Institut Jean Nicod, Département d'Etudes Cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL Research University, 75005 Paris, France.
Behav Brain Sci. 2019 Nov 20;42:e214. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X19001183.
I am grateful to have received so many stimulating commentaries from interested colleagues regarding the psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution and the role of evolutionary theory in understanding historical phenomena. Commentators criticized, extended, and explored the implications of the perspective I presented, and I wholeheartedly agree with many commentaries that more work is needed. In this response, I thus focus on what is needed to further test the psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution. Specifically, I argue, in agreement with many commentators, that we need: (1) better data about standards of living, psychological preferences, and innovation rates (sect. R1); (2) better models to understand the role of resources (and not just mortality) in driving cultural evolution and the multiple aspects of the behavioral constellation of affluence (sect. R2); and (3) better predictions and better statistical instruments to disentangle the possible mechanisms behind the rise of innovativeness (genetic selection, rational choice, and phenotypic plasticity) (sect. R3).
我非常感谢感兴趣的同事们对工业革命的心理起源和进化理论在理解历史现象中的作用提出了许多富有启发性的评论。评论员们对我提出的观点进行了批评、扩展和探讨，我完全同意许多评论者的观点，即还需要做更多的工作。在本回应中，我因此重点讨论了进一步检验工业革命心理起源所需的条件。具体而言，我认为（与许多评论者一致），我们需要：（1）关于生活水平、心理偏好和创新率的更好数据（R1 节）；（2）更好的模型来理解资源（不仅仅是死亡率）在推动文化进化和富裕行为组合的多个方面所起的作用（R2 节）；（3）更好的预测和更好的统计工具来厘清创新能力提升背后的可能机制（遗传选择、理性选择和表型可塑性）（R3 节）。
