PhronesisThe frame
Dual inheritance theory treats culture as a population-level evolutionary process running alongside genes, formalized by Boyd & Richerson (Culture and the Evolutionary Process, 1985) and synthesized by Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2006) and Mesoudi (Cultural Evolution, 2011). Three ingredients are necessary and sufficient for a Darwinian process: variation (traits differ across people), transmission (variants get copied via social learning, teaching, imitation), and selection (some variants persist and spread more than others). This tripartite structure is well-established and largely uncontroversial. Asking "what accelerates cultural evolution" is asking what raises the rate at which this variation-transmission-selection cycle turns — the same kind of question population genetics asks about the rate of biological evolution, applied to a different substrate. A cousin piece, Cultural Evolution of AI, asks what happens when machines start running parts of this cycle themselves.
1. Transmission fidelity, and its tradeoff with innovation
The single most load-bearing factor for cumulative culture, per the modeling literature, is how faithfully a trait survives being copied. Lewis & Laland (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2012) ran agent-based simulations varying invention, combination, modification, and loss rates, and found loss rate — the inverse of fidelity — explained roughly 75% of the variance in cultural complexity, dwarfing the effect of novel invention alone. Even small gains in fidelity produce large gains in how long a trait survives and how much complexity can accumulate on top of it; below some fidelity threshold, cumulative culture cannot build up at all. This is well-established.
This underlies the ratchet effect: high-fidelity transmission — especially imitation and teaching, not just emulation — locks gains in place so further improvement can stack on top, rather than being lost and reinvented each generation (Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, 1999). But the strict-necessity version of this claim is contested: later work, including Lewis & Laland themselves, shows the fidelity-complexity relationship is more nuanced than "high fidelity is always required," and some agent-based work on teaching-versus-innovation time tradeoffs suggests a real tension — copying that is too rigid can crowd out the beneficial modification that innovation needs. No single canonical paper proves this exact fidelity-innovation tradeoff as cleanly as Lewis & Laland proved the fidelity-complexity link; treat it as a recurring theoretical theme, not a settled quantified law.
2. Population size and network connectivity
A second lever is how many minds are generating and testing variants, and how connected they are. Henrich (2004, American Antiquity) modeled Tasmania's technological loss following its isolation from mainland Australia roughly 10,000–12,000 years ago: a population that fell below some size/density threshold, the argument goes, could no longer sustain high-fidelity transmission of complex skills like bone tool-making, and lost them despite the loss being locally maladaptive. This became the empirical anchor for Henrich's later "collective brain" framework (The Secret of Our Success, 2016): cumulative culture, not raw individual intelligence, is argued to drive human technological success, sustained by large, well-connected social-learning networks. Muthukrishna & Henrich (2016, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B) formalize innovation rate as a function of sociality, transmission fidelity, and cultural variance, predicting that both population size and interconnectivity (literacy, mass media, internet) raise innovation rate. Kline & Boyd (2010, Proc. R. Soc. B) found real empirical support for the connectivity piece specifically: across ten Oceanic island societies, well-connected populations had more complex marine toolkits than population size alone would predict.
The general claim — social learning plus population scale and connectivity enable cumulative culture in principle — is broadly accepted as foundational to the field. But the specific Tasmania case and the strong "population size alone explains complexity" reading are genuinely, actively contested. Vaesen, Collard, Cosgrove & Roebroeks (2016, PNAS) argued Henrich's and a related Upper Paleolithic model (Powell, Shennan & Thomas, 2009, Science) rest on unrealistic transmission assumptions and fit poorly to the actual archaeological record — population size failed to predict complexity in six of eight empirical tests they reviewed. Henrich and coauthors rebutted; Vaesen et al. replied. Kobayashi & Aoki (2012, Theoretical Population Biology) formally showed population size's effect on cumulative culture is constrained by the underlying rate of individual innovation — size alone does not do the work; it has to combine with a baseline innovation rate. And connectivity is not simply monotonic: Derex & Boyd (2016, PNAS) found partially connected groups produced more diverse, more complex solutions than fully connected groups of the same size, because full connectivity can drive premature convergence on a locally good-enough answer. Fay et al. (2019, PNAS), in a paper-airplane design experiment, found larger populations could actually inhibit cumulative improvement. Population size and connectivity matter, but not as a simple "bigger and more connected is always faster" rule.
3. Lowering the cost of transmission
A third lever: making it cheaper and faster to move a cultural variant from one mind to another. The strongest quantitative evidence here comes from economic history. Dittmar (2011, Quarterly Journal of Economics) found European cities that adopted the printing press before 1500 grew 60% faster between 1500 and 1600 than otherwise-similar cities without a press, with no pre-existing growth advantage before adoption — using distance from Mainz (the press's birthplace) as an instrument to support a causal reading. Buringh & van Zanden (2009, Journal of Economic History) document book production surging after Gutenberg, tied to falling prices and rising literacy; Baten & van Zanden (2008, Journal of Economic Growth) find per-capita book production predicts subsequent regional growth differentials. Rogers' diffusion-of-innovations framework (1962 onward, built on Ryan & Gross's 1943 study of hybrid corn adoption among Iowa farmers) is well-established evidence that communication-channel structure governs how fast an innovation spreads through a population at all, independent of print specifically.
More recent panel data extends the same pattern: Comin & Hobijn (2010, American Economic Review), using data on 15+ technologies across 166 countries from 1788–2001, find the average lag between invention and adoption has shrunk over time, and diffusion sped up markedly after World War II. But the stronger, more specific historical claims should be handled carefully. Eisenstein's influential thesis that print was an "agent of change" driving the Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution (1979) is a historiographical argument, not an econometric test, and has been directly challenged by Adrian Johns (1998), who denies print had any single inherent causal effect independent of the institutions around it. The specific claim "the printing press caused the Reformation" is contested: Febvre and Martin rejected it decades ago; Rubin (2014, Review of Economics and Statistics) offers real instrumented evidence of a correlation (cities with an early press were at least 29 points more likely to turn Protestant), but this is one study inside a live, multi-causal debate, not proof of simple causation. And the modern analogue — does the internet accelerate science — is mixed rather than uniformly supportive: open-access citation-advantage studies lean positive but are confounded by self-selection, while cross-country studies of internet penetration and research output find inconsistent, sometimes null, results.
4. Fast, high-fidelity selection
The fourth lever is not making more variants or moving them faster, but discarding bad ones faster. Popper's falsificationism (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959; Objective Knowledge, 1972) frames scientific knowledge growth itself as a selection process — conjecture, then severe attempts at refutation, with failing theories eliminated rather than patched indefinitely. Popper explicitly described this as structurally identical to biological evolution ("from the amoeba to Einstein, the growth of knowledge is always the same"), a position developed independently by Campbell's Blind Variation and Selective Retention (1960) and generalized by Dawkins ("Universal Darwinism," 1983), Dennett, and Hodgson & Knudsen's "generalized Darwinism" — the last of which remains debated as a claim of universal scope.
The same structure shows up in markets and software. Nelson & Winter (An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, 1982), building on Alchian (1950), model firms as bundles of routines selected on by market competition, with profitable routines proliferating and others weeded out — though the formal claim that market selection converges to profit-maximizing behavior is itself contested (Blume & Easley, 2002). Schumpeter's creative destruction was formalized by Aghion & Howitt (1992, Econometrica; work recognized in the 2025 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, shared with Mokyr) into growth models where each innovation destroys the value of the last — with an empirically supported inverted-U relationship between competition intensity and innovation incentive (Aghion, Bloom, Blundell, Griffith & Howitt, 2005), meaning faster selection is not simply always better for the rate of innovation. Raymond's "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (1997) argues open, distributed code review finds and discards defects faster than closed development; the thesis is influential but contested as a strict empirical law, given major vulnerabilities like Heartbleed that sat undetected for years in visible, widely-used code. In cultural evolution proper, Boyd & Richerson and Henrich & Boyd (2002) model selection-like biases in transmission itself — conformist bias (copy the most common variant) and content bias (copy the more effective or learnable one) — and Vegvari & Foley (2014, PLoS ONE) show in simulation that higher selection pressure can raise the rate of cumulative cultural accumulation even in small populations. Across science, markets, and software, faster and more stringent selection correlates with faster accumulation of adaptive change — but in every domain tested, the relationship is conditional, not a straight line: too little selection lets bad variants linger; some conditions (rigid conformity, premature convergence, misaligned competitive pressure) let selection actively slow the good kind of accumulation down.
What this is not
This is not a manipulation or propaganda guide. Every mechanism above describes population-level dynamics documented in peer-reviewed cultural evolution, anthropology, economic history, and philosophy-of-science literature — not a set of instructions for engineering belief in individuals. This is not original research: no new data, no new model, nothing here has been independently tested by phronesis. It is a synthesis of existing, cited findings, several of which are actively and legitimately contested within their own fields — that contestation is reported here, not resolved. And there is no single unified equation in the literature — no canonical Boyd/Richerson or Mesoudi formula — that combines fidelity, population size, transmission cost, and selection speed into one "rate of cultural evolution" function. The four mechanisms above come from a related but distinct body of formal modeling papers that build on the core variation-transmission-selection framework; treating them as pieces of one law rather than four separate, differently-supported literatures would overstate what is actually known.
Sources: Boyd, R. & Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press. Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural Evolution. University of Chicago Press. Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K.N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(4), 329–347. Lewis, H.M. & Laland, K.N. (2012). Transmission fidelity is the key to the build-up of cumulative culture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 367(1599), 2171–2180. Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press. Henrich, J. (2004). Demography and cultural evolution. American Antiquity, 69(2), 197–214. Henrich, J. (2016). The Secret of Our Success. Princeton University Press. Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. (2016). Innovation in the collective brain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 371(1690), 20150192. Powell, A., Shennan, S., & Thomas, M.G. (2009). Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science, 324(5932), 1298–1301. Kline, M.A. & Boyd, R. (2010). Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania. Proc. R. Soc. B, 277(1693), 2559–2564. Vaesen, K., Collard, M., Cosgrove, R., & Roebroeks, W. (2016). Population size does not explain past changes in cultural complexity. PNAS, 113(16), E2241–E2247, and reply, PNAS 113(44), E6726. Kobayashi, Y. & Aoki, K. (2012). Innovativeness, population size and cumulative cultural evolution. Theoretical Population Biology, 82(1), 38–47. Derex, M. & Boyd, R. (2016). Partial connectivity increases cultural accumulation within groups. PNAS, 113(11), 2982–2987. Fay, N., De Kleine, N., Walker, B., & Caldwell, C.A. (2019). Increasing population size can inhibit cumulative cultural evolution. PNAS, 116(14), 6726–6731. Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S., Jarrick, A., & Wachtmeister, C.A. (2008). Why does human culture increase exponentially? Theoretical Population Biology, 74(1), 46–55. Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S., & Eriksson, K. (2011). Modelling the evolution and diversity of cumulative culture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 366(1563), 412–423. Smolla, M. et al. (2021). Underappreciated features of cultural evolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 376(1828), 20200259. Aoki, K., Lehmann, L., & Feldman, M.W. (2011). Rates of cultural change and patterns of cultural accumulation. Theoretical Population Biology, 79(4), 192–202. Rogers, A.R. (1988). Does biology constrain culture? American Anthropologist, 90(4), 819–831. Dittmar, J. (2011). Information technology and economic change: the impact of the printing press. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1133–1172. Buringh, E. & van Zanden, J.L. (2009). Charting the "rise of the West." Journal of Economic History, 69(2), 409–445. Baten, J. & van Zanden, J.L. (2008). Book production and the onset of modern economic growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 13(3), 217–235. Eisenstein, E.L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge University Press. Febvre, L. & Martin, H.-J. (1958/1976). The Coming of the Book. Verso. Johns, A. (1998). The Nature of the Book. University of Chicago Press. Rubin, J. (2014). Printing and Protestants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(2), 270–286. Rogers, E.M. (1962/2003). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press. Ryan, B. & Gross, N.C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24. Comin, D. & Hobijn, B. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2031–2059. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery; (1963) Conjectures and Refutations; (1972) Objective Knowledge. Campbell, D.T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention. Psychological Review, 67(6). Dawkins, R. (1983). Universal Darwinism. In Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Hodgson, G.M. & Knudsen, T. (2008). In defence of generalized Darwinism. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(5). Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press. Alchian, A.A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3). Blume, L. & Easley, D. (2002). Optimality and natural selection in markets. Journal of Economic Theory, 107(1). Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2). Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2). Raymond, E.S. (1997/1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Henrich, J. & Boyd, R. (2002). Five misunderstandings about cultural evolution. Human Nature, 13(3). Vegvari, C. & Foley, R.A. (2014). High selection pressure promotes increase in cumulative adaptive culture. PLoS ONE, 9(1).