After showing the semiotic and social nature of cultural sciences, this paper addresses the efforts to naturalize them following the so-called “Universal Darwinism”. This being settled, three initiatives of different depth and scope are analyzed. First, the proposal displayed by Mesoudi, Whiten, and Laland for the unification of the cultural sciences in parallel with the unification of biological sciences on the basis of the principles of variation, inheritance, and selection. Second, memetics as a theory of cultural selection with memes as (...) its basic units and imitation as the process of cultural transmission. Third, Hodgson’s and Knudsen’s program for an evolutionary economics brought forth by the interpretation of an abstract Darwinian ontology in terms of economic theory. The conclusion drawn is that the issue is still to a good extent open to ongoing research. (shrink)

Specific features of our evolved cognitive architecture explain why some aspects of the economy are “seen” and others are “not seen.” Drawing from the commentaries of economists, psychologists, and other social scientists on our original proposal, we propose a more precise model of the acquisition and spread of folk-beliefs about the economy. In particular, we try to provide a clearer delimitation of the field of folk-economic beliefs and to dispel possible misunderstandings of the role of variation in evolutionary psychology. We (...) also comment on the difficulty of explaining folk-economic beliefs in terms of domain-general processes or biases, as developmental studies show how encounters with specific environments calibrate domain-specific systems. We offer a more detailed description of the connections between economic beliefs and political psychology and of the probable causes of individual variation in that domain. Taken together, these arguments point to a better integration or consilience between economics and human evolution. (shrink)