Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T10:59:01.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural evolutionary psychology is still evolutionary psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2019

Marco Fenici Open the ORCID record for Marco Fenici [Opens in a new window]  and
Duilio Garofoli Open the ORCID record for Duilio Garofoli [Opens in a new window]
Marco Fenici
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities and Letters, Bilkent University, 06800 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey. marco.fenici@bilkent.edu.trhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Fenici
Duilio Garofoli
Affiliation:
Research Center “The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans,” Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 72070, Germany. duilio.garofoli@uni-tuebingen.dehttp://www.roceeh.net/network/graduate-network/alumni/duilio-garofoli/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cognitive gadgets theory proposes to reform evolutionary psychology by replacing the standard nativist and internalist approach to modularity with a cultural constructivist one. However, the resulting “cultural evolutionary psychology” still maintains some controversial aspects of the original neo-Darwinian paradigm. These assumptions are unnecessary to the cognitive gadgets theory and can be eliminated without significant conceptual loss.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e176
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

In compliance with specifications of the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, we clarify that Marco Fenici has written the first four (and the last) paragraphs and that Duilio Garofoli has written the remaining five paragraphs.

References

Anderson, M. L. (2014) After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aston, A. (2019) Metaplasticity and the boundaries of social cognition: Exploring scalar transformations in social interaction and intersubjectivity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 18(1):65–89.Google Scholar
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., ed. (1992) The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bednarik, R. G. (2013) Creating the human past: An epistemology of Pleistocene archaeology. Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Buss, D. (2012) Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2013) Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology 64(1):201–29.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2012) Language: The cultural tool. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Fenici, M. (2017) What is the role of experience in children's success in the false belief test: Maturation, facilitation, attunement or induction? Mind & Language 32(3):308–37.Google Scholar
Fenici, M. & Garofoli, D. (2017) The biocultural emergence of mindreading: Integrating cognitive archaeology and human development. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 1(2):89–117.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Hutto, D. (2008) Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In: The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity, ed. Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E., pp. 17–38. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garofoli, D. (2019) Embodied cognition and the archaeology of mind: A radical reassessment. In: Handbook of evolutionary research in archaeology, ed. Prentiss, A. M., pp. 379–405. Springer.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2018) Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Hutson, S. (2003) Reading the past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2008) Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. & Myin, E. (2013) Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. & Myin, E. (2017) Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ihde, D. (1990) Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ihde, D. (2009) Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ihde, D. & Malafouris, L. (2018) Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7.Google Scholar
Iliopoulos, A. & Garofoli, D. (2016) The material dimensions of cognition: Reexamining the nature and emergence of the human mind. Quaternary International 405 (Part A, The material dimensions of cognition):1–7.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2004) Beyond biology and culture. The meaning of evolution in a relational world. Social anthropology 12(2):209–21.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2007) The trouble with ‘evolutionary biology’. Anthropology Today 23(2):13–17.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. & Palsson, G., ed. (2013) Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knappett, C. (2005) Thinking through material culture. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2010) Metaplasticity and the human becoming: Principles of neuroarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 88:49–72.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2013) How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2016) On human becoming and incompleteness: A material engagement approach to the study of embodiment in evolution and culture. In: Embodiment in evolution and culture, ed. Etzelmüller, G. & Tewes, C., pp. 289–305. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, A. (2011) Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (2004) Varieties of meaning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Penny, S. (2017) Making sense: Cognition, computing, art, and embodiment. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raja, V. (2017) A theory of resonance: Towards an ecological cognitive architecture. Minds and Machines 28(1):29–51.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. (2004) Towards a theory of material engagement. In: Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world, ed. DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. & Renfrew, A. C., pp. 23–31. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. (2005) Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rietveld, E., Denys, D. & Van Westen, M. (2018) Ecological-enactive cognition as engaging with a field of relevant affordances: The skilled intentionality framework (SIF). In: Oxford handbook of 4E cognition, ed. Newen, A., De Bruin, L. & Gallagher, S., pp. 41–70. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rietveld, E. & Kiverstein, J. (2014) A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology 26(4):325–352.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2006) Bergson and the holographic theory of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 5(3–4):365–394.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. (2016) ‘We have never been behaviourally modern’: The implications of material engagement theory and metaplasticity for understanding the late Pleistocene record of human behaviour. Quaternary International 405:(Part A, The material dimensions of cognition):8–20.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. Y. (1987) Social theory and archaeology. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. (2007) The continuity of mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tallis, R. (2011) Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. Acumen.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. J. (2012) Understanding others and understanding language: How do children do it? Language Sciences 34(1):1–12.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. (1998) Archaeology and epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeology 102(1):1–34.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (2017) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verbeek, P.–P. (2005) What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Vogd, W. (2013) Constructivism in Buddhism. In: Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions, ed. Runehov, A. L. C. & Oviedo, L., pp. 489–495. Springer.Google Scholar
Walls, M. (2019) The bow and arrow and early human sociality: An enactive perspective on communities and technical practice in the Middle Stone Age. Philosophy and Technology. 32(2):265–81. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0300-4.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. A. (1994) Wide computationalism. Mind 103(411):351–72.Google Scholar
Woodward, M. (2019) Metaplasticity rendered visible in paint: How matter ‘matters’ in the lifeworld of human action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 18(1):113–32.Google Scholar