Cooperative ventures are exchanges proportional to each partner’s contribution.

Evidence

Human collective actions, for instance, collective hunting or collective breeding, can be seen as ventures in which partners invest some of their resources (goods and services) to obtain new resources (e.g., food, shelter, protection) that are more valuable to them than the ones they have initially invested. Partners, in other words, offer their contribution in exchange for a share of the benefits. For this, partners need to assess the value of each contribution, and to proportionate the share of the benefits to this value. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 92

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames collective action as exchange — the framing that underpins the whole mutualism/partner-choice model Rodrigues faces.
• XREF: This is the Baumard et al. partner-choice logic; connects directly to how the Japanese authorities weaponize observable apostasy to destroy exchange value. — connects to: Mutual insurance companies exemplify genuine mutualistic cooperation. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 76; Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 266; Cooperation is symmetric while dependence is asymmetric. (+4 more)

Related

• Cooperation outcomes depend on partner choice frequency, not rule fairness. (similarity 0.82)
• Cooperative relationships require asymmetric giving at their outset (similarity 0.81)
• Cooperation and morality are distinct categories. (similarity 0.80)
• Competition for partners drives costly reputation-building cooperation. (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.80)
• Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.80)
• Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.80)
• Moral behavior shifts with the market supply and demand of cooperative partners (similarity 0.80)
• Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.79)
• Stable unconditional cooperation exists and mutualism alone cannot explain it. (similarity 0.79)
• Mutualism pays off through average expected benefits, not guaranteed returns (similarity 0.79)
• Generalized reciprocity cannot be explained by partner-control mechanisms. (similarity 0.79)
• Altruistic cooperators still choose partners they trust and cooperate only where reciprocation is possible. (similarity 0.79)
• Mutualism faces three challenges, all involving cost without visible return. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Cooperation is symmetric while dependence is asymmetric. #complicates (0.85)
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. #corroborates (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266
• Competitive altruism permits unconditional giving rather than matched reciprocity #contradicts (0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 530
• Mafia firms exchange labor and favors across families in reciprocal deals #exemplifies (0.75)