6 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Matthew R. Zefferman [3]Matthew Zefferman [3]
  1.  72
    Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence.Peter Richerson, Ryan Baldini, Adrian V. Bell, Kathryn Demps, Karl Frost, Vicken Hillis, Sarah Mathew, Emily K. Newton, Nicole Naar, Lesley Newson, Cody Ross, Paul E. Smaldino, Timothy M. Waring & Matthew Zefferman - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39:e30.
    Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  2.  43
    Cultural group selection follows Darwin's classic syllogism for the operation of selection.Peter Richerson, Ryan Baldini, Adrian V. Bell, Kathryn Demps, Karl Frost, Vicken Hillis, Sarah Mathew, Emily K. Newton, Nicole Naar, Lesley Newson, Cody Ross, Paul E. Smaldino, Timothy M. Waring & Matthew Zefferman - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  9
    Group-structured cultural selection can explain both war and peace.Sarah Mathew & Matthew Zefferman - 2024 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 47:e18.
    Glowacki recognizes the importance of norms in enabling war and peace, but does not focus on the cultural evolutionary mechanisms by which these norms are maintained. We highlight how group-structured cultural selection shapes the scale and nature of peaceful intergroup interactions. The mechanistic perspective reveals that there are many more cases of peaceful intergroup relations than the current account implies.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  1
    Historical myths define group boundaries: A mathematical sketch and evidence from Ukraine.Matthew R. Zefferman & Paul E. Smaldino - 2024 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 47:e196.
    The authors' proposal for the evolutionary origins of historical myths does not hold up to scrutiny, as illustrated by a simple mathematical model. Group-level explanations, such as defining the conditions for in-group membership, are dismissed by the authors but are far more plausible, as illustrated by the ongoing war in Ukraine.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  19
    Integrating models of cognition and culture will require a bit more math.Matthew R. Zefferman & Paul E. Smaldino - 2020 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 43.
    We support the goal to integrate models of culture and cognition. However, we are not convinced that the free energy principle and Thinking Through Other Minds will be useful in achieving it. There are long traditions of modeling both cultural evolution and cognition. Demonstrating that FEP or TTOM can integrate these models will require a bit more math.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  18
    Many important group-level traits are institutions.Matthew R. Zefferman & Peter J. Richerson - 2014 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3):280-281.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark