Models of human cultural reproduction

Egregores, superorganisms, memeplexes

December 18, 2018 — July 26, 2022

adaptive
collective knowledge
economics
evolution
game theory
networks
social graph
sociology

Content warning:

Comparison of groups here by their structural similarities is not to imply moral equivalence or endorsement of said groups. Groups you like and groups who offend you might both have similar dynamics.

I like the notion of egregores, which model human dynamics as organisms, in a usefully loose sense. Superorganisms are not tightly coupled in the way real organisms are, at least AFAICT. But if something is going to survive and propagate in the noisy substrate of humanity, it needs strategies to replicate, adapt and regulate, just like a real organism. Sometimes this way of thinking sounds insight-ey.

1 See also

Subculture dynamics, tribalism, group dynamics, memetics.

2 Egregores

Sarah Perry, in Weaponized Sacredness, almost describes this as a control problem, when she discusses Egregores:

A smart [egregore] would keep its component humans in the zone of maximum productivity, not demanding too much from them, nor allowing them to slack off (producing nothing for the glory and amusement of the egregore and anyway perhaps feeling bored and useless).

I like this metaphor, as it inspires us to think about what the feedback systems that are in place are configured to do.

Figure 1

3 Status

Kevin Simler in Minimum Viable Superorganism, casts the problem of cooperation outside the family unit as built upon status.

4 Incoming

5 References

Ataöv. 1998. Narcissism of Minor Differences: Nurturing the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.” In.
Baldassarri, and Grossman. 2013. The Effect of Group Attachment and Social Position on Prosocial Behavior. Evidence from Lab-in-the-Field Experiments.” Edited by Angel Sánchez. PLoS ONE.
Bowles, Choi, and Hopfensitz. 2003. The Co-Evolution of Individual Behaviors and Social Institutions.” Journal of Theoretical Biology.
Boyd, and Richerson. 1992. Punishment Allows the Evolution of Cooperation (or Anything Else) in Sizable Groups.” Ethology and Sociobiology.
Boyd, and Richerson. 1999. “Complex Societies: The Evolutionary Origins of a Crude Superorganism.” Human Nature.
Ehrlich, and Levin. 2005. “The Evolution of Norms.” PloS Biology.
Feinberg, Willer, and Schultz. 2014. Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups.” Psychological Science.
Fu, and Wang. 2008. Coevolutionary Dynamics of Opinions and Networks: From Diversity to Uniformity.” Physical Review E.
Gordon. 2014. The Ecology of Collective Behavior.” PLoS Biol.
Goswami. 2020. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (1983).” Public Culture.
Henrich, and Boyd. 1998. The Evolution of Conformist Transmission and the Emergence of Between-Group Differences.” Evolution and Human Behavior.
Horst, Kirman, and Teschl. 2007. Changing Identity: The Emergence of Social Groups.” Economics Working Paper 0078.
Kawakatsu, Chodrow, Eikmeier, et al. 2021. Emergence of Hierarchy in Networked Endorsement Dynamics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Lena. 2012. Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular Music.
Maner. 2017. Dominance and Prestige: A Tale of Two Hierarchies.” Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Marx. 2022. Status and Culture: How Our Desire for Higher Social Rank Shapes Identity, Fosters Creativity, and Changes the World.
Nowak. 2006. Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation.” Science.
Pavlogiannis, Tkadlec, Chatterjee, et al. 2018. Construction of Arbitrarily Strong Amplifiers of Natural Selection Using Evolutionary Graph Theory.” Communications Biology.
Rao. 2005. Symbolic Public Goods and the Coordination of Collective Action: A Comparison of Local Development in India and Indonesia.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
Smith, and Kirby. 2008. Cultural Evolution: Implications for Understanding the Human Language Faculty and Its Evolution.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
Tajfel. 1982. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.” Annual Review of Psychology.