Transparency of evaluation is itself a trait weighed in partner choice.
Evidence
Wealth or status conveyed by inheritance or the happenstance of history have always been factors, and transparency itself – how easy it is to be evaluated – must be one. But the authors’ proposal of social selection will work perfectly well with other criteria for estimation. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 234
Categorization
- XREF: The ‘transparency as trait’ point directly supports the reading purpose: the fumi-e works because it makes apostasy publicly visible and easily evaluated, destroying the partner-choice signal. — connects to: Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 45; Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 534; Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 610 (+4 more)
- QUESTION: Worth chasing: does anti-transparency (opacity, privacy) ever itself become a valued trait in a moral economy, and how does that interact with public rituals of visible conformity?
Related
- Fairness is not reducible to mutualistic partner choice. (similarity 0.83)
- Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control (similarity 0.82)
- Partner choice selects among folk-theorem equilibria just as group selection does. (similarity 0.80)
- Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities. (similarity 0.80)
- Genuinely moral partners signal higher reliability than strategically moral ones. (similarity 0.80)
- Competitive signalling may drive moral conduct beyond mere fairness. (similarity 0.80)
- Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.79)
- Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection. (similarity 0.79)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.79)
- Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation. (similarity 0.79)
- Competition for partners drives costly reputation-building cooperation. (similarity 0.78)
- Partner selection produces genuine moral feelings, not just narrow self-interested cooperation. (similarity 0.78)
- Morality evolves from individual partner-choice competition, not group selection. (similarity 0.78)
- Morality may have evolved via partner choice over partner control (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Moral conduct serves as a costly signal that pays in partner selection.
#corroborates(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 534 - Fairness evolves from partner choice, not partner control
#expands(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 610 - Fairness is a distinct principle guiding evaluation or decision-making
#expands(0.80) - Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets
#expands(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 324 - Fairness emerges when partner choice links each interaction to outside opportunities.
#complicates(0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 45 - Effective use of transparency tools requires public intermediaries for interpretation.
#corroborates(0.75) — David E Pozen; Michael Schudson, Troubling Transparency- The History and…, 860 - Partner choice predicts fair cooperation while group selection predicts utilitarian cooperation.
#qualifies(0.72) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 637