Artifacts as patches

The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories

Steven L Kuhn, D. Shane Miller

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

North American researchers interested in explaining technological variation and change as a consequence of adaptive problem solving have gravitated toward two conceptual approaches: what is broadly termed, following Nelson ’s (1991) terminology, the study of “Technological Organization” (TO); and Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE). Although they have somewhat dif erent intellectual foundations, the study of technological organization and human behavioral ecology actually share many fundamental goals and presuppositions. Both seek to understand human behavior in terms of economic constraints and payoffs, costs and benefits. Both assume that behavioral alternatives that are closer to optimal will tend to become more common over time, holding conditions constant (all other things being equal). Both focus on energy or time as key currencies in understanding technological behavior. Both assume that variation in technological behavior is not directly subject to natural selection but reflects flexibility in the human behavioral phenotype. HBE goes a step further, assuming that the cognitive apparatus that governs decision making and variation in the behavioral phenotype is under selection, and that selection favors cognitive mechanisms that more effectively arrive at optimal solutions (see Shennan 2008), a proposition also known as the phenotypic gambit (Grafen 1984; Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33). TO is silent on this matter: it assumes economic rationality but does not inquire as to its origins. Both have addressed questions of artifact design and technological investment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationLithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages172-197
Number of pages26
ISBN (Print)9781139207775, 9781107026469
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

ecology
artifact
organization
history
Values
currency
technical language
rationality
economics
flexibility
energy
decision making
costs
History
Marginal Value Theorem
Artifact
Stone Tools
Human Behavioral Ecology
Technological Organization
time

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Kuhn, S. L., & Miller, D. S. (2015). Artifacts as patches: The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory (pp. 172-197). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014

Artifacts as patches : The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories. / Kuhn, Steven L; Miller, D. Shane.

Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 172-197.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Kuhn, SL & Miller, DS 2015, Artifacts as patches: The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories. in Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 172-197. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014
Kuhn SL, Miller DS. Artifacts as patches: The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. 172-197 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014
Kuhn, Steven L ; Miller, D. Shane. / Artifacts as patches : The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories. Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2015. pp. 172-197
@inbook{c6a7eb6285114b2bb9f76e17927efbec,
title = "Artifacts as patches: The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories",
abstract = "North American researchers interested in explaining technological variation and change as a consequence of adaptive problem solving have gravitated toward two conceptual approaches: what is broadly termed, following Nelson ’s (1991) terminology, the study of “Technological Organization” (TO); and Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE). Although they have somewhat dif erent intellectual foundations, the study of technological organization and human behavioral ecology actually share many fundamental goals and presuppositions. Both seek to understand human behavior in terms of economic constraints and payoffs, costs and benefits. Both assume that behavioral alternatives that are closer to optimal will tend to become more common over time, holding conditions constant (all other things being equal). Both focus on energy or time as key currencies in understanding technological behavior. Both assume that variation in technological behavior is not directly subject to natural selection but reflects flexibility in the human behavioral phenotype. HBE goes a step further, assuming that the cognitive apparatus that governs decision making and variation in the behavioral phenotype is under selection, and that selection favors cognitive mechanisms that more effectively arrive at optimal solutions (see Shennan 2008), a proposition also known as the phenotypic gambit (Grafen 1984; Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33). TO is silent on this matter: it assumes economic rationality but does not inquire as to its origins. Both have addressed questions of artifact design and technological investment.",
author = "Kuhn, {Steven L} and Miller, {D. Shane}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781139207775",
pages = "172--197",
booktitle = "Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Artifacts as patches

T2 - The marginal value theorem and stone tool lifeh histories

AU - Kuhn, Steven L

AU - Miller, D. Shane

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - North American researchers interested in explaining technological variation and change as a consequence of adaptive problem solving have gravitated toward two conceptual approaches: what is broadly termed, following Nelson ’s (1991) terminology, the study of “Technological Organization” (TO); and Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE). Although they have somewhat dif erent intellectual foundations, the study of technological organization and human behavioral ecology actually share many fundamental goals and presuppositions. Both seek to understand human behavior in terms of economic constraints and payoffs, costs and benefits. Both assume that behavioral alternatives that are closer to optimal will tend to become more common over time, holding conditions constant (all other things being equal). Both focus on energy or time as key currencies in understanding technological behavior. Both assume that variation in technological behavior is not directly subject to natural selection but reflects flexibility in the human behavioral phenotype. HBE goes a step further, assuming that the cognitive apparatus that governs decision making and variation in the behavioral phenotype is under selection, and that selection favors cognitive mechanisms that more effectively arrive at optimal solutions (see Shennan 2008), a proposition also known as the phenotypic gambit (Grafen 1984; Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33). TO is silent on this matter: it assumes economic rationality but does not inquire as to its origins. Both have addressed questions of artifact design and technological investment.

AB - North American researchers interested in explaining technological variation and change as a consequence of adaptive problem solving have gravitated toward two conceptual approaches: what is broadly termed, following Nelson ’s (1991) terminology, the study of “Technological Organization” (TO); and Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE). Although they have somewhat dif erent intellectual foundations, the study of technological organization and human behavioral ecology actually share many fundamental goals and presuppositions. Both seek to understand human behavior in terms of economic constraints and payoffs, costs and benefits. Both assume that behavioral alternatives that are closer to optimal will tend to become more common over time, holding conditions constant (all other things being equal). Both focus on energy or time as key currencies in understanding technological behavior. Both assume that variation in technological behavior is not directly subject to natural selection but reflects flexibility in the human behavioral phenotype. HBE goes a step further, assuming that the cognitive apparatus that governs decision making and variation in the behavioral phenotype is under selection, and that selection favors cognitive mechanisms that more effectively arrive at optimal solutions (see Shennan 2008), a proposition also known as the phenotypic gambit (Grafen 1984; Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33). TO is silent on this matter: it assumes economic rationality but does not inquire as to its origins. Both have addressed questions of artifact design and technological investment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930967278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930967278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139207775.014

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781139207775

SN - 9781107026469

SP - 172

EP - 197

BT - Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -