both in psychology and in philosophy of science is described; its basis for his later breakthroughs in the philosophy of science is explained. His debt to Otto Selz’s thought psychology is thereby detailed. Otto Selz’s philosophy of science is then explained, and its conflict with Popper’s early as well as his later views is portrayed. These studies of the conflicting views of Popper’s early views and Selz’s philosophy of science provide the basis for demonstrating the mistakes that Michel ter Hark has made in claiming that the alleged originality of Popper’s views occurred only in the 1970s and are little more than a rehash of Selz’s alleged evolutionary epistemology.

show abstract

“…Smaldino is well aware that strong group-level traits pose problems for developing models of selection and transmission of the social organizations that produce these traits. To reinforce and extend this point, I will devote the rest of this commentary to elaborating how difficult this problem is by connecting Smaldino's discussion of selection and transmission of group-level traits to Donald Campbell's (1956a;1956b;1960;1974b;1974c; notion of vicarious selection mechanisms. Campbell (1975) recognized that in early human cultural evolution (e.g., the early cultural evolution of tools and weapons), the physical environment played an important role, and what tools and weapons evolved were directly affected by biological fitness.…”

Section: Jeffrey C Schankmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintenance of cultural diversity: Social roles, social networks, and cognitive networks

Abrams¹

2014

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smaldino suggests that patterns that give rise to group-level cultural traits can also increase individual-level cultural diversity. I distinguish social roles and related social network structures and discuss ways in which each might maintain diversity. I suggest that cognitive analogs of "cohesion," a property of networks that helps maintenance of diversity, might mediate the effects of social roles on diversity.

show abstract

Adaptive behavior from random response

Cited by 48 publications

References 14 publications

Natural, Behavioral and Cultural Selection-Analysis: an Integrative Approach

Natural, Behavioral and Cultural Selection-Analysis: an Integrative Approach

The Roles that Otto Selz and Karl Popper Played in 20th-Century Psychology and Philosophy of Science

Maintenance of cultural diversity: Social roles, social networks, and cognitive networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About