Notes
Content biases are sometimes considered as a cultural analog of meiotic drive. I suspect that Lewens has this in mind when he argues that the kinetic interpretation better preserves the “taxonomic precision” of Richerson and Boyd’s and Sperber’s formulations of cultural evolutionary theory. I cannot dwell on this point but, as Mesoudi (Cultural Evolution, 2011, p. 65) has—in my opinion correctly—pointed out, variational processes like meiotic drive imply the transformation of a variant and, therefore, they should be distinguished from cases, like the one at stake here, where what changes is the frequency of the variant, and not its features.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
I certify that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baravalle, L. The (Dis)Unity of Cultural Evolutionary Theory. Sci & Educ 27, 225–231 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9951-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9951-x