What happens when the stories, rituals, and ideas that define a community are told and retold across generations, or shared in seconds online? Culture is more than a collection of customs. It is the living fabric of shared meanings, beliefs, and behaviors that hold societies together. Moreover, like all living systems, it changes. As it moves from person to person, or now from screen to screen, it evolves. Sometimes it grows richer. Sometimes it frays.

Culture is not inherited through our genes but acquired through learning: by observing, listening, speaking, and participating in shared practices. Of course, continuous exposure to family members like parents makes the kids capable of inheriting their parents’ beliefs and behaviors with great fidelity. Richerson and Boyd (2005) define culture as “information capable of affecting individuals’ behavior that they acquire from other members of their species through teaching, imitation, and other forms of social transmission.” In this way, culture can be understood as a system of information which is fluid, adaptive, and responsive to its environment. However, because it depends on human cognition and communication, it is inherently vulnerable to error, distortion, and loss.

Cultural evolution theory holds that culture, much like biology, changes over time through processes of variation, selection, and inheritance. Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) dual-inheritance model emphasizes the interaction between genetic and cultural evolution, treating culture as a distinct yet intertwined system of transmission. Mesoudi (2011) elaborates on this by framing cultural change as Darwinian in nature, shaped by competition among cultural traits for attention and retention. Dawkins’ (1982) concept of “memes” popularized the notion that cultural units such as phrases, songs, stories, symbols, and images undergo replication, mutation, and selection, often in unpredictable ways. While these frameworks help explain how cultural traits spread, persist, or fade, they also point to a deeper reality: cultural transmission is rarely, if ever, exact.

Unlike genetic evolution, which primarily operates through vertical inheritance and reproductive success, cultural evolution is shaped by horizontal transmission across individuals and groups. Culture spreads through mechanisms such as imitation, communication, and social influence, and it is highly sensitive to context, interpretation, and power dynamics. As a result, the evolution of culture may appear less stable, more chaotic, and more susceptible to short-term fluctuations than genetic processes. Social structures, economic incentives, and technological infrastructures can dramatically reshape cultural pathways. A single cultural unit, a “meme” in the Dawkinsian sense, can be adopted rapidly, altering an individual’s social position or visibility almost overnight. These shifts highlight the uniquely volatile and context-dependent nature of cultural evolution in the modern world.

Shannon’s Information Theory and the Problem of Fidelity

Shannon’s information theory provides a useful framework for understanding the limitations of cultural fidelity. In this model, communication involves sending a message from a source to a receiver through a channel, with “noise” referring to any interference that distorts the message along the way (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). In the context of cultural transmission, noise can take the form of forgetfulness, ambiguity, reinterpretation, or bias. Importantly, this noise is not confined to the communication channel itself; it also arises at both the sending and receiving ends. Cultural messages are filtered through the cognitive and contextual frameworks of individuals, making even well-intended transmissions susceptible to distortion. The likelihood of misinterpretation depends on factors such as language, audience, and the nature of the cultural unit. For instance, a dance move, despite being recorded, may still be performed or interpreted differently by various observers, whereas a mathematical equation, codified in formal symbols, tends to retain its structure and meaning across contexts.

A stark example of misinterpretation occurred with the “Blackout Challenge” on TikTok, which encouraged users to briefly restrict their airflow to induce a feeling of euphoria or lightheadedness. Originally circulated with shock value and ambiguity, the challenge was interpreted by some as a harmless stunt. Tragically, several children and adolescents attempted it in dangerous conditions, leading to severe injuries and multiple deaths. In this case, the viral format removed crucial safety warnings, tone, and adult context—transforming what some viewers saw as a fleeting trend into a lethal act. The incident underscores how digital content, especially when stripped of nuance and encountered by vulnerable or misinformed audiences, can mutate into actions with devastating real-world consequences.

Sperber (1996) builds on this by arguing that people do not passively absorb cultural information but actively reconstruct it based on their cognitive schemas and local context. Each iteration of a cultural message is therefore shaped not only by what is transmitted but also by how it is internally processed. Over time, subtle differences in interpretation can accumulate, leading to significant cultural drift. Despite this inherent instability, some cultural narratives, symbols, and practices exhibit remarkable persistence. Their durability may lie in their alignment with deep psychological patterns that resonate across time and cultures. As Peterson (1999) argues in Maps of Meaning, stories endure when they reflect archetypal struggles that map onto the human experience, such as the conflict between order and chaos, suffering and redemption, isolation and transformation.

Transmission Biases and the Cognitive Limits of Learning
Humans do not learn randomly. Cultural evolution research has identified key transmission biases. These are mental shortcuts that guide social learning. These include prestige bias (copying successful or high-status individuals), conformity bias (copying what the majority does), and content bias (favoring emotionally resonant or salient information) (Henrich & McElreath, 2003; Acerbi, 2020). Other documented biases include similarity bias, where learners are more likely to adopt behaviors from individuals who share their social, cultural, or demographic background, and proximity bias, which favors models who are physically or relationally close. These biases evolved as adaptive strategies for learning in uncertain environments.

While these strategies were likely adaptive in ancestral environments, where prestige often correlated with skill, they may be ill-suited to the digital age. Online, prestige is often quantified by metrics such as likes, shares, and follower counts, which may reflect visibility rather than expertise (Acerbi, 2016). This mismatch can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation or vacuous content, as platforms reward attention rather than truth. As Bakshy et al. (2011) show, content that spreads widely is not necessarily more accurate; it’s simply more clickable.

Digital Environments as Cultural Ecosystems

Digital media have introduced a new mode of cultural transmission, one that enables near-perfect replication of content while stripping away much of the context in which it was originally produced. This creates a fundamental paradox. On one hand, a tweet, video, or image can be copied and shared across the globe with no technical degradation. On the other hand, without accompanying cues such as tone of voice, facial expression, or shared cultural knowledge, its meaning becomes highly vulnerable to misinterpretation. This phenomenon, known as “context collapse,” is a defining feature of social media communication (Boyd, 2010). When content circulates widely, it often reaches audiences far removed from the original context, resulting in divergent and sometimes contradictory interpretations.

Compounding this is the rise of remix culture. In digital spaces, cultural content is not only shared but transformed. Memes evolve rapidly as users modify, annotate, and adapt them to new purposes. Shifman (2014) describes this participatory ethos as central to digital culture, where reinterpretation is not an exception but the norm. In this environment, novelty and emotional impact often outweigh fidelity or depth. For instance, a TikTok trend involving people leaping backward onto their beds in playful exaggeration was initially intended as a comedic expression of emotional overwhelm. However, in some regions, the trend was replicated with dangerous variations, including jumping from unsafe heights or onto hard surfaces, leading to injuries and public backlash. In another case, a short clip of a man calmly walking while sipping juice and lip-syncing to Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams” was celebrated for its mood of serenity and everyday joy. But as the trend spread, imitators layered it with ironic captions, aggressive commentary, or branded products, turning a moment of understated authenticity into a vehicle for commercialization or mockery. Both examples demonstrate how the removal of cultural and situational context can drastically reshape the meaning, reception, and consequences of cultural content in digital spaces.

Algorithms add another layer of complexity. By filtering content based on engagement, algorithms act as artificial selection mechanisms. Posts that generate strong reactions are promoted, regardless of their accuracy. This creates feedback loops in which easily digestible, emotionally charged, or sensational content dominates cultural attention (Acerbi, 2020). As a result, the economy of attention becomes warped. Nuance, reflection, and restraint are devalued, while impulsivity, outrage, and absurdity are rewarded. Individuals quickly learn that provocation yields visibility, and visibility confers influence. This transforms cultural evolution into a race toward the most reactive content rather than the most meaningful. In such environments, acts of staged vulnerability, dangerous stunts, misinformation, and performative conflict are not aberrations but predictable adaptations to algorithmic incentives.

The consequences do not remain confined to screens. What is rewarded online often begins to reshape offline behavior. Young people, seeking recognition, imitate viral challenges that risk injury or humiliation. Public discourse erodes as serious topics are reduced to clickbait and moral grandstanding. Digital fame becomes a currency detached from skill or contribution, destabilizing traditional norms of respect, responsibility, and expertise. In some cases, online spectacles trigger real-world chaos—flash mobs formed through viral calls, public harassment justified by doctored clips, or radicalization fueled by misrepresented ideas. Over time, the line between culture and spectacle blurs, and the moral texture of social life begins to degrade. When algorithmic systems dictate what is seen, valued, and remembered, they also shape what is imitated, normalized, and repeated. Culture, once a slow-burning negotiation of meaning across generations, becomes a volatile and unstable reaction to whatever can break through the noise—no matter how shallow, harmful, or absurd.

Conclusion: A New Arena for Cultural Evolution

Culture is a living system of ideas, behaviors, and meanings that evolves as it moves through people and time, shaped by noise, bias, and reinterpretation. Shannon’s information theory reveals the inherent instability of communication, while cultural evolution theory explains how traits persist, mutate, or vanish. In the digital age, these dynamics have intensified. The internet does not merely accelerate cultural transmission—it fundamentally transforms it. With its global reach and algorithmic infrastructure, digital media function both as a preservation tool and a mutation engine, amplifying certain content while distorting or erasing others. The mechanisms of cultural evolution have shifted, now governed as much by platform logic and attention economies as by social learning or tradition. To grasp the trajectory of modern life, we must understand how digital systems are reshaping not just what we share, but how we think, remember, and collectively make meaning. In this new arena, the fate of culture increasingly hinges on what captures attention, not necessarily what deserves to endure.

References

• Acerbi, A. (2016). A cultural evolution approach to digital media. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00636
• Acerbi, A. (2020). Cultural evolution in the digital age. Oxford University Press.
• Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 65–74). https://doi.org/10.1145/1935826.1935845
• Boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
• Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press.
• Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(3), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10110
• Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press.
• Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Routledge.
• Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
• Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press.
• Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell.