Elsevier

Biosystems

Volume 195, July 2020, 104170
Biosystems

Sociotype and cultural evolution: The acceleration of cultural change alongside industrial revolutions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2020.104170Get rights and content

Abstract

The present work explores, from the vantage point of the sociotype, the dramatic acceleration of cultural change alongside the successive industrial revolutions, particularly in the ongoing information era. Developed within the genotype-phenotype-sociotype conceptual triad, the sociotype means the average social environment that is adaptively demanded by the “social brain” of each individual. For there is a regularity of social interaction, centered on social bonding and talking time, which has been developed as an adaptive trait, evolutionarily rooted, related to the substantial size increase of human groups. A quantitative approach to the sociotype basic traits shows fundamental competitive interrelationships taking place within an overall “attention economy.” Approaching these figures via the Planckian Distribution Equation, they can be connected with many other competitive processes taking place in the biological, economic, and cultural realms. Concerning culture, the cognitive limits of the individual, which we consider commensurate with the sociotype general limitations, impose by themselves a strict boundary on the cultural items effectively handled by each individual, fostering the overall competition and decay. Further, the emergence of differentiated generations with ample discrepancy in styles of life, social aspirations, and dominant technologies would represent a systematic bias in the competition and replacement of cultural items. Intriguingly, the cultural acceleration detected in modern societies alongside the successive industrial revolutions, with an ostensible climax in the ongoing fourth industrial revolution –the information era– might be itself a paradoxical consequence of the sociotype's dynamic constancy.

Section snippets

Introduction: constancy of the “sociotype” versus acceleration of cultural change

The main argument of the present work may be summarized as a paradox: that there is a constancy of our overall cognitive capability in relation with the external world, symbolized by and rooted in the “sociotype” limitations, that strongly conditions the dynamic processes of culture—underlying the general rhythms of maintenance, decay, and replacement of cultural items.

First, what do we mean by the sociotype? Recently coined from two independent sources (Marijuán et al., 2017; see also Berry,

Evolutionary background

Sociality is an essential trait of the human species—as Aristotle put in The Politics, Book 1: “man is by nature a political animal.” Indeed a number of crucial novelties of our evolutionary and historical past revolve around the complexification of essential aspects of sociality: origins of language, emotional communication, in-group behavior, cooking and sharing of food, domestication of other species, cultural systems, morals and ethics, religious and legal codes, political institutions,

Competitive “Planckian” nature of the quantitative sociotype

Two aspects of the sociotype results are relevant to our present concerns. First, the developmental or ontogenetic arch that can be appreciated in the age distribution of the sociotype results. And second, the competitive processes underlying the sociotype figures, which surface via the Planckian Distribution Equation.

That there is an ontogenetic arch described by the sociotype along the development of the individual is not difficult to visualize (Berry and De Geest, 2012). It looms under our

Universal patterns of decay

In a recent approach, Candia et al. (2019) study the decay of attention and the collective memory in a variety of cultural products, using data on domains such as scientific publications, patents, songs, movies, and biographies. They test the hypothesis that the decay of the attention received by these cultural products involves interactions in two different domains: communicative memory and cultural memory. The former relates to oral exchanges and the latter to records on material supports,

The idea of generations

Plutarch, in his biography of Lycurgus, cites three verses in which three generations of Spartans boast about their own might. The verses are supposed to be recited by each choir of warriors:

The old ones: We have been very strong warriors.

The young: We are: if you have won - look us in the face.

The boys: But we will be much stronger still.

The exchange appears in one of the emblematic texts of José Ortega y Gasset (1933) about the method of generations. Evidently, generations refer to the most

As the economy grows …

Fundamental economic factors have been often cited as the main movers of social evolution. The extent to which they directly contribute to accelerate the rhythms of replacement and decay of cultural items – becoming a proxy for intergenerational change – is an essential part of our argument.

For simplification, if we consider the ‘natural’ interval of 30 years for the successive generations, there is a striking fact to observe (partially commented in 4.3): that the deepest cultural and social

As the economy grows … the past recedes

As the economy has fantastically expanded, what has happened with the world of culture, with the permanence and decay of cultural items and ways of life?

Looking in generational terms, the steady economic accumulation we are referring could be seen as if every successive generation had been able to build by itself a new material world of paramount size – often bigger – than the received one from the previous generation. Two physical worlds factically amalgamated into one: the old and the new

The fourth industrial revolution

An obvious continuation of the above is that along the periods of slow social change distinguishing between generations is difficult. Conversely, when social change is very fast, differences between generations are magnified (Kortti, 2011). Precisely we have called ‘revolutionary’ to those periods of economic and social upheaval when cultures and traditions are radically changed. About the so called “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, according to the proposer of the term (Schwab, 2015), it is a

Concluding comments

It has been a dense conceptual excursion. From the sociotype term, a new construct that attempts the qualitative and quantitative description of the social niches to which humans are adapted, we have jumped to the attention economy present in our social interactions, to the competition underlying the decay of cultural items, to the emergence of the generational phenomenon, to the economic proxy of cultural change, and finally to the consequences of the explosive growth of industrial revolutions.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References (118)

  • C. Darwin

    The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

    (1871)
  • E. Abassi et al.

    The representation of two-body shapes in the human visual cortex

    J. Neurosci.

    (2020)
  • E. Abi-Jaoude et al.

    Smartphones, social media use and youth mental health

    Can. Med. Assoc. J.

    (2020)
  • J. Allman

    Evolving Brains

    (1999)
  • C. Badcock et al.

    Battle of the sexes may set the brain

    Nature

    (2008)
  • M. Balter

    Why are our brains so big?

    Science

    (2012)
  • A.L. Barabási

    Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and what it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life

    (2003)
  • D.P. Barash

    The Hare and the Tortoise: the Conflict between Culture and Biology in Human Affairs

    (1986)
  • S. Baron-Cohen et al.

    Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: an fMRI study

    Eur. J. Neurosci.

    (1999)
  • M. Batty

    The New Science of Cities

    (2013)
  • Y. Benkler

    Don't let industry write the rules for AI

    Nature

    (2019)
  • W. Benzon

    Beethoven's Anvil

    (2001)
  • L. Berkman

    Social epidemiology: social determinants of health in the United States: are we losing ground?

    Annu. Rev. Publ. Health

    (2009)
  • E.M. Berry et al.

    Tell me what you eat and I will tell you your sociotype: coping with diabesity

    Rambam Maimonides Med. J.

    (2012)
  • A. Berthoz

    Simplexity: Simplifying Principles for a Complex World

    (2012)
  • C. Booker

    The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories

    (2004)
  • J.L. Borges

    Funes el Memorioso

  • J.T. Cacciopo et al.

    Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection

    (2008)
  • K. Cagle

    Rethinking millennials and generations

    Forbes

    (2018)
  • C. Candia et al.

    The universal decay of collective memory and attention

    Nat. Human Behav.

    (2019)
  • B. Chapais

    Primeval Kinship: How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society

    (2008)
  • B. Chapais

    The deep social structure of humankind

    Science

    (2011)
  • N.A. Christakis et al.

    CONNECTED: the Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives

    (2018)
  • A.R. DeCasien et al.

    Primate brain size is predicted by diet but not sociality

    Nat. Ecol. Evol.

    (2017)
  • S. Dehaene

    Reading in the Brain

    (2009)
  • J. Derridá

    Of Grammatology

    (1976)
  • J. Dessalles

    Why We Talk

    (2007)
  • G. Dezecache

    Are We Sure We Can Groom beyond Dunbar's Number?

    (2012)
  • J. Diamond

    Guns, Germs, and Steel

    (1997)
  • R. Dukas

    Causes and consequences of limited attention

    Brain Behav. Evol.

    (2004)
  • R.I.M. Dunbar

    Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language

    (1996)
  • R.I.M. Dunbar

    The Human Story

    (2004)
  • R.I.M. Dunbar et al.

    Evolution in the social brain

    Science

    (2007)
  • G. Feist

    The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind

    (2006)
  • N. Ferguson

    The Square and Tower: Networks, Hierarchies and the Struggle for Global Power

    (2018)
  • Q. Fottrell

    People spend most of their waking hours staring at screens

    Mark. Watch

    (2018)
  • J. Fowler et al.

    Biology, Politics, and the emerging

    Sci. Human Nat. Sci.

    (2008)
  • J. Fuster

    Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition

    (2003)
  • M. González Forero et al.

    Inference of ecological and social drivers of human brain-size evolution

    Nature

    (2018)
  • B. Gonçalves et al.

    Modeling users' activity on twitter networks: validation of Dunbar's number

    PloS One

    (2011)
  • Cited by (8)

    • Biosociological ethodiversity in the social system

      2021, BioSystems
      Citation Excerpt :

      The sociotype is then a functional group and in humans “the sociotype means both the bonding structures of the social environment and the dynamics of social interactions to which individuals of our species would be evolutionarily adapted” (Marijuán and Navarro, 2020). Marijuán et al. (2019) and Marijuán and Navarro (2020) empirically verified the similar fabric of the social world in the individual life. In this sense, each social group will have a particular behaviour which could be differentiated from the others, and it could affect the evolution of this social group.

    • The drawbridge of nature: Evolutionary complexification as a generation and novel interpretation of coding systems

      2021, BioSystems
      Citation Excerpt :

      This inclusion of externality resulted in the appearance of a new type of coding (human language), which possesses properties that are similar to the genetic language (Jacob, 1977). This was the most recent major metasystem transition; it resulted in the appearance of human civilization operating with a new coding system (language) and correspondingly to the emergence of sociotype, which structure is based on the characteristics of the social world in which each individual life develops (Marijuán and Navarro, 2020). Fig. 2 schematically shows major evolutionary transitions and corresponding codepoietic events.

    • The evolutionary dynamics of social systems via reflexive transformation of external reality

      2020, BioSystems
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the concept of Korotayev (2004), generation and diffusion of innovations are considered as a dynamic factor in the evolutionary development of large social entities, within which such innovations are systematically produced and diffused. The term sociotype refers to both the bonding structures of the social environment and the dynamics of social interactions to which the individuals of our species have become evolutionarily adapted (Marijuán and Navarro, 2020). It means that a relative constancy is maintained through the similar fabric of the social world in which each individual life develops (Marijuán et al., 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text