Japan

Cultural Evolution Society 2021

Angelica and sorrel salad? Ethnobotanical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for Viking-Age plant use

### Conference Welcome

Welcome to the third Cultural Evolution Society Conference, CES2021. In the conference, which will be held from June 9-11, 2021, about 180 researchers from East Asia, Oceania, Middle East, Europe, North and South America give presentations on their latest research advancing the evolutionary understanding of human and nonhuman animal culture.

### Schedule and Program

[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/1ef06ffd05f80957b4a5b685f63ee3ba.png)](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/fullprogram.pdf)
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/12285eb22580949635121d15d5b46325.png)](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/abstracts.pdf)

**Program-at-glance**

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/c0d0d4c8fcdad49d12631574fd966ae8.png)

### About the conference 
 
**Help-desk:** 
Please first visit [Help-desk](https://underline.io/events/120/help-desk) where you can find the instructions and manuals for exploring the conference site. 

**Plenary sessions:**
Five leading researchers give a live talk. It is like a TV show. The audience can submit a question from the chat window. Chat messages are immediately delivered to speakers and moderators.

**Q&A sessions (parallel):**
Each presenter first gives a 2-minute live lightning talk followed by an 8-minute live discussion with the audience. It uses Zoom.

**Discussion sessions:** 
The audience can approach presenters and discuss their research. The sessions are held in a dedicated room in Gathertown.
 
**Gathertown:**
It is a platform dedicated to live virtual interactions.
Gather Town is available for all participants 24 hours during the conference.
You can meet and talk with anybody at a lounge or at a table in Gathertown.
Further Gather Town instruction and how to use short keys please find in our [Help desk page](https://underline.io/events/120/help-desk). 

**Videos and slides:**

* Plenary sessions and the Q&A sessions will be recorded and uploaded after the sessions.
* All the videos and slides are available for 60 days after the conference but only to registered ones. 

**Text-based chatting with the speakers:** 
You can chat with any speaker in the Q&A and discussion sessions. A chat window is available on each speaker’s page, and you can leave your questions there. 

**Announcement to the other participants:**
If you want to make an announcement to the other participants (e.g., “Hey, let’s meet at the lounge in Gathertown from 9pm CEST!), please use twitter (#CESConf2021).



### Code of conduct

See the full details of [the code of conduct](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/code-of-conduct/).
&nbsp; 
 CES is dedicated to providing a welcoming and harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, nationality, or the presence of or care for dependents. 
We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference at the discretion of the conference organizers.

&nbsp;
**Harassment can occur in-person or virtually, and includes, but is not limited to:**
* Comments (verbal, text, etc.) that reinforce social structures of domination related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, nationality
* Sexual images in public spaces (physical or virtual)
* Deliberate intimidation, stalking, or following
* Harassing photography or recording (including sharing of presentation materials without consent)
* Sustained disruption of talks or other events (including “Zoombombing”)
* Inappropriate physical contact or unwelcome sexual attention
* Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour 

&nbsp;
 **Inclusiveness Committee**:
&nbsp;
 To facilitate implementing the code of conduct and foster a climate of inclusion, we have developed an inclusiveness committee. Below is their contact information:
 **Hiromi Matsumae**:	matsumae.hiromi.g@tokai.ac.jp
 **Patrick Savage**:	psavage@sfc.keio.ac.jp
 **Sarah Mathew**:	Sarah.Mathew@asu.edu
 **Gmail:** inclusivenessCES2021@gmail.com
 See [more details about reporting the harassment.](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/code-of-conduct/)

### Organizing committee

**Honorary Conference Organizer:** [Kenichi Aoki (Meiji University)](https://sites.google.com/site/kenichi1aoki/home) 

**Chair:** [Masanori Takezawa (Hokkaido University)](https://lalalarakko.github.io)

**Scientific Committee:** [Kenichi Aoki (Meiji University)](https://sites.google.com/site/kenichi1aoki/home), [Yasuo Ihara (the University of Tokyo)](https://researchmap.jp/read0209180?lang=en), [Hiromi Matsumae (Tokai University)](https://sites.google.com/site/hiromimatsumae/eng), [Naoko Matsumoto (Okayama University)](https://researchmap.jp/nmatsumoto_okayama-u), [Masako Myowa (Kyoto University)](https://myowa.educ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en), [Hisashi Nakao (Nanzan University)](https://www.hisashinakao.com/), [Patrick E. Savage (Keio University)](https://sites.google.com/view/comp-music-lab/home)

**Local Organizing Committee:** [Yutaka Horita (Teikyo University)](https://sites.google.com/site/yhoritapage/), [Masanori Takezawa (Hokkaido University)](https://lalalarakko.github.io/), [Ayaka Takimoto (Hokkaido University)](https://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/~takimoto/), [Kohei Tamura (Tohoku University)](https://researchmap.jp/7000017854)

**Inclusiveness Committee:** [Sarah Mathew (Arizona State University)](https://www.sarahmathew.net/), [Hiromi Matsumae (Tokai University)](https://sites.google.com/site/hiromimatsumae/eng), [Patrick E. Savage (Keio University)](https://sites.google.com/view/comp-music-lab/home)


![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/967110a00d200a6b20d6f4fa6556ba13.png)

For attending the conference, you first need to register and pay fees from [the link here](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/registration/). After the payment of the registration fees, you will receive a ticket, which is necessary for accessing the conference site. After the payment of the registration fees, you will receive a ticket, which is necessary for accessing the conference site

Registration fee

technical paper

Humans have a psychological tendency to support a strong leader in times of danger, but not in times of peace and security. This psychological pattern has evolved in primeval times as a way to overcome the collective action problem in violent inter-group conflict, according to a new theory called regality theory. People become authoritarian and bellicose as a reaction to perceived collective danger, while peace and security leads to egalitarian and tolerant political attitudes. This balance between authoritarianism and egalitarianism is reflected in many aspects of politics, culture, morals, sexuality, religion, and even in art and music. This makes regality theory very useful for many applications in sociology, history, psychology, politics, and peace research. Examples include explanations of the rise and fall of empires, World War II, psychological warfare, witch hunts, and psychological reactions to the terrorism events of 9/11.

Regality theory is supported by statistical studies on both ancient and modern societies. The theory has successfully predicted correlations between many cultural variables. 

Applications of this theory is discussed with several examples.

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism explained by evolutionary psychology

Cultural evolution is an interdisciplinary movement, but some disciplines are not yet well represented. Sociology -- despite sharing many core questions in common -- has hardly engaged with the field of cultural evolution. In this presentation, I briefly consider the reasons why sociologists have been absent from this conversation. Then I outline how sociologists can make a meaningful contribution to cultural evolution research. I argue that sociological research is especially relevant to work on changing beliefs, subcultural differences, cultural mechanisms of stratification, and the role of social networks in cultural change. I conclude by describing some concrete steps I believe will facilitate a greater integration between cultural evolution and sociology in the future.

Sociology and Cultural Evolution: Obstacles and Future Directions

It is standard to understand natural selection as necessarily being blind or, to put it in less ableist terms, to exclude intentional design. Social scientists often critique cultural evolution theory as being redundant, on the grounds that the relevant explanatory work can be done in terms of intentional decisions made by humans. Cultural evolutionists often seek examples of outcomes that plausibly cannot be viewed as intentional – for example, Henrich focusses on the evolution of manioc processing, where the explanation of the benefits is thought to be opaque to most participants (Henrich 2017). 
Mesoudi 2008 gives us reason to think that intentional design should not guide the production of variants. But less has been said about why intention must be excluded when it comes to the selection of variants, as in cases of ‘direct bias’ (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Amundsen 1989).
I argue that we should resist this, and simply view intentional action by humans as one possible driver of a selection process. From the perspective of Universal Darwinism, as long as there is heredity and variation in copy rate, the presence of intention in an evolutionary process is irrelevant. If I am right, then a major source of skepticism about the value of cultural evolution theory in explaining processes such as the workings of science can be undercut, and the evidence base for cultural evolution theory hugely expanded. Intentional design need not exclude cultural evolution, but can, instead, be understood as one of its variables.

Why does cultural selection need to be blind?

In addition to survival in the hostile world, violence has overcome its biological nature, being ingrained in the subjects and in society. Thus, it comes to these violent provocations due to the factual potential of the subjects to live and / or expect violence in Brazil. A timeless phenomenon that operates mainly among the vulnerable, reshaping their relationships in different social spaces. In the Brazilian context, schools stand out, which between 2009 and 2018 recorded an alarming increase of more than 800% in the occurrences of violence (2009, n = 661; 2018, n = 6,242). Public data from the governmental platform “Diseases and Notification Information System” also reveals that, in the time frame, the occurrences (n = 34,632) are concentrated in the Southeast and Southern regions of the country, the State of São Paulo being the epicenter (29 , 0%; n = 10,257), a space characterized by the relevant economic flow, high population density and urbanization. Set the types of violence, the most recorded are those of physical impetus, affecting mostly female victims (56.8%; n = 19.693) between 0-19 years old (87.5%; n = 30.354), following the school age indicated in the basic documents of national education. Perhaps this is not yet a reliable picture of violence in Brazilian schools, due to the more than 8 million square kilometers of territorial extension, finds it difficult to establish a comprehensive notification, challenged by a diversity of situations and purposes, individual and collective, narrate along with social inequalities the most different contexts (school or not) and perceptions of violence.

Socio-spatial Profile of Violence in Brazilian Schools (2009-2018)

What led to the evolution of theories and models across various scientific fields, and how do these arguments and paradigms frame their historical trajectory? One (unsatisfying) answer is that each field has its own personalities and historical context, generating a large number of potential trajectories in the process. By contrast, the notion of history converges on the same answer due to the universality of certain truths also raises more questions than answers. 

To understand how these trajectories form and sustain over decades or even centuries, an agent-based model of intellectual cultural evolution will be proposed. At the level of individual agents, cultural evolution is characterized using a dual inheritance model: mentor-mentee transmission (genealogical) and peer-to-peer transmission (sociocultural learning). We also advocate for combining phylogenetic approaches to genealogy with cybernetic models of sociocultural learning. Common ancestral fields diverge over time as subfields form and become epistemically isolated. When ideas are constrained by field-specific boundaries, we can observe linguistic and even semantic divergence. Reintegration of genealogical branches (reticulations) are also useful in understanding how ideas are shared between fields. Collaborations and interactions resulting from sociocultural learning will produce reticulating cycles amongst our phylogenetic branching relationships. 

In this way, we demonstrate that future trajectories can be approximated as a series of divergence and regulatory events. Our approach can be more broadly applied to the phenomenology of evolution. More generally, we can attach each level of inheritance to levels of evolutionary description: nonlinear regulatory processes being the proximal description, and tree structures serving as the ultimate description. These insights may also help illuminate unexplored areas within the map of possible evolutionary paths.

Charting the Future of Academic Fields with Cultural Evolutionary Trajectories

Presented is a force-based alternative to the transmission-based model of cultural evolution. The premise is that the majority of cultural evolution is Darwinian selection that occurs in the mind. The selection is driven by internal and external stressors (forces) leading to creative tension. Transmission is viewed as a source of variation and stressors, not heredity. 

One barrier to a force-view of cultural evolution is that biological evolution has not served as a helpful exemplar. The forces in natural selection are traditionally misidentified (or ignored). Here the forces of natural selection are environmental stressors acting on individuals, not natural selection itself. With this understanding, I will present the cultural evolutionary analogs to the dimensions of biological evolution including phenotype, variation, heredity, driving forces, fitness, and generations.

The impetus for this view of cultural evolution comes from the study of strategy and innovation developed in part during my 25 years at E.I. DuPont, the multinational chemical and materials company. In addition to my scientific role there, I held positions in business, venture management and strategic planning. 

I will show how the force-based model aligns with an adaptive view of strategy theory and practice. Understanding how stressors act on ideas, processes, and technologies is key to enabling innovation in all endeavors.

A Force-based Model of Cultural Evolution with Application to Business Strategy

Why do people choose to follow a demanding moral authority even in situations in which a less demanding alternative exists? Can social imitation alone sustain meaningful moral equilibrium? Why is moral authority concentrated in the sense that multiple individuals follow the same authority? What factors underpin and limit the power of moral authorities, and why do authorities lose influence? This paper addresses these questions by developing a formal choice-theoretic model of moral authorities, moral standards, and moral behavior. We show that sustaining meaningful moral behavior is only possible if some actors choose to provide, and others choose to follow, a person providing moral guidance through their behavior. Our theory builds on literature in cultural evolution, biology, and psychology on how human pro-sociality has become an adaptive trait. In an extension of our model, we analyze the role of the state. We show that only two types of states can maximize social welfare: morally liberal states with low redistribution, or, morally conservative states with high redistribution.

A Theory of Moral Authority: Moral Choices Under Moral Network Externality

Researchers hypothesize that we have an evolved partner choice psychology that tracks the cooperative reputations of others and compete for access to cooperative partners, such as by sharing more with cooperative partners. However, recent models and evidence suggest cultural institutions shape this partner choice psychology, questioning its universality. We test the universality of a preference for more cooperative partners in the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Ninety-two Hadza ranked eight of their campmates on generosity and foraging ability and then played a game in which they could direct finite resources to those campmates. We found that Hadza with greater exposure to other cultures, such as via schooling or participating in the market economy, shared more preferentially with campmates they ranked higher on generosity, whereas Hadza with lower exposure showed no preference to sharing with generous campmates. However, this moderating effect was specific to generosity—regardless of exposure, Hadza did not share more preferentially with campmates ranked higher on foraging ability. These results suggest that cultural institutions can shape Hadza partner choice psychology and that preference for more generous and cooperative partners is a product of cultural, rather than genetic, evolution.

Hadza hunter-gatherers with greater exposure to other cultures preferentially share with generous campmates

Gossip is essential to sustaining cooperation through indirect reciprocity, but it is unclear if and how individuals obtain accurate information through gossip. We examine how information acquired through hearsay influences cooperative decisions in warfare among the Turkana, a politically uncentralized semi-nomadic pastoral population in Kenya. The Turkana engage in cattle raids against neighboring groups in which there is a substantial risk of injury or death. Using vignettes and surveys with 63 Turkana warriors, we obtained information regarding warriors' ratings of the qualities of other warriors, norms about information sharing over different social scales (from kin level to the cultural group at large), the level of consensus in reputation, and real-world instances of decision making in warfare based on gossip. The results indicate that 1) a warrior’s reputation is associated with altruistic bravery, leadership, and combat skill; 2) there are norms regulating sharing other warrior’s reputations; and 3) warriors actively assess reputation when determining who to cooperate with. The findings suggest norms may play a role in making gossip sufficiently accurate, thus facilitating indirect reciprocity as a mechanism of human cooperation.

How gossip and reputation shape high-stakes cooperative decisions among Turkana warriors

This work analyzes the evolutionary diversification of the lanceolate points of the South Central Andes focusing on the pace and the patterns of this evolutionary radiation. Through phylogenetic reconstruction and by analyzing the time series of innovation, extinction, and taxonomic diversity we show that the divergence process began around 9500 cal BP and extended to 5000 cal BP. We distinguish a first instance with a greater diversity of points, a higher rate of innovation and less class longevity. These trends progressively stabilized, giving rise to an inverse pattern of less innovation, decreasing taxa diversity and greater class longevity. Also, we documented a progressive reduction in the length and the increase in the width of the points. We suggest that the adoption of new prey hunting tactics, since the end of the early Holocene, and the evolution of new weapon systems gave rise to an adaptive environment that favored the selective evolution of innovations in projectile points to fill different technological niches. The adaptive radiation of the lanceolate points contributed to more diverse weaponry that increased the chances of successful hunting in a greater diversity of contexts, allowing humans to specialize in camelid hunting.

Premium content

Angelica and sorrel salad? Ethnobotanical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for Viking-Age plant use

Downloads

Next from Cultural Evolution Society 2021

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism explained by evolutionary psychology

Similar lecture

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism explained by evolutionary psychology