of genes is thought to be rare in genetic evolution, but it is arguably frequent
between variants of memes in cultural evolution. Behaviors and ideas often
spread just because they are more memorable and catchy than other memes,
producing neutral or even negative effects for people“infected”by them. Bad
jokes, for example, have outright negative effects on the well-being and social
contacts of people who tell them (as well as of those who hear them). By telling
such jokes, people seldom get popular and receive more chance to spread their
memes. Yet these jokes are often memorable and therefore do not disappear.
We undoubtedly learn many things that do increase our chances to have
offspring and teach them what we know (remember that cultural transmission
in archaic societies was typically from parent to child), as well as we learn
things that increase the chance that we will be in a position to pass them on to
others than our children. Still often some variant of some behavior or symbolic
information is not being preserved better than another variant on account of
its influence on our health, popularity, or reproductive success, but simply
because it does a better job in the“genomic conflict”of memes.
Genes and memes can be also selected on account of their effects at
organizational levels higher than that of the individual organism. The concept
of group selection (Wilson & Wilson, 2007, 2008; cf. Landa & Wilson, 2008;
Nowak & Highfield, 2011, pp. 81–94) states that some genes contribute traits
that are neutral or even disadvantageous for the reproductive success of the
individual but are transmitted because they benefit the group. Group selection
presupposes the formation of closed social groups: if a group can reproduce
much more successfully than other groups due to pro-social behavior within
the group the spread of the genes of non-cooperating group-members can be
neutralized. In the words of David S. Wilson and Edward O. Wilson,
If solid citizens are lessfit than cheaters within their own group, then something
more is required to explain how they can evolve in the total population. That
something is a positivefitness difference at a larger scale. Groups of solid citizens
are morefit than groups of cheaters. (Wilson & Wilson, 2008, p. 380)We have to note that group selection is subject tofierce debates in evolutionary
theory. Scholars who reject group selection refer to the models of kin-selection and
reciprocal altruism to explain cooperation. The model of kin-selection
(Hamilton, 1964a, 1964b) states that acting in a way that decreases my
fitnessisrationalifitincreasesthefitness of genetically related individuals.
Intermsofthemodelofreciprocalaltruism (Trivers, 1971), it makes sense
to increase someone else’s reproductive success if such behavior will be
returned later, provided that participants in such exchange can keep record
being included (in equal number) in the gametes, thus increasing its own chances of being
present in the genome of the offspring of the organism.
30 Cognitive Science and the New Testament