Memes Revisited
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that the adaptive fit between human cultures and their environment is persuasive evidence that some form of evolutionary mechanism has been important in driving human cultural change. I distinguish three mechanisms of cultural evolution: niche construction leading to cultural group selection; the vertical flow of cultural information from parents to their children, and the replication and spread of memes. I further argue that both cultural group selection and the vertical flow of cultural information have been important. More conjecturally, I identify a potential role for meme-based cultural evolution in the explanation of the ‘human revolution’ of the last 100 000 or so years, and defuse an important objection to that explanation. 1. Introduction 2. Cultural groups 3. The cultural invention of adaptive complexes 4. Niche construction models 5. Dual inheritance 6. Memes 7. Memes or minds? 8. Conclusion
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In ancestral groups, many of the social conceptions that subjects unreflectively acquired during their upbringing and socialization were geared toward preserving the group's function and status quo and aligning individuals with them.
“Secondly, in ancestral groups, many of the social conceptions (e.g., beliefs about social roles, gender norms, stereotypes etc.) that subjects unreflectively acquired during their upbringing and socialization will have been geared toward preserving the group's function and status quo and aligning individuals with them (Sterelny 2006: 148).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Sterelny 2006: 148
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acerbi, A., & Mesoudi, A. (2015) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10539-015-9490-2 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sterelny, K.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Sterelny, Kim
- ORCID
- Sterelny, Kim
- Venue
- The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2006-03-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 145-165
- ISSN
- 0007-0882 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3537
- OpenAlex
- W4251290754
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 75.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- cultural evolution, memes, niche construction, cultural group selection, human revolution, cultural change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
