Reciprocal Causation and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

The zone of latent solutions (ZLS) hypothesis provides an alternative approach to explaining cultural patterns in primates and many other animals. According to the ZLS hypothesis, non-human great ape (henceforth: ape) cultures consist largely or solely of latent solutions. The current competing (and predominant) hypothesis for ape culture argues instead that at least some of their behavioural or artefact forms are copied through specific social learning mechanisms (“copying social learning hypothesis”) and that their forms may depend on copying (copying-dependent forms). In contrast, the ape ZLS hypothesis does not require these forms to be copied. Instead, it suggests that several (non-form-copying) social learning mechanisms help determine the frequency (but typically not the form) of these behaviours and artefacts within connected individuals. The ZLS hypothesis thus suggests that increases and stabilisations of a particular behaviour’s or artefact’s frequency can derive from socially-mediated (cued) form reinnovations. Therefore, and while genes and ecology play important roles as well, according to the ape ZLS hypothesis, apes typically acquire the forms of their behaviours and artefacts individually, but are usually socially induced to do so (provided sufficient opportunity, necessity, motivation and timing). The ZLS approach is often criticized—perhaps also because it challenges the current null hypothesis, which instead assumes a requirement of form-copying social learning mechanisms to explain many ape behavioural (and/or artefact) forms. However, as the ZLS hypothesis is a new approach, with less accumulated literature compared to the current null hypothesis, some confusion is to be expected. Here, we clarify the ZLS approach—also in relation to other competing hypotheses—and address misconceptions and objections. We believe that these clarifications will provide researchers with a coherent theoretical approach and an experimental methodology to examine the necessity of form-copying variants of social learning in apes, humans and other species.

show abstract

“… 50 Buskell ( 2019 ) points out that CE typically focuses on ultimately nativist factors instead (one can see this, e.g. in Sperber 2000 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The zone of latent solutions and its relevance to understanding ape cultures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A misreading of the NCT literature might make it sound as if researchers working under the SET model ignore reciprocal causation. As Buskell 54 (p. 268) put it, though, reciprocal causation is “enacted in runaway sexual selection, in the positive and negative frequency‐dependent selection of population genetics, in gene‐network diagrams of evolutionary developmental biology, and the complex interactions of cellular metabolism. In all of these domains and more besides, researchers model coupled processes of mutual influence between elements.” Where the NCT view of reciprocal causation deviates is in its emphasis not solely on mutual influence of one element on another but on “relationships of mutual influence with developmental and evolutionary environments through trophic exchange, excretion, and movement” 54 (p. 268).…”

Section: Niche Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genes, culture, and the human niche: An overview

O’Brien

Bentley

2020

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sharp distinction between biological traits and culturally based traits, which had long been standard in evolutionary approaches to behavior, was blurred in the early 1980s by mathematical models that allowed a co‐dependent evolution of genetic transmission and cultural information. Niche‐construction theory has since added another contrast to standard evolutionary theory, in that it views niche construction as a cause of evolutionary change rather than simply a product of selection. While offering a new understanding of the coevolution of genes, culture, and human behavior, niche‐construction models also invoke multivariate causality, which require multiple time series to resolve. The empirical challenge lies in obtaining time‐series data on causal pathways involved in the coevolution of genes, culture, and behavior. This is a significant issue in archeology, where time series are often sparse and causal behaviors are represented only by proxies in the material record.

show abstract

“…While some have begun to directly address the issue of teleology and how it could be linked to evolutionary causation (e.g., Walsh 2015), in the present volume this difficult task is mostly left untouched. Earlier proposals for organism-centered views of evolution that have tried to develop a non-vitalist framework of organismic goal-directedness might be used as a stepping stone for such an enterprise (see Haldane 1917;Schaxel 1919;Russell 1924Russell , 1945Bertalanffy 1928). Against longstanding anti-teleological traditions in evolutionary thought, these teleological and constructionist views argued, in line with more recent approaches, that the organism purposefully molds itself and its environment in development and evolution, like "clay modeling itself" (Russell 1924: 61).…”

Section: Individuals Agency and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes, for example, the idea of causal reciprocity (discussed in Pocheville). This view argues that instead of dividing biological causes in two classes, developmental proximate causes and ultimate causes like natural selection (Mayr 1961 ), both causes should rather be seen as forming causal feedback loops that permanently constitute one another, for example, through niche construction (Laland et al; see Buskell 2019 ). Other chapters explore, in a ‘dialectical manner’, the causal relations between high degrees of variation (e.g., in phenotypic plasticity) with high degrees of stability and evolutionary stasis (e.g., highly conserved gene regulatory networks, robust ecological interactions; Moczek, Duckworth).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Wrong with Evolutionary Causation?

Baedke

2020

Acta Biotheor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review essay reflects on recent discussions in evolutionary biology and philosophy of science on the central causes of evolution and the structure of causal explanations in evolutionary theory. In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. I use Tobias Uller's and Kevin Laland's volume Evolutionary Causation as well as recent reviews of it as a starting point to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution. In addition, I critically discuss classical philosophical frameworks of theory change (i.e. Popper's, Kuhn's and Lakatos') used in this debate to understand changing views of evolutionary causation.

show abstract

Reciprocal Causation and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Cited by 28 publications

References 80 publications

The zone of latent solutions and its relevance to understanding ape cultures

The zone of latent solutions and its relevance to understanding ape cultures

Genes, culture, and the human niche: An overview

What’s Wrong with Evolutionary Causation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About