Natural selection is a way of sorting among a range of genetic alternatives, and finding the best one. Social learning is a way of sifting among a range of alternative options or ideas, and choosing the best one of those. And so, we see a direct comparison between social learning driving idea evolution, by selecting the best ideas —we copy people that we think are successful, we copy good ideas, and we try to improve upon them — and natural selection, driving genetic evolution within societies, or within populations. I think this analogy needs to be taken very seriously, because just as natural selection has acted on genetic populations, and sculpted them, we’ll see how social learning has acted on human populations and sculpted them.
… social learning may have set up a situation in humans where, over the last 200,000 years or so, we have been selected to be very, very good at copying other people, rather than innovating on our own. We like to think we’re a highly inventive, innovative species. But social learning means that most of us can make use of what other people do, and not have to invest the time and energy in innovation ourselves. That’s one consequence of social learning, that it has sculpted us to be very shrewd and intelligent at copying, but perhaps less shrewd at innovation and creativity than we’d like to think. Few of us are as creative as we’d like to think we are.

Notes

  1. megancyber reblogged this from myserendipities
  2. russbass reblogged this from myserendipities
  3. cesc3s reblogged this from myserendipities
  4. gayagayaputomaya reblogged this from myserendipities
  5. lanhiang reblogged this from myserendipities
  6. gracielalala reblogged this from myserendipities
  7. This was featured in #Long Reads
  8. curliqat reblogged this from myserendipities
  9. myserendipities posted this