Unequal capacities for subjective selection

Singh rightly observes that individuals evaluate cultural variants through the same cognitive processes that guide goal-directed behavior. Yet not all individuals have equal power to shape which variants persist. Some possess greater power, communicative reach, or credibility (Cialdini & Goldstein, Reference Cialdini and Goldstein2004; French & Raven, Reference French, Raven and Cartwright1959). Their preferences are more likely to become institutionalized. Subjective selection is thus filtered through social asymmetries that determine whose evaluations are promoted and retained.

This raises a question about the nature of subjectivity. The motivation to affiliate with influential others may be part of the subjective selection Singh describes. Yet is subjectivity necessarily endogenous, rooted in internal evaluation, or can it be exogenously shaped? If my sense of appeal is overridden by others’ approval or cues from the powerful, is my preference still “subjective”? If so, the boundary between subjective and social selection blurs. Subjective selection is often mediated by social feedback, as perceptions of utility are continually recalibrated by others’ reactions and expectations (Bénabou & Tirole, Reference Bénabou and Tirole2006; Fehr & Schmidt, Reference Fehr and Schmidt1999). People’s evaluations are socially contingent: what seems valuable depends on others’ success, available alternatives, and hierarchies. Individuals attend to the behavior and outcomes of high-status models when judging what is desirable (Henrich & Gil-White, Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001). Consequently, subjective appeal is never purely subjective but relational and conditional. This tendency may itself reflect evolved adaptations for recognizing and deferring to individuals with greater knowledge or expertise (Hagen, Garfield, & Lightner, Reference Hagen, Garfield and Lightner2025).

The social filtering of cultural variation

If subjective appeal is socially structured, then so is the persistence of cultural variants. Storytellers, ritual specialists, and leaders often control the channels through which variation is introduced and reproduced (Garfield & Lew-Levy, Reference Garfield and Lew-Levy2024; Henrich & Gil-White, Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001). Cultural convergence thus depends not only on shared psychology but also on the opportunity to innovate and the platform to communicate. In oral traditions, stories persist only as long as they are told, and the ability to tell them depends on social position, memory, and audience. Many community members may hold different versions of a tale, each reflecting idiosyncratic goals, yet only a subset – often the skilled, charismatic, or institutionally sanctioned – shape the canonical form that enters collective memory.

Linguistic change offers another example. Innovations are rarely distributed evenly through a population but emerge and stabilize through the speech of socially influential individuals. Classic studies by Labov (Reference Labov1973) and Milroy (Reference Milroy1980), and computational models of lexical diffusion on social media (Eisenstein et al., Reference Eisenstein, O’Connor, Smith and Xing2014), show that people with prestige or wide bridging ties disproportionately shape language change. This process of prestige borrowing demonstrates how subjective evaluations and perceived utility are filtered through social hierarchy, as others adopt the speech patterns of the influential to signal affiliation or upward mobility.

Perception, transmission, and hierarchy

In discussing adaptiveness, Singh argues that what matters is whether people perceive a tradition to be useful – a challenge to adaptationist reasoning. Still, I suspect perception alone cannot sustain traditions. For subjective selection to influence the cultural manifold, perceptions must be communicated and accepted. Individuals without access to social information or institutional support may perceive a variant as useful but remain unable to translate that perception into collective behavior. Conversely, powerful actors can diffuse individually maladaptive values through their control of communication and enforcement (Paige & Paige, Reference Paige and Paige1981). The emergence of super-attractors reflects both convergence in psychological goals and unequal capacities for expression and retention.

Singh briefly acknowledges that power differentials shape the evolution and stability of institutions. I see this as a starting point for broadening the framework. Hierarchy is an essential feature of human social life (Boehm, Reference Boehm1993; Redhead, Reference Redhead2024; von Rueden, Durkee, & Garfield, Reference von Rueden, Durkee and Garfield2025). Our species’ dependence on cooperative networks means that individuals rarely act as isolated actors (Syme & Balliet, Reference Syme and Balliet2025). Instead, goal pursuit and evaluation occur within webs of obligation and deference. Many individuals adopt variants not because they find them compelling but because influential others define them as such. Leaders, elders, or religious specialists may shape what counts as instrumentally valuable, aligning followers’ evaluations with institutional norms (Garfield, Hubbard, & Hagen, Reference Garfield, Hubbard and Hagen2018; Hagen et al., Reference Hagen, Garfield and Lightner2025). Even when followers internalize those evaluations, the process begins with asymmetrical power.

Emphasizing that subjectivity is socially conditional strengthens Singh’s argument. It situates subjective selection within an unequal social ecology of influence. Cultural traditions converge not only because humans share motivational architectures but because some individuals consistently occupy positions from which their preferences become disproportionately influential. Accounting for these asymmetries connects subjective selection with findings in leadership, prestige bias, and cumulative culture. In small-scale societies, leaders and skilled specialists routinely guide communal decisions (Garfield, von Rueden, & Hagen, Reference Garfield, von Rueden and Hagen2019; von Rueden & van Vugt, Reference von Rueden and van Vugt2015). Their evaluations, filtered through reputation, reciprocity, and institutions, become focal points around which collective traditions stabilize. Similarly, in large-scale societies, elites, media figures, and corporations structure collective attention, shaping which cultural variants are amplified and ultimately attain super-attractor status (al-Gharbi, Reference al-Gharbi2024).