A tale of two processes: On Joseph Henrich’s the secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution,domesticating our species,and making us smarter

We situate Henrich’s book in the larger research tradition of which it is a part and show how he presents a wide array of recent psychological, physiological, and neurological data as supporting the view that two related but distinct processes have shaped human nature and made us unique: cumulative cultural evolution and culture-driven genetic evolution. We briefly sketch out several ways philosophers might fruitfully engage with this view and note some implications it may have for current philosophic debates in moral and political theory and over the nature of extended cognition. We end by noting how Henrich’s view of the source of cultural design and innovation, and the prominence of place he gives to the extended process of cultural evolution, cuts against a cluster of broad but common views about human minds, recasting putative bugs as features and indicating that many of the distinctive features of our individual minds evolved to allow them to be effective cogs in the larger, more productive cultural machine.     

Is it possible to experimentally determine the extension of cognition?

Various analytical tools originally developed for theories of mechanistic explanation have recently been imported into the ongoing debate on the hypothesis of (extracerebrally) extended cognition (HEC). One such tool that appears particularly relevant to that debate is Craver’s mutual manipulability account of constitution (MM), most of all because it promises to settle the debate on experimental grounds. This paper investigates whether it is possible to deliver on that promise. We first find that, far from grounding an experimental evaluation of HEC, MM is conceptually incompatible with both internalist and externalist accounts of cognition. Next, we propose a suitable modification of MM, MM*, but it turns out that MM* presupposes rather than produces clarity on the extension of cognition. Moreover, subject to MM* the inference to constitution is radically empirically underdetermined. Finally, we argue that our results can be generalized and conclude that, for principled reasons, it is impossible to experimentally determine whether cognitive processes have extracerebral constituents. Determining the extension of cognition is an inherently pragmatic matter.     

Does impaired socioemotional functioning account for behavioral dysexecutive disorders? Evidence from a transnosological study

Behavioral dysexecutive disorders are highly prevalent in patients with neurological diseases but cannot be explained by cognitive dysexecutive impairments. In fact, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Given that socioemotional functioning underlies appropriate behavior, socioemotional impairments may contribute to the appearance of behavioral disorders. To investigate this issue, we performed a transnosological study.

Seventy-five patients suffering from various neurological diseases (Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and stroke) were included in the study. The patients were comprehensively assessed in terms of cognitive and behavioral dysexecutive disorders and socioemotional processes (facial emotion recognition and theory of mind). As was seen for cognitive and behavioral dysexecutive impairments, the prevalence of socioemotional impairments varied according to the diagnosis. Stepwise logistic regressions showed that (i) only cognitive executive indices predicted hypoactivity with apathy/abulia, (ii) theory of mind impairments predicted hyperactivity–distractibility–impulsivity and stereotyped/perseverative behaviors, and (iii) impaired facial emotion recognition predicted social behavior disorders. Several dysexecutive behavioral disorders are associated with an underlying impairment in socioemotional processes but not with cognitive indices of executive functioning (except for apathy). These results strongly suggest that some dysexecutive behavioral disorders are the outward signs of an underlying impairment in socioemotional processes.