In philosophy there has been during thousands of years a real problem with how to define/express/understand nature, if it exists “in real” or “only as a mental construction (and many versions of such an expression, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms#Aristotelian_criticism). As I see it, first when Karl Popper formulate his “Three world” approach/model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds it began to be easier to concrete distinguish between evolution of nature and culture
(NB, I do not refer to Mao Zedong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory)
But before proceed we could also ask: What is the difference between Ontology and Epistemology? “Ontology is concerned with the nature of reality whereas epistemology is concerned with the general basis of that reality, including different methods of gaining knowledge” https://pediaa.com/difference-between-ontology-and-epistemology/ where we can focus on the words “nature of reality” as well as how we not only what knowledge is but also in ways it can be gained.
“Social constructivism focuses on an individual’s learning that takes place because of his or her interactions in a group, while social constructionism focuses on the artifacts that are created through the social interactions of a group, social constructivism focuses on an individual’s learning that takes place because of his or her interactions in a group” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism
On the other hand, “evolution of species in terms of Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, in particular speciation and extinction; whereas microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes within a species or population, in particular shifts in allele frequency and adaptation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
How can we use Occam´s razor (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor) here? Making it simple: Based on (a) Popper´s world 1, the physical world, we focus on evolution of nature, while (b) his world 2 we focus on evolution of culture, and thereby mainly (?) versions of social constructivism.
This facilitates to try to understand basics in evolution of man, while here we have the interactive process between nature and culture, and especially understanding of how human limbic systems develops – critical not only for psychology/psychiatry but medicine in general also!
Based on the above I will elaborate on the concept of personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955) and Internalization (Vygotsky, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization_(sociology)) as well as triune brain theory (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/triune-brain “The “Triune Brain” hypothesis (MacLean, 1990) considers that the limbic system is in the middle of three components. It was developed in early mammals and layered over a striatal “reptilian brain”. In a latter stage, modern mammals developed the third component, the neocortex.” And dual code theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-coding_theory with the aim to use them as platform for trying to “integrate a biological evolutionary perspective on medicine in general and psychology/psychiatry in particular …
Let move on – soon …