Tom Lawson LEVYNA Masaryk University Evoked Culture and Rethinking Conventional Wisdom Culture as a reified object •In conventional talk about culture we often attribute causal properties to culture •So we tend to describe specific forms of human behavior as being influenced by “culture” •For example, we say that we speak a specific language because of the culture in which we grew up Folk and scientific perspectives •For most every day purposes this way of talking is perfectly acceptable •However, from a scientific point of view, this conventional way of speaking can be very misleading oBecause it reifies culture (treats ‘culture’ as a thing rather than as a description of features) oBecause it leaves the causal properties unexplained What is “Culture” anyway? •So, what, upon reflection, do we normally mean by “culture”? •OED definition: “The ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society” •Notice: three different kinds of things in this definition oIdeas (mental things) oCustoms (social things) oBehavior (physical and biological things) WHAT TO DO •Clearly, therefore, we need an explanation of how mental, social and physical/biological things do the job they are supposed to do •In other words we need an account of the cognitive and emotional mechanisms involved •This calls for a “big” decision •Are cultural features a cause of these mental, social, and physical/biological factors? oOr is it an effect? oOr is it an effect that then becomes a cause? •If you choose the first alternative the problem is showing how three different kinds of features can do this! •If you choose the second you are simply stating the obvious, namely, that ideas have consequences, that social arrangements provide context, and that behavior makes a difference in that context •If you choose the third, you have available both cognitive and evolutionary explanations of how those features are structured in a particular way, how social facts inform the content of the various cultural features, and how the bodily behavior, informed by the brain in its present form, got to be that way and why its specific behavior can be accounted for in evolutionary terms. Capacities •Now you will remember that we have already developed the notion of capacities or dispositions •The capacities of an organism need to be triggered in order to have an effect •Triggers are specific features of our environment that activate these capacities •This is where the specific context that activates the capacities makes a difference AN EXAMPLE •Let’s take an example: an organism develops in a variable climate with extremes of heat and cold •From the view point of natural selection, those members of the species involved that grow enough fur to keep them from the cold and not so much that they die of heatstroke have a selective advantage •But some of the members of this species find a short cut: They use the skins of furred animals to protect them in the cold weather and go naked in the hot weather •So the idea “let’s make clothing from skins”, is evoked by the environmental conditions but becomes a cultural feature that gets transmitted from one generation to another Fashion •This leads to the social situation in which people not only wear clothing some of the time •but could even develop rules about which skins are better, which look more beautiful, which are easier to obtain, and so on •and, without further ado, you are on your way to fashion! Fur Fashion elle-03-october-fashion-wooley-1013-xln.jpeg Selective Advantage •Despite environmental differences the mechanisms that become activated by the environmental conditions, aided now by the cultural features that transmit information from one person to another and from one time period to another, remain the same —because they provide a selective advantage. CALIBRATION •A good way of explaining how the mechanism works is to see the same capacity as being calibrated by different environmental conditions in two ways oAs the refining of the mechanism over evolutionary time to make it optimal oAs the immediate response to specific conditions that make one alternative behavior which the mechanism has evolved to produce, more appropriate than another • Natural selection and local conditions •The first provides an account, via natural selection, of the development of the mechanism • •The second provides an account of the operation of the mechanism under local conditions • •Hence, an explanation for cultural variation! Application to Problems •With these ideas in place we are now ready to apply them to specific problems • •Such as the problem of “conventional wisdom” which covers all kinds of beliefs that people have about the world in which they live Rethinking Conventional Wisdom Dominance and Subordination of Potential Danger Domains Comparing UK and SA THE TEAM •TOM LAWSON • •JOEL MORT • •MICHAL FUX • MICHAL.jpg Okhombe District, KZN Languages isiZulu (several dialects), English, and Afrikaans Not only does this support good research but allows RH to fulfill desirable roles as postgraduate student supervisors, postdoc managers. In addition the resources available through these academic connections will facilitate heretofore unavailable cross-cultural data collection opportunities, particularly in the UK and sub-Saharan Africa. map-of-south-africa-large.png • DRAKENSBURG-WINTER.jpg • DRAKSUNSET.jpg • OXEN-COFFIN.jpg • ZULU-MOURNERS.jpg • ZULU HOMES.jpg • ZULU HOMES.jpg • ZULU HOUSE.jpg • SENJIWE.jpg •Despite the frequent reliance on Conventional Wisdom about potential threats (and the level of preoccupation with them) in political, policy, intelligence, and other domains, until now there have been few empirical studies addressing the spread, common features, or differences of precautionary preoccupations across cultures, a fact that underscores the importance of adding to the current state of knowledge. • Initial Study •This presentation exhibits some of our initial investigations of any significant variation or subordination of dominant themes (e.g. contamination/contagion, social status threats, predation/assault, decline in resources) •within and between populations and • how these themes may be reflected in each target populations’ collective precautionary behaviors (i.e. rituals, customs, ideological proscriptions, etc.) Hypothesis *Environmental triggers and specific cognitive capacities *constrain the dominance of particular precautionary themes generally *as well as their variability between distinct populations. Our initial results support these claims. We further posit that in many populations there is significant continuity between 1. the degree of individual preoccupation with possible threats, 2. individual precautionary measures, and 3. collective religious rituals. Calibrating the mechanisms •Collective rituals and prescribed ideological contexts provide an occasion at least for calibrating evolutionarily bequeathed cognitive precautionary mechanisms and • • the eliciting of particular precautionary themes. (We have addressed these in subsequent studies.) • • ●What is CW and why is it puzzling? ●Questions About and Importance of Precaution ●Our Project Aims ●Overview of All Studies ●Study One - Likert Scale Instrument ●Analysis and Results ●Discussion Summary What do we mean by Conventional Wisdom? ...and why SHOULD it matter? CW is constantly in the spotlight in the form of significant and generally accepted claims that directly (or indirectly) result in business communication, policy-making, naïve explanations, and world descriptors. Why CW is puzzling & deserves scrutiny 1 Eye Contact CW: In human beings, eye contact is a form of nonverbal communication and is thought to have a large influence on social behavior. Coined in the early to mid-1960s, the term has come in the West to often define the act as a meaningful and important sign of confidence and social communication. F. S. Chen: There is a lot of cultural lore about the power of eye contact as an influence tool but our findings show that direct eye contact makes skeptical listeners less likely to change their minds, not more, as previously believed. (2013) Eye Contact CW is from Wikipedia F. S. Chen is an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia Why CW is puzzling & deserves scrutiny 2 Gov Rick Perry: ...I know this — the world has never been as dangerous as it is today… • Gen Martin Dempsey: I will personally attest to the fact that [the world is] more dangerous than it has ever been. Steven Pinker: Ours is the most peaceful time in history. • Mueller and Stewart: The chances of an American dying in a bathtub are much higher than dying in a terror attack. Gen Martin Dempsey is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (USA) Rick Perry is the Govenor of Texas and erstwhile candidate for President of the United States (defeated by Mitt Romney in the Republican primary) Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. John Mueller is Professor and Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Department of Political Science at Ohio State University Mark Stewart is Professor of Civil Engineering and Director of the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at The University of Newcastle Why CW is puzzling & deserves scrutiny 3 PM Benjamin Netanyahu: ...[Iran] poses the biggest threat to Israel since the war of independence. National Resilience Survey (Israel): Israel's Jewish population...is more calm than ever about the possibility of an attack by an enemy country... reporting an all-time low on its..."fear index." Not only did the Resilience Survey report an all-time low of Israeli Jews in terms of fearing attack by a foreign state, it also reported that Israeli Arabs fear such an attack more than Israeli Jews. Why CW is puzzling & deserves scrutiny 4 Independent Online: SA Whites Fear Mayhem After Mandela’s Death • Steve Hofmeyer: A white farmer is being murdered every five days Lizette Lancaster: Whites are far less likely to be murdered than their black or coloured counterparts • Africa Check: 1.8% of SA murders are white victims Lizette Lancaster is at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa Africa Check is a non-partisan organisation that exists to fact-check claims made in the public arena, impartially and fairly, and publish the results. We also aim to spread the culture and enable the practice of fact-checking among the wider journalistic community. Independent Online is a South African online news source (http://www.iol.co.za/) Steve Hofmeyer is one of South Africa’s most popular, and controversial, Afrikaans singers and performers. In a post on his blog and Facebook page titled “My tribe is dying”, Hofmeyr made several sweeping statements about South Africa’s murder rate and the quality of life of white Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr. We aimed to provide some clarity, or at least more information, about the actual worries people around the world have about potential danger. Main Question of Interest What is the nature of potential danger preoccupation and what role does it play in generating human behavior, particularly ritualized behavior and probably cultural ritual behavior? First a Distinction… POTENTIAL DANGER IMMINENT DANGER Inferred Threats Manifest Threats Require behavioral adjustments that may take time Require a prompt response, the faster the better May be countered by indirect measures like avoidance or probing Reactions involve immediate interaction with source of danger Information regarding presence and elimination of threats is asymmetrical Information of presence and elimination of threats gained externally Why Focus on Precaution? Relevant Domains Are Broad • Psychological development, kin protection, disease avoidance, ritual performance, psychopathology, security motivation, trust and cooperation, violent terrorist motivation, coalitional identification, mate guarding, religious ideologies, etc “Domain” = Socio-cultural and environmental context to which the mechanisms are sensitive Aims Cross-cultural data • Account for variations and similarities • Employ multiple, interdisciplinary methodologies grounded in evolutionary science • Compare results with CW Seminal Literature: Boyer, P. P., Liénard. (2006). Why ritualized behavior? Precaution systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 1-56. • Szechtman, H., & Woody, E. (2004). Obsessive-compulsive disorder as a disturbance of security motivation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 111-127. • Special Issue: “Threat-Detection and Precaution: Neuro-physiological, Behavioral, Cognitive and Psychiatric Aspects.” Neuro & BioBeh Rev. 2011 Systems •Some of the mechanisms jointly operate to form systems such as: oSecurity Motivation System §Henry Szechtman, Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University, Canada • oHazard Precaution System §Pascal Boyer, Henry Luce Professor of Psychology and Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, USA and Dr. Pierre Lienard, Anthropology, University of Las Vegas, Nevada, USA § Overview Populations: UK, South Africa • • Individual protocols ●Likert Scale ●Thurstone Scale ●Ranking Scale ●Vignette Study ●Budget Allocation Protocol ●Video analysis ●Questionnaires Foci Potential danger Preoccupations Salience in ritualized behavior • Structure of ritual action sequences Study 1 - Likert Scale Instrument ●Likert Scale (1-7) Items ●20 Items (5 per domain) ●Administered in random order ●No. of subjects ○UK - 98 ○SA - 88 ●Data collection: 2009-2012 • Survey A - In this questionnaire participants were asked to state how much they worry about different potential threats. The sentences started with ‘I worry about…’ and followed by an example that belongs to one of the domains mentioned above, for example ‘ I worry about eating raw meat’, which would belong to the CC domain. Participants used a scale of 1-7 to indicate their level of worry regarding to each sentence. Overall there were 20 sentences, 5 for each domain. Domains PA - Predation/Assault Threats CC - Contamination/Contagion Threats SS - Social Status Threats DR - Decline in Resources Threats Analyses and Results (highlights) ●Participants from South Africa reported significantly higher scores for the Depletion of Resources (DR) and Predation/Assault (PA) domains compared with the UK participants ●Female participants scored significantly higher on the Predation/Assault (PA) domain both in the UK and SA populations ●In the SA population, non-whites scored significantly higher on ALL threat domains • Statistical Analyses: MANOVA and separate Univariate ANOVA were performed to compare the effect of the separate independent variables on the four threat domain groups. Tables in the next few slides report the means, standard deviations, F statistics, and partial Eta squared for all threat perception domains by question. Violations of MANOVA or ANOVA assumptions, when occur are reported in the endnotes. Analyses and Results (overall) SA vs UK overall • + Significance between populations, * Significance within population Question 1: How do the different potential threat domains rank among UK and SA citizens, and compare the two locations (i.e. what do people worry about more and what less). • MANOVA was performed to compare the effect of independent variable (Country) on the four threat domain groups (outcome variables). The results indicate that country context (UK, SA, IMM) has a significant effect on threat domain responses, Pillai’s Trace [F(8,482) =5.510, p<.001, Partial Eta² = .08]. • Separate univariate ANOVA were performed indicating that these differences are mainly in responses for Depletion of Resources (DP) [F(2,243) = 8.865, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .068] and Predation and Assault (PA) [F(2,243) = 9.626, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .073] (Error! Reference source not found.). Post hoc analyses using Bonferonni correction revealed that participants from South Africa reported significantly higher scores for Depletion of Resources and Predation and Assault compared with the UK or the Immigrant group (Table 1). Analyses and Results (overall) SA vs UK overall • Analyses and Results (gender) Gender (UK and SA overall) • + Significance between genders Question 2: Are there differences between women and men regarding to which domains worry them most or least? • MANOVA was performed to compare the effect of gender on the four threat domain groups. The results indicate that gender has a significant effect on threat domain responses, Pillai’s Trace [F(4,227 =9.218, p<.001, Partial Eta² = .14]. • Separate univariate ANOVA were performed indicating that these differences are in responses for Predation and Assault (PA) [F(1,230) = 31.245, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .120] (Table 2). • In other words, females scored significantly higher on predation and assault. Analyses and Results (gender) Gender (UK and SA overall) • Analyses and Results (ethnicity) White vs Non-white (SA only) • + Significance between white and non-white Question 3: Are there differences between white South Africans and non-white South Africans regarding to which domains worry them most or least? • MANOVA was performed to compare the effect of SA ethnicity on the four threat domain groups. The results indicate that ethnicity classification has a significant effect on threat domain responses, Pillai’s Trace [F(4,90 =6.548, p<.001, Partial Eta² = .225]. • Separate univariate ANOVA were performed indicating that these differences are in responses for all threat domain groups, Contamination and Contagion [F(1,93) = 16.140, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .148], Predation and Assault [F(1,93) = 12.311, p = .001, Partial Eta² = .117], Social Support [F(1,93) = 13.854, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .130], Depletion of Resources [F(1,93) = 13.523, p < .001, Partial Eta² = .127] (Table 3). • In other words, non-whites scored significantly higher on all threat domain groups. Analyses and Results (ethnicity) White vs Non-white (SA only) • Discussion [Compare with CW points] • Like the Israeli National Resiliency Survey, our results do not match anecdotal and intuitive CW about actual potential danger preoccupations; in this case of white vs non-white South Africans. Also similar to the CW statements of high-ranking US government and military officials (who have authority and influence in policy making and mission activities) compared to the empirical work of Pinker, Mueller, and Stewart in terms of the dangerous nature of the world. Discussion [Universality and Variability] Our gender and ethnicity analyses support the notion that the outputs of precautions systems are both universal in some respects and variable as a result of developmental calibration or social learning. From Hazard Precaution system to Religious Rituals • • •Cognitive capacities à Hazard precaution system à Ritualized behavior à Cultural Rituals Religious Rituals • •Reverse Engineering Discussion [Next Scale Data to be Analyzed: Thurstone] Analysis of this data will appear in forthcoming publications Discussion [Future Directions] ●Delineate unambiguous precaution domains ●Biobehavioral protocols ●Clarify evolutionary framework ●Integrate evidence from other studies and disciplines (De Dreu 2010) Continue data analysis of economic and behavioral (video) protocols. Discussion [Conclusions] The tenets, theories, and interdisciplinary methods of evolutionary science (especially psychology) are crucial, and heretofore neglected, tools for understanding human behavior AND informing policy decision-making. One stands out: If only to present a justifiable defense against unwarranted CW “facts.” End • • • • • Prof E. Thomas Lawson Visiting Professor Masaryk University tomlawson1931@gmail.com • Dr Joel Mort Social Scientist Joel.Mort@gmail.com • Dr Michal Fux Postdoctoral Fellow University of South Africa fux.michal@gmail.com • •