The Argument From Cultural Evolution

Disentangles two senses of 'cultural evolution.' Type 1 (within-culture): people self-interestedly learn and share what works (the Inuit learning which berries are safe) -- obviously valid. Type 2 (between-culture group selection): cultures with 'wrong' practices get outcompeted -- the sense conservatives invoke against gay marriage. Scott argues Type 2 has proven nothing, because intercultural selection is far too SLOW (a cultural 'generation' is Rome lasting 1,000 years) and too WEAK (any single trait's selective advantage is tiny amid everything else), using a cancer-cell analogy for intra- vs inter-group selection. An EDIT adds a Type 3 (deliberate guess-and-check / learn-from-history) that is just 'learning,' not mystical evolution, and cuts against using it as a blanket conservatism.

Quality 72 · Strong. Strong, upper (72). A clarifying, rigorous essay: the within-vs-between-culture distinction is genuinely useful and applying population-genetics math (generation length, selection coefficient) to culture effectively dismantles the 'cultural evolution proves tradition' argument. Capped below Excellent by its narrow target (one argument) and self-described 'very preliminary' status.

Claude’s paradigm shift 56 · Moderate. Notable-edge (56). The within-vs-between-culture distinction plus pop-gen-applied-to-culture is a fresh, non-obvious analytical frame, though built on existing evolutionary and group-selection concepts.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 -- minor/within-blog. A clarifying conceptual contribution to the cultural-evolution / tradition debate; within-discourse, no material footprint.