Large anonymous groups need supernatural monitoring to avoid splintering

Evidence

We saw that social monitoring is a powerful motivator in prosocial interactions. But it can go only so far. It depends on the actual or implied presence of others; it also depends on keeping track of others’ reputations, which is severely limited by group size. As the number of interactions increase, anonymity creeps back into the situation and reputational mechanisms break down. This is the key problem of large groups plagued by anonymity, and this is precisely why these large groups are always vulnerable to splintering or collapse unless additional processes arise to restore and maintain high levels of cooperation in these ever-larger groups. While social monitoring has ancient evolutionary roots and by all accounts predated religion, it came to serve as the basis of a supernatural solution to the problem of anonymity. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 94

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: The Japanese authorities’ public trampling works by re-introducing visible social monitoring to destroy cooperation—the inverse of this large-group anonymity problem.

Related

• Social monitoring alone cannot sustain cooperation in large anonymous groups (similarity 0.89)
• Social monitoring breaks down as group size grows, enabling religion’s rise. (similarity 0.88)
• Supernatural belief works through the same surveillance mechanism that generates prosocial behavior (similarity 0.85)
• Supernatural monitoring evolves to solve cooperation problems in large anonymous groups (similarity 0.84)
• Moralizing supernatural agents help sustain cooperation at scales beyond natural limits (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived accountability to supernatural monitors extends trust beyond one’s own religious community (similarity 0.81)
• Supernatural watcher fears emerged to police reputation in a gossiping species (similarity 0.81)
• Secular institutions substitute for supernatural monitoring by enabling trust in strangers. (similarity 0.81)
• Anonymity leaves some prosocial residue but surveillance reliably amplifies it (similarity 0.81)
• Supernatural monitoring, not moral emotions alone, scaled prosociality to mass societies (similarity 0.81)
• Traditional religions counteracted paranoia through collective structure (similarity 0.81)
• Small transparent groups sustain cooperation without moralizing supernatural agents (similarity 0.80)
• Supernatural monitoring caused the God-prosociality association, not the reverse (similarity 0.80)
• Trust in impartial institutions substitutes for supernatural monitoring of strangers. (similarity 0.80)
• Supernatural monitoring by any religion can extend trust beyond one’s own community (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Perceived accountability to supernatural monitors extends trust beyond one’s own religious community #expands (0.90) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 259
• Supernatural belief works through the same surveillance mechanism that generates prosocial behavior #expands (0.90) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 64
• Language and gossip created evolutionary pressure for supernatural surveillance beliefs #expands (0.85) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 442
• Supernatural monitoring caused the God-prosociality association, not the reverse #expands (0.82) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 175
• Trust in impartial institutions substitutes for supernatural monitoring of strangers. #contradicts (0.80) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 553
• Trusted agents face a dense lattice of institutional surveillance. #complicates (0.75) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 92