Kinship and reciprocity alone cannot explain large-scale human cooperation

Evidence

20. Some evolutionary researchers propose to solve this puzzle by arguing that kin and reciprocity psychology are simply overextended to cause cooperation with strangers (Dawkins, 2006; Burnham and Johnson, 2005). Therefore in this view, large-scale cooperation is a “big mistake.” No doubt, kinship and reciprocity explain a significant amount of human cooperation, but these processes fall short of a complete explanation. This argument doesn’t easily explain why this happens only in humans, despite the fact that other primate groups also interact with kin and reciprocating partners. And it doesn’t explain why this process occurred only in the last 12,000 years but not before. Finally, this view is silent about the massive population variability in the scale of cooperation and ultrasociality found in humans, and has difficulty explaining why we find less prosociality toward strangers in small face-to-face societies, where kinship and reciprocity, if anything, should be more potent (see for example, Henrich et al., 2006). — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 648

Some evolutionary researchers propose to solve this puzzle by arguing that kin and reciprocity psychology are simply overextended to cause cooperation with strangers (Dawkins, 2006; Burnham and Johnson, 2005). Therefore in this view, large-scale cooperation is a “big mistake.” No doubt, kinship and reciprocity explain a significant amount of human cooperation, but these processes fall short of a complete explanation. This argument doesn’t easily explain why this happens only in humans, despite the fact that other primate groups also interact with kin and reciprocating partners. And it doesn’t explain why this process occurred only in the last 12,000 years but not before. Finally, this view is silent about the massive population variability in the scale of cooperation and ultrasociality found in humans, and has difficulty explaining why we find less prosociality toward strangers in small face-to-face societies, where kinship and reciprocity, if anything, should be more potent (see for example, Henrich et al., 2006). — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 648

Categorization

• XREF: Rejects the ‘big mistake’ overextension hypothesis; connects to the book’s broader argument that watchful gods (Big Gods) are the mechanism stabilizing large-scale prosociality — the very claim the reader is testing against the fumi-e logic. — connects to: Kin selection explains cooperation only among genetically related relatives; Cooperation has no single solution; motivations combine and overdetermine action; Large-scale cooperation and religion’s endurance explain each other (+6 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 648

Broader Connections

• Cooperation rests on coercion, interests, values, and personal bonds #expands (0.90) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2202
• Kin selection explains cooperation only among genetically related relatives #corroborates (0.85)
• Cooperation has no single solution; motivations combine and overdetermine action #expands (0.80)
• Large-scale cooperation and religion’s endurance explain each other #expands (0.75)
• Coercion and interests alone compel cooperation even without shared values #corroborates (0.75)
• Kinship-based trust fails when its sanctioning institutions do not migrate #qualifies (0.75)