I am glad you're thinking of "cultures" as probability distributions, and are considering genetics and its influence on "culture". It's a step towards a rigorous definition of culture, instead of its normal mode of use as a sort of god of the gaps.
Re: "we will want a way to also count cultural descendants, not just DNA descendants. These are counts of how many people later inherited how much of the culture of a group" - that seems anthropomorphic. Machines can generate and transmit culture too. An alterrnative approach that works for both genes and memes is to count the number of copies. IOW, "the gene's eye view" - as it is known in evolutionary biology.
It’s one thing to measure discrete item like DNA-based features. It’s another thing to take aim at measuring culture. How to do that?! Robin has written lots on cultural drift, phenomena that makes the challenge even more obscure.
Generally, the temporary dissolution of natural selection as a factor that shapes humanity is one of the more interesting themes of our time - I just don’t know how to ever measure this. Perhaps this is a 1-x relationship where x is the cumulative measure of what can be determined more easily as being the inverse of culture. It’s quite a messy business.
You measure selection pressure with the breeder's equation. Low selection means other pressures dominate, mainly mutational or environmental pressures.
I like the idea of a broad cultural survey done longitudinally over time; that's a data set sure to generate insight.
However I'm surprised that for your "adaptiveness" metric you are taking that as a change in frequency at two points in time. Surely the point of many of your writings on culture is that frequency is *not* a good proxy for adaptation? For decades we've had an increasing frequency of people having few (or no) children – is this increasing frequency taken to be a sign of adaptive success?
I see the crux of your writing on culture is that there is a difference between "is" and "ought" when it comes to culture. Here you seem to be equating them if I understand you correctly.
Now add it the variability in human cognition and motivation. Some percentage of the population are motivated to climb to the top regardless of the particular culture, some just want to live their lives and others are willing to be dragged along with what ever group appeals to their proclivities. I am not sure what this distribution is but how does that affect your calculation?
Interesting. I given some thought to such in the past. What came to mind was Indian culture and arranged marriages. Seems to have produced or derived from their caste system and was pretty good at maintaining such for centuries. Perhaps a little less emphasis on “love” and more selection on ‘marrying up’ (decided of course by parents) might improve the species.
I am glad you're thinking of "cultures" as probability distributions, and are considering genetics and its influence on "culture". It's a step towards a rigorous definition of culture, instead of its normal mode of use as a sort of god of the gaps.
Re: "we will want a way to also count cultural descendants, not just DNA descendants. These are counts of how many people later inherited how much of the culture of a group" - that seems anthropomorphic. Machines can generate and transmit culture too. An alterrnative approach that works for both genes and memes is to count the number of copies. IOW, "the gene's eye view" - as it is known in evolutionary biology.
It’s one thing to measure discrete item like DNA-based features. It’s another thing to take aim at measuring culture. How to do that?! Robin has written lots on cultural drift, phenomena that makes the challenge even more obscure.
Generally, the temporary dissolution of natural selection as a factor that shapes humanity is one of the more interesting themes of our time - I just don’t know how to ever measure this. Perhaps this is a 1-x relationship where x is the cumulative measure of what can be determined more easily as being the inverse of culture. It’s quite a messy business.
You measure selection pressure with the breeder's equation. Low selection means other pressures dominate, mainly mutational or environmental pressures.
I like the idea of a broad cultural survey done longitudinally over time; that's a data set sure to generate insight.
However I'm surprised that for your "adaptiveness" metric you are taking that as a change in frequency at two points in time. Surely the point of many of your writings on culture is that frequency is *not* a good proxy for adaptation? For decades we've had an increasing frequency of people having few (or no) children – is this increasing frequency taken to be a sign of adaptive success?
I see the crux of your writing on culture is that there is a difference between "is" and "ought" when it comes to culture. Here you seem to be equating them if I understand you correctly.
I think my proposed method would work fine on a dataset including a period of low fertility.
I’d like you to discuss culture with Bryan Caplan he has a new book about it.
We have scheduled to do so.
Now add it the variability in human cognition and motivation. Some percentage of the population are motivated to climb to the top regardless of the particular culture, some just want to live their lives and others are willing to be dragged along with what ever group appeals to their proclivities. I am not sure what this distribution is but how does that affect your calculation?
Cultures that can attract and enhance cognition, and usefully generate and channel motivation, should tend to win, and then attract converts.
At a certain level are you describing ‘companies’? Cultural units that compete, adapt, and also emulate ‘winning’ traits?
Yes companies are cultural units that compete, and in fact healthily today. It is our larger units where competition isn't healthy enough.
Interesting. I given some thought to such in the past. What came to mind was Indian culture and arranged marriages. Seems to have produced or derived from their caste system and was pretty good at maintaining such for centuries. Perhaps a little less emphasis on “love” and more selection on ‘marrying up’ (decided of course by parents) might improve the species.