Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Neutral models are a tool, not a syndrome

Nature Human Behaviour volume 5, pages 807–808 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — Recently in this journal, neutral models in cultural evolution were described as a ‘syndrome’1. Though a rich review, the Perspective mischaracterizes their purpose and rationale and overlooks new tools specifically developed for cultural and behavioural data.

Two decades ago, neutral models provided—as an alternative to Homo economicus—a set of expectations at the other end of a spectrum from rational choice. As Leroi et al.1 point out, random-copying models have existed for a century, and we would add that models of random choice3 and neutral copying4 in human decision making date back to the 1950s. Modifying the Yule process, Herbert Simon (ref. 37 in Leroi et al.) proposed a neutral model for word usage—yielding Zipf’s Law for word frequencies—in which the probability a word is used is proportional to its current frequency minus a small probability that a random, hitherto-unused word will be used. Over the years, however, the dynamics of these processes have been overlooked in a focus on static distributions, as observed in the turnover in ranked popularity lists5,6,7,8,9,10,11, for example. By side stepping such work of the past decade12, Leroi et al. set the neutral model up as ‘weak’, recapitulating well-worn discussions of evolutionary processes that produce such static distributions. In actuality, neutral models generate many predictions besides power-law distributions—just one incidental and insufficient form of evidence—including rich temporal dynamics and a range of distributional forms intended to be compared directly to the data6,7,8,9,10. Such comparisons to data have recently used Bayesian computation for parameter estimation10,12. With neutrality as a base case for many models, variations have introduced biases to copying, such as (anti-)conformity, different network configurations, memory, and isolation by distance8,12,13.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The neutrality hypothesis is non-monolithic.

References

  1. Leroi, A. M., Lambert, B., Rosindell, J., Zhang, X. & Kokkoris, G. D. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 780–790 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bentley, R. A., O’Brien, M. J. & Brock, W. A. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 63–119 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ehrenberg, A. S. C. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. C 8, 26–41 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Simon, H. A. Quar. J. Econ. 69, 99–118 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iñiguez, G., Pineda, C., Gershenson, C. & Barabási, A.-L. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13439v1 (2021).

  6. Youngblood, M. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 191149 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Acerbi, A. & Bentley, R. A. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 228–236 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gleeson, J. P., Cellai, D., Onnela, J.-P., Porter, M. A. & Reed-Tsochas, F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10411–10415 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ruck, D., Bentley, R. A., Acerbi, A., Garnett, P. & Hruschka, D. J. Adv. Complex Sys. 20, 1750012 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carrignon, S., Bentley, R. A. & Ruck, D. Palgrave Comm. 5, 83 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans, T. S. & Giometto, A. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4044 (2011).

  12. Kandler, A. & Crema, E. R. in Handbook of Evolutionary Research in Archaeology (ed. Prentiss, A. M.) 83–108 (Springer, 2019).

  13. Bentley, R. A., Caiado, C. C. S. & Ormerod, P. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 257–263 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hahn, M. W. & Bentley, R. A. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, S120–S123 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Griffiths, T. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3825–3826 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

    R. Alexander Bentley & Damian J. Ruck

  2. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK

    Simon Carrignon

  3. Advai Ltd, London, UK

    Damian J. Ruck

  4. Institut de Biologia Evolutiva, Consejo Superior Investigaciones Cientificas - Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Sergi Valverde

  5. Office of the Provost, Texas A&M University–San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Michael J. O’Brien

  6. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Michael J. O’Brien

Authors
  1. R. Alexander Bentley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Carrignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Damian J. Ruck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergi Valverde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael J. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Alexander Bentley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bentley, R.A., Carrignon, S., Ruck, D.J. et al. Neutral models are a tool, not a syndrome. Nat Hum Behav 5, 807–808 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01149-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01149-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing