There are two facts about word learning that everyone accepts. The first is that words really do have to be learned. There is controversy over how much conceptual structure and linguistic knowledge is innate, but nobody thinks that this is the case for the specific mappings between sounds (or signs) and meanings. This is because these mappings vary arbitrarily from culture to culture. No matter how intelligent a British baby is, for instance, she still has to learn, by attending to (...) the language of the people around her, that rabbits are called ‘rabbits’, that sleeping is called ‘sleeping’, and so on. (shrink)

Children not only recognize the function of an artifact, but they actively protest when others use it in an atypical way. In two experiments, we asked whether children view artifact function as universal or as culturally dependent. In both experiments children watched videos of two actors who used common artifacts atypically. In Experiment 1A, 6-to-7-year-old children were told that the actors were either from Canada or a far away country. Children were marginally more likely to protest a Canadian using the (...) artifact in a novel way than when the individual was from a far away country. In Experiment 1B, the familiar or unfamiliar culture was explicitly highlighted. Four-to-five-year-olds were also included as a comparison group. Six-to-seven-year-olds protested the atypical use when the actor was Canadian more than when the actor was Brungarian, whereas 4-to-5-year-olds protested at non-significant rates. Additionally, when asked what appropriate function of the artifact was, 6-to-7-year olds were more likely to endorse the atypical function when it was performed by a Brungarian than a Canadian, while 4-to-5-year-olds never endorsed the atypical function, regardless of condition. These findings demonstrate that while younger children view artifact function as universal, children over the age of 6 recognize that the accepted function of an artifact may vary by culture. (shrink)

Human social life is uniquely complex and diverse. Much of that complexity consists of culturally transmitted ideas and skills that underpin the operation of institutions that structure our social life. Considerable theoretical and empirical work has been devoted to the role of cultural evolutionary processes in the evolution of institutions. The most persistent controversy has been over the role of cultural group selection and gene-culture coevolution in early human populations the Pleistocene. We argue that cultural group selection and related cultural (...) evolutionary processes had an important role in shaping the innate components of our social psychology. By the Upper Paleolithic humans seem to have lived in societies structured by institutions, as do modern populations living in simple societies. The most ambitious attempts to test these ideas have been the use of experimental games in field settings to document human similarities and differences on theoretically interesting dimensions. These studies have documented a huge range of behavior cross-culturally, although no societies so far examined follow the expectations of selfish rationality. These data are at least consistent with operation of cultural group selection and gene-culture coevolution operating in the deep tribal past and with the contemporary importance of cultural evolution in the evolution of institutions and institutional diversity. (shrink)