The conversation, in brief.
In this episode of the podcast, hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof are joined by anthropologist Cristina Moya from UC Davis to discuss evolutionary social sciences, group boundaries, and the social functions of belief. The conversation explores theoretical differences between evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and cultural evolution. Moya shares insights from her fieldwork in the Peruvian altiplano examining ethnolinguistic boundaries, social status, and psychological essentialism. Later, the speakers examine how seemingly implausible beliefs, such as conspiracy theories or flat earth narratives, can function as bridge-burning tactics and costly signals of loyalty within social coalitions. The discussion also touches upon charisma, coolness, signaling theory, and the value of curiosity-driven basic science.
Through the conversation.
22 sections010:00 – 8:17Introducing Guest Cristina Moya and Evolutionary Perspectives
Hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof introduce anthropologist Cristina Moya from UC Davis, discussing her academic background, her intellectual rigor, and the productive intersections and historical debates between different branches of evolutionary social sciences, such as UCLA cultural evolution and UCSB evolutionary psychology.
Christina Moya is a professor of anthropology at UC Davis
“She's a professor of anthropology at UC Davis” 1:43
David Pinsof notes that Cristina Moya significantly shifted his perspective on cultural evolution
“you're probably one of the people who has like most changed my mind of any person I've talked to” 3:44
028:17 – 12:02Debates on Human Nature, Cooperation, and Mental Priors
The hosts and Cristina Moya discuss enduring theoretical disagreements in the evolutionary behavioral sciences, focusing on differing priors regarding human nature, the architecture of the mind, and the mechanisms that explain large-scale cooperation.
Cristina Moya highlights cooperation and the structure of mental priors as key areas of theoretical divergence
“how strong do those priors that natural selection endowed us with have to be” 9:30
David Pinsof explains that differing views on priors involve how much innate structure the mind brings to development versus learning from inputs
“we come to the world with a rich set of priors about how reality works” 10:39
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss the major theoretical frameworks within evolutionary social sciences, including evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and cultural evolution. They examine how these different traditions approach human cognition, adaptive behavior, social learning, and cultural transmission across academic departments.
human behavioral ecology tends to black box the mind to investigate adaptive phenotypes in response to environments
“that behavioral ecologists tend to black box because they're trained more as biologists” 14:15
the Paris School of Cultural Evolution derives from epidemiology and focuses on cultural representations
“this approach uh is uh uh derives less from population genetics and more from epidemiology” 17:47
Cristina Moya shares her background as an undergraduate at Berkeley piecing together evolutionary social science courses before pursuing graduate studies at UCLA. She describes the vibrant intellectual environment created by faculty members studying human behavior and evolution, which shaped her identity as an evolutionary anthropologist.
Cristina Moya describes her academic identity as an evolutionary anthropologist because it is inclusive
“I usually just say I'm an evolutionary anthropologist because it's like so inclusive” 21:59
Cristina Moya highlights the intellectually stimulating weekly community at UCLA studying human behavior and cognition
“because it was so intellectually stimulating. Like we had weekly, it was a community” 23:28
0524:06 – 30:01Graduate Environment and Fieldwork Realities in Anthropology
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Cristina Moya discuss their shared graduate school experiences at UCLA within evolutionary anthropology and psychology departments. They examine the unspoken difficulties of anthropological fieldwork, environmental challenges, and why studying settings outside the United States is crucial for evolutionary social science.
it was like an amazing faculty to student ratio, right?
“it was like an amazing faculty to student ratio, right?” 24:16
I do think fieldwork is really valuable, and uh I just don't want to do it myself.
“I do think fieldwork is really valuable, and uh I just don't want to do it myself.” 26:42
0630:01 – 36:08Studying Ethnolinguistic Boundaries in the Peruvian Altiplano
Cristina Moya explains how she selected her field site in the Peruvian altiplano to study Quechua and Aymara speakers. The speakers discuss how American ethno-racial taxonomies and migration histories differ profoundly from indigenous agropastoralist settings, offering a cleaner lens into human evolutionary priors regarding symbolic and linguistic group boundaries.
they are speaking totally mutually unintelligible languages, which is also quite interesting.
“they are speaking totally mutually unintelligible languages, which is also quite interesting.” 35:34
like all boundaries are complex, but these have been really studied and they confound a lot of different processes
“all boundaries are complex, but these have been really studied and they confound a lot of different processes” 33:42
0736:08 – 43:52Sources of Social Boundaries and Intergroup Conflict
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss the social and power dynamics of indigenous communities in Peru, contrasting them with familiar Western political and class divisions. They examine how land conflicts, economic inequality, and cultural or linguistic differences shape intergroup relations and whether ethno-linguistic boundaries directly drive animosity.
where I work there isn't that much intergroup hostility, which is also quite nice.
“where I work there isn't that much intergroup hostility, which is also quite nice” 38:26
that those are really the drivers of conflicts, not ethnolinguistic differences per se.
“that those are really the drivers of conflicts, not ethnolinguistic differences per se” 41:55
0843:52 – 48:14Geographic Distribution and Maintenance of Linguistic Boundaries
The speakers explore the geographic distribution of Quechua and Aymara speakers in rural communities, towns, and larger urban centers. They discuss how everyday interactions, intermarriage, and urban migration influence language use, and consider why cultural boundaries persist despite ongoing contact.
people don't interact. I think that there's reason to be skeptical that generally that's the only process
“People don't interact. I think that there's reason to be skeptical that generally that's the only process” 47:00
0948:14 – 53:34Language Learning, Social Cues, and Group Boundaries
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and Cristina Moya discuss language acquisition, pidgins and creoles, social motivations for second-language learning, and how group membership is linguistically and politically signaled through practices rather than fixed identities.
Local terms like quechuista denote a practice or potentially temporary identity rather than fixed ancestry.
“Which to me denotes kind of like a a practice, like a maybe potentially like temporary identity.” 51:36
Cristina Moya defines essentialism, drawing parallels to biological reasoning about species, and reviews cross-cultural research and meta-analyses showing high variability in whether adults view social and ethnolinguistic identities as fixed at birth.
Children tend to show essentialist reasoning in baby-swapping thought experiments, but adult views are highly variable cross-culturally.
“Like um that some people it depends on the identity, it depends on where you're doing the study.” 56:05
Host Dave Pietraszewski, host David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss how social categories and psychological essentialism relate to power, class, and status. They explore whether group boundaries are maintained more rigidly by higher-status individuals and examine how people represent social categories and coalitions.
higher caste individuals are more rigid about that boundary
“higher caste individuals are more rigid about that boundary” 1:00:21
essentialism is sort of higher or lower, meaning that if if you can't become the higher class thing, then you will represent that these social categories are quote unquote more essentialized
“essentialism is sort of higher or lower, meaning that if if you can't become the higher class thing, then you will” 1:01:28
The speakers discuss hypotheses regarding whether skin color or behavioral markers serve as cues for alliance membership and loyalty detection. Guest Cristina Moya introduces ethnographic work from Madagascar by Rita Astudi, which complicates simple assumptions about physical markers, essentialism, and group membership across different cultures.
could it be that when a group boundary is politicized or becomes a marker of rival conflicting alliances, that that marker becomes more essentialized so long as the marker is still present?
“could it be that when a group boundary is politicized or becomes a marker of rival conflicting alliances, that that marker” 1:02:44
they have, at least by adulthood, they have this notion that you are Veso, that that ethnic category, if you do the Veso things
“they have, at least by adulthood, they have this notion that you are Veso, that that” 1:08:32
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss how beliefs like flat earth theories can function as bridge-burning tactics and social signals that signal loyalty to an extremist group or subculture while alienating outsiders. They explore whether such implausible beliefs affect everyday material interactions and why evolutionary approaches help clarify these social dynamics.
beliefs themselves can be bridge burning tactics. Right. So if I voice support for a particular narrative or myth in my culture
“beliefs themselves can be bridge burning tactics” 1:15:52
a really, you know, uh flagrantly nonsensical conspiracy theory can can can can be a signal of loyalty to uh the the extremist group
“flagrantly nonsensical conspiracy theory can can can can be a signal of loyalty” 1:16:19
The speakers examine how taking an evolutionary approach helps ground the amorphous nature of group dynamics by focusing on practical organismal needs and coordination rather than underspecified categorization literature. They also reflect on documentaries about flat earthers, noting that such subcultural beliefs primarily serve social and community functions rather than arising from rigorous intellectual investigation.
taking evolutionary approach is helpful, right? Because it it grounds like sort of and Christina like one of the things I love about your work is that we we are taking this thing groups that's so amorphous
“taking evolutionary approach is helpful, right? Because it it grounds” 1:20:05
the beliefs are are social signals. Um that that these people get a sense of community from being part of the Flat Earth society
“the beliefs are are social signals. Um that that these people get a sense of community” 1:23:03
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss how people process vast amounts of complex information, noting that scientific facts like a round earth or quantum mechanics are highly counterintuitive. They explore how accepting such beliefs relies on trust in experts or social groups rather than personal verification, connecting cultural evolution and cognitive psychology.
we shouldn't la laugh at fat earthers because we're all flat earthers about some things
“we shouldn't la laugh at fat earthers because we're all flat earthers about some things” 1:25:06
the idea that the earth is round is kind of counterintuitive
“the idea that the earth is round is kind of counterintuitive” 1:26:54
The speakers examine why people adopt seemingly extreme or outrageous beliefs, such as conspiracy theories or novel religious sightings in the Peruvian altiplano. Cristina Moya and David Pinsof discuss how low-prior, highly diagnostic beliefs can signal social identity, group boundaries, and trust within a community.
the outrageous ideas are much more diagnostic of a social interaction
“The outrageous ideas are much more diagnostic of a social interaction.” 1:29:12
belief itself can become a cue of loyalty and trust to a group
“belief itself can become a cue of loyalty and trust to a group” 1:33:17
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Cristina Moya discuss whether expressing unusual or wacky beliefs can be used strategically as an entrepreneurial leadership tactic. They compare this to early technology adoption, noting that higher-status individuals can better afford reputational risks. The conversation then transitions to defining charisma, with David Pinsof proposing that it involves successfully sending concealed or paradoxical social signals, such as virtue signaling without appearing to do so.
Literature on early adoption suggests that higher-status individuals are typically the ones doing the adopting.
“it is overwhelmingly that literature suggests um kind of higher status individuals who are um the ones doing the early adoption.” 1:38:39
Charisma can be defined as the ability to successfully send concealed or paradoxical social signals.
“And so I think what charisma is, is the ability to send these kinds of concealed signals.” 1:41:54
The hosts and guest explore whether concepts like being "cool" differ from charisma, discussing how individuals signal status and coalition value. They consider whether coolness relates more to general respect and perceived genius or to social attractiveness, and how others assess these traits to decide whom to learn from or join in a coalition.
Coolness can be understood as a combination of charisma and general status.
“I feel like coolness is like part charisma and part just like status in general.” 1:47:35
Guest Cristina Moya discusses her academic journey from a history major to biological anthropology, inspired by an undergraduate instructor who critically engaged with the field's history. The hosts and Moya explore the role of curiosity-driven basic science, the challenges of translating evolutionary frameworks into real-world policy, and the importance of ethnographic perspectives in avoiding the pitfalls of top-down interventions.
Moya describes taking an introductory biological anthropology course from Jonathan Marks, which hooked her into the field despite its sorted history
“taking my intro-bioanthro class from Jonathan Marks. Um, and he is uh a well-respected biological anthropologist” 1:50:31
Moya notes that she approaches her research primarily from a basic science perspective motivated by curiosity
“I very much come to this from a basic science perspective and I'm just motivated by curiosity.” 1:54:42
The conversation returns to signaling theory and game theory, referencing research by Moshe Hoffman and Aries Yoeli on buried signals and hidden games. The hosts and guest wind down the discussion, highlighting recommended reading and thanking listeners for supporting the podcast.
The participants discuss a paper by Moshe Hoffman and Aries Yoeli on the game theory of buried signaling
“a very cool paper by um Moshe Hoffman and Aries Yoeli about the game theory of buried signaling.” 1:58:48
David Pinsof and Dave Pietraszewski conclude the episode by thanking the guest and reminding listeners to support the show
“thank you so much, Christina. I really uh love this conversation.” 1:59:17
Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof humorously discuss how audience growth can be compared to exponential reproduction and natural selection, joking that sharing the podcast with others could help them take over the world, blending evolutionary concepts with playful banter about pyramid schemes and listener numbers.
The hosts jokingly compare listener growth to natural selection and reproduction.
“So maybe we could take over the world if if if all of you tell someone” 2:00:37
As the episode comes to a close, hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof exchange casual sign-off remarks, confirming plans to see each other shortly after recording and scheduling their return for the following week's conversation while saying their final goodbyes.
The hosts conclude the episode and schedule their next meeting.
“Uh we'll see you guys uh next week and David.” 2:00:54