Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection.
Evidence
Our theoretical approach is, however, a different one. As we explained in the target article, we see the evolution of morality as resulting from the individual-level selection of a moral sense of fairness enhancing one’s chances of doing well in the competition to be chosen as a partner in cooperative ventures. Our article focused on the presentation and defense of this mutualistic view and on arguing that it has deep and wide relevance to the study of morality. In particular, we argued that the mutualistic approach provides an attractive interpretation of results of economic games experiments that have been heralded as strong evidence for group selection, and moreover that it explains some subtle features of these results that have been relatively ignored. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 605
Categorization
- XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s reading purpose on Baumard et al.’s partner-choice mechanism versus Norenzayan’s Big God / group-selection framework for religion. This is the mutualistic partner-choice account framed explicitly against group-selection competitors. — connects to: Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 4; Partner choice deters cheating without anyone intending to punish — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 29; Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 347 (+18 more)
- DEEPTHINKING: The re-framing of cooperation literature as parsimoniously explained by individual partner-choice rather than group selection is a genuinely paradigm-leaning move with wide consequences for how morality and religion are theorized.
Related
- Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.95)
- Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.92)
- Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.91)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.91)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.90)
- Partner-choice cooperation theory does not explain the intrinsic moral sense. (similarity 0.89)
- Partner choice selects among folk-theorem equilibria just as group selection does. (similarity 0.89)
- Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.89)
- Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.88)
- Morality evolves in two steps, from selfish reciprocity to intrinsic fairness. (similarity 0.88)
- Morality is about fair cooperation, not maximizing welfare. (similarity 0.87)
- Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.86)
- Fairness is self-interested because stingy partners get abandoned. (similarity 0.86)
- Morality is an evolved sense of fairness, not a late intellectual achievement (similarity 0.86)
- Partner choice theory shifts cooperation research away from dyadic Prisoner’s Dilemma models. (similarity 0.86)
Broader Connections
- Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation.
#corroborates(0.90) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 202 - Partner-choice cooperation theory does not explain the intrinsic moral sense.
#contradicts(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 56 - Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control
#corroborates(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 610 - Morality is an evolved sense of fairness, not a late intellectual achievement
#expands(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 656