Sargam Choudhury

12/19/2022

AN321 Cognition & Culture

Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World is a collection of theories and

evidence that suggest a novel way to view the psychological differences between societies all

over the world. Specifically, Henrich states that social changes in Europe allowed for the

evolution of modern societies, and with time, these modern societies have given rise to a set of

psychologically particular traits that have never been heard of before, going beyond genetic

transmission of traits. He deemed these modern societies to be Western, Educated, Industrialized,

Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. One of his central arguments is that WEIRD societies

are outliers in a number of ways, including their cognitive and social behavior, and that this has

important implications for how we understand human nature and the development of culture.

Henrich's argument is supported by a wealth of evidence from a range of sources. He is careful to

acknowledge the limitations of his evidence and to qualify his claims accordingly. However,

there are some gaps in his argument, particularly with regard to the lack of a clear theoretical

framework and the potential influence of other cultures.

One of the strengths of Henrich’s argument is the use of evidence from a wide range of

sources, including psychological experiments, anthropological fieldwork, and cross-cultural

surveys. This allows him to draw on a diverse array of data to support his claims about the

distinctive features of WEIRD societies. For example, he uses experiments on individual

decision-making to demonstrate that WEIRD individuals are more likely to rely on abstract

reasoning and logical consistency than people from other cultures, just like the Ultimatum Game,
which is a classic economic game that is used to study how people make decisions about sharing

resources. In WEIRD societies, people tend to make offers that are closer to a 50-50 split, while

in non-WEIRD societies, people tend to make much smaller offers. Henrich argues that this

difference reflects deeper cultural differences in how people view fairness and cooperation.

The overarching argument that Henrich makes is that these cultural differences come

from cultural evolution and are not genetically transmissible, which is something that Nicole

Creanza (2016) argues in her article, “Cultural Evolutionary Theory: How culture evolves and

why it matters”. Essentially, culture can evolve through a process of selection, where certain

cultural traits are passed down from one generation to the next because they provide some sort of

advantage to the individuals or groups who possess them. This process can lead to the emergence

of new cultural practices and norms, as well as the spread of existing ones. Creanza states that

culture can shape the evolution of human societies in ways that are not necessarily tied to

genetics, contrary to traditional evolutionary theory, which is extremely similar to the main point

that Henrich makes throughout the book. This is also similar to the idea that Alex Mesoudi

(2015) presents in his essay, “Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theories, Findings, and

Controversies,” which is how cultural evolution can shape the psychological and social

characteristics of a population. Mesoudi highlights the role of cultural transmission mechanisms,

such as imitation, education, and social learning, in the transmission of cultural traits and how

these mechanisms can vary across societies. Essentially, both Mesoudi and Henrich argue that

variations between cultural transmission patterns is what allows societies to be shaped so

differently from one another.

 Henrich also cites anthropological research on kin relationships and social norms to show

that WEIRD societies are more individualistic and less collectivist than many other cultures. An

example would be the Kinship Intensity Index produced with data from Ethnographic Atlas

regarding cousin marriage, nuclear families, bilateral inheritance, neolocal residence,

monogamous marriage, and endogamy. All the data is used to put together a picture of traditional

kin-based institutions. Additionally, Henrich is careful to acknowledge the limitations of his

evidence and to qualify his claims accordingly. For example, he notes that the experiments he

cites are not necessarily representative of all WEIRD societies, and that they may not generalize

to other cultures. This shows that Henrich is aware of the potential gaps in his evidence and is

careful not to overstate his case.

However, there are some limitations to Henrich's argument that are worth considering.

One of the most significant is the lack of a clear theoretical framework to guide his interpretation

of the data. While Henrich identifies a number of associations between WEIRD societies and

certain cognitive and social behaviors, he does not provide a clear explanation for why these

associations exist. For example, choosing cousin marriages as a factor of comparison to kinship

intensity may have been too outdated; of course, cousin marriages must still exist in parts of the

world and it is highly doubtful that they’ve been eradicated, but using a factor like bilateral

inheritance may have been more relevant. These seemingly random associations make it difficult

to evaluate the validity of his claims and to determine whether there may be alternative

interpretations for the patterns he observes. For example, Henrich argues that WEIRD societies

are more individualistic and less collectivist than other cultures. However, he does not provide a

compelling explanation for why this might be the case. One possible alternative interpretation is

that WEIRD societies are simply more technologically advanced and economically developed
than other cultures, and that this has led to a greater emphasis on individual achievement and

success. This would suggest that the individualistic tendencies of WEIRD societies are a product

of their particular historical and economic circumstances, rather than a reflection of some

inherent cultural difference. In Rachel L. Kendal’s (2019) “Explaining Human Technology,” she

argues that the development of human technology is not solely driven by individual cognitive

abilities, but is also influenced by social and cultural factors, which contrasts this weakness in

Henrich’s argument. Kendal’s argument highlights the limitation of Henrich’s approach; by

focusing solely on individual cognition, Henrich’s argument ignores the social and cultural

factors that also play a role in the development and spread of technology. For example, the

collective brain of the Inuit, which relies on shared knowledge and social learning, could not be

explained solely by the cognitive abilities of individual Inuit hunters. Similarly, the spread of

innovations such as the plow and the wheel was likely influenced by social networks and cultural

norms, rather than just the cognitive abilities of individual inventors.

Another potential gap in Henrich's argument is the lack of attention to the ways in which

WEIRD societies may be influenced by other cultures. While he acknowledges that WEIRD

individuals are exposed to a wide range of cultural influences, he does not explore the extent to

which these influences may shape their behavior and beliefs. However, this assumption ignores

the fact that Western culture is just one of many cultures around the world, and it is not

necessarily the most representative or accurate representation of human behavior. Furthermore,

Henrich's argument is weakened by his lack of attention to the diversity within Western culture

itself. He states that “Westerners have long been the outliers in terms of their psychological

makeup and social norms”, but fails to acknowledge the significant differences between different

Western societies and individuals within these societies (p. 4). This lack of nuance and
complexity undermines the validity of his argument and reinforces the idea that this

quintessential Western culture is the only standard for measuring human behavior. This is an

important omission, as it suggests that WEIRD societies may be less unique and distinct than

Henrich suggests. For example, if WEIRD individuals are influenced by other cultures through

globalization, then their cognitive and social behavior may not be as unusual as Henrich claims.

It may be that because of this, many societies are in limbo in terms of how WEIRD they are

because they might still hold onto strong kinship ties, but also have these unique characteristics

in common with WEIRD societies.

Overall, Henrich's argument in "The WEIRDest People in the World" presents a

thought-provoking and well-supported case for the role of cultural evolution in shaping human

behavior and cognition. However, it is not without its weaknesses. While he presents a

compelling case for the importance of considering cultural context when studying human

behavior, there are limitations to his research and his argument could be more clearly explained.

Despite these limitations, his use of a wide range of evidence and his contextualization of his

findings within the broader literature on cultural evolution make Henrich's work an important

contribution to the study of human behavior, and his argument is likely to have significant

implications for future research in this field.

 References

Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Cultural Evolutionary Theory: How culture

evolves and why it matters. PNAS, 114(30), 7782-7789.

Henrich, J. (2021). The WEIRDest People In The World: How the West Became Psychologically

Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. Picador.

Kendal, R. L. (2019). Explaining human technology. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 422-423.

Messoudi, A. (2016). Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theories, Findings, and Controversies.

Evolutionary Biology, 43, 481-497.