cultural universals, continued

[Prof David West]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:18 -0700, "glen e. p. ropella"
<gepr at tempusdictum.com> said:


> Would you mind citing an example of a culture that engaged in
> necro-cannabalism that acknowledges lineage?
   I was thinking of the Yanomami when I wrote this paragraph.  I would
   have to return to grad school notes to find others.


>
> That would mean that given any _two_ cultures, there are some
> identifiable universals (over the set of two).
>
> But as we increase the size of the set from two to three to N, the
> number of those invariants shrinks, perhaps quite rapidly.

You can also have commonalities across a subset of "all cultures" - for
example, there seem to be a limited number of kinship patterns with a
given pattern shared by a number of cultures rather than a different
kinship scheme for each culture.
>
>
>
> Is there such a strong argument out there?  Do we have some idea of how
> rapidly invariants fade as the number of cultures is increased?

I might depend on the specific practice (invariant) at issue.  For
instance: the practice of polygamy - specifically polygyny - sixty
percent of the world's cultures practice/sanction polygyny to the
invariant covers a large majority of cultures.  At the same time,
polyandry is practiced by less than ten cultures, so you almost
immediately find variants.  Within the ten - cultures that practice
polandry, most of them (I don't remember the exact number) practice
fraternal polyandry, so within the subset the invariant is high.

 
>
>
> But doesn't rationale like this lead one to think that "culture" is,
> itself, just a convenient packaging of biology?  I.e. all culture
> probably reduces to biology, we're just too ignorant to know _how_?

No, I think it is merely the fringe of unknowns where this there is
uncertainty.  I think that most anthropologists believe that most of
their field of study is not reducible to biology.  The exception being
socio-biologists that do want to reduce all of culture to biology -
humans and human culture are merely the means for genes to replicate
themselves.

I just remembered - the mind is a strange thing - the closest answer to
your original question about differentiation of anthro from bio - social
transmission.  Culture is transmitted from one person to another, and
more importantly from one generation to another via social mechanisms,
not biological.

davew

>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put
> together the right information at the right time, think critically about
> it, and make important choices. - E.O. Wilson
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFH4AjSpVJZMHoGoM8RAq+2AJ9tq50KcXv5ZwClA0EXV0/yjEduCwCgnkyx
> yQqZvPLaxygKf944RfpmA3Y=
> =ftbJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Excellent!  Thanks for your effort and the info.

Prof David West wrote:

>    I was thinking of the Yanomami when I wrote this paragraph.  I would
>    have to return to grad school notes to find others.
>
>> That would mean that given any _two_ cultures, there are some
>> identifiable universals (over the set of two).
>>
>> But as we increase the size of the set from two to three to N, the
>> number of those invariants shrinks, perhaps quite rapidly.
>
> You can also have commonalities across a subset of "all cultures" - for
> example, there seem to be a limited number of kinship patterns with a
> given pattern shared by a number of cultures rather than a different
> kinship scheme for each culture.
>>
>> Is there such a strong argument out there?  Do we have some idea of how
>> rapidly invariants fade as the number of cultures is increased?
>
> I might depend on the specific practice (invariant) at issue.  For
> instance: the practice of polygamy - specifically polygyny - sixty
> percent of the world's cultures practice/sanction polygyny to the
> invariant covers a large majority of cultures.  At the same time,
> polyandry is practiced by less than ten cultures, so you almost
> immediately find variants.  Within the ten - cultures that practice
> polandry, most of them (I don't remember the exact number) practice
> fraternal polyandry, so within the subset the invariant is high.
>  
>>
>> But doesn't rationale like this lead one to think that "culture" is,
>> itself, just a convenient packaging of biology?  I.e. all culture
>> probably reduces to biology, we're just too ignorant to know _how_?
>
> No, I think it is merely the fringe of unknowns where this there is
> uncertainty.  I think that most anthropologists believe that most of
> their field of study is not reducible to biology.  The exception being
> socio-biologists that do want to reduce all of culture to biology -
> humans and human culture are merely the means for genes to replicate
> themselves.
>
> I just remembered - the mind is a strange thing - the closest answer to
> your original question about differentiation of anthro from bio - social
> transmission.  Culture is transmitted from one person to another, and
> more importantly from one generation to another via social mechanisms,
> not biological.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. -- Socrates

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH4TTupVJZMHoGoM8RAunFAJ0e17WkAeRtFGcyotdeD1vhZUQTnACfR7zJ
WTlZx9HfNPJT4ciUcwO+iLE=
=0UD2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----