查看文章

In a narrow critique of two early papers in the literature on cumulative cultural evolution, Vaesen et al.(1) misunderstand the work they criticize, mischaracterize multiple lines of research, and selectively ignore much evidence. While largely recycling prior criticisms, they provide no new models, evidence, or explanations (2). Not only do their criticisms of Henrich’s (3) and Powell et al.’s (4) modeling assumptions miss their mark (2), but Vaesen et al.(1) also ignore many other models that do not rely on these assumptions yet arrive at similar predictions. These other models variously include conformist transmission and explore these processes using nonnormal distributions, discrete traits, networks, etc.(2, 5). Of course, no one expects demographic/population variables to be the only things that matter; cultural packages related to clothing or housing, for example, will vary with latitude for reasons unrelated to …