Bo Winegard et al. (2020):
"humans evolved unique mental mechanisms for
assessing each other’s marginal value to a coalition (i.e., each other’s coalitional value). They defer to those with higher coalitional value, and they assert themselves over those with lower."
-----
"The primary construct of the CVT is a mental gauge that
estimates and tracks one’s own and others’ values to the coalition. For simplicity, we will call this a coalitional value gauge
(gauge for evaluating self and for evaluating others).
The
gauge that evaluates the self’s coalitional value is likely
strongly related to what social psychologists have traditionally
called self-esteem (e.g., Mahadevan et al. 2018). The information from the gauge is fed into a number of other mental
systems, causing a variety of physiological, behavioral, and
cognitive responses. For example,
if the gauge calculated that
another person in one’s coalition has higher value than one’s
self, then the gauge, through interactions with other systems,
would produce predictable emotional and cognitive responses
such as
awe, admiration, deference, increased blood pressure,
reverence, visual attention, etc. (Keltner and Haidt 2003; Long
et al. 1982). Of course, these aspirational and positive emotions might be tinged with envy and bitterness, especially if
the high-status person is rude or dismissive (Buss 2001). If, on
the other hand, the gauge calculated that another person was
lower, then it would produce
assertion, contempt, erect posture, expected subordination, etc. These responses are likely
heightened in coalitionally relevant contexts."
-----
"People defer in these predictable ways because they have
a coalitional value gauge. To defer to people with high
coalitional value, humans must have a mental mechanism
that assesses coalitional value. The mechanism must interface with other mental systems that lead either to deference or assertion (or indifference)."
-----
"Specifically, according to our approach, conceptions of god
are designed to appeal to people’s propensity to defer to others
who are high in coalitional value (see, for example,
Kirkpatrick 2001). God (or gods) is often depicted as having
really high coalitional value (this changes across time, as we
will note). And by providing believers with a common “leader” to whom they can defer, conceptions of god potentially
create a more cohesive, competitive coalition. Mortals, all of
whom accept that god has the highest coalitional value of the
group, submit to god, but also compete to be seen as especially
approved and close to him or her, increasing their own
coalitional value and legitimacy.
-----
Source (a short review will follow):
Coalitional Value Theory: an Evolutionary Approach
to Understanding Culture
Bo Winegard et al. (2020)
https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/human/2020-winegard.pdf[See also:
Social Selection / Partner Selection and Partner Rejection]
-----
"more successful groups allocated status more wisely (i.e., for behaviors that helped the group),
therefore perpetuating the group and the group’s norms."
-----
"A charismatic leader can benefit a group by making it more coherent and cooperative
(using narratives and charm to create group bonds); in exchange, the members of the group defer to the charismatic
leader, allowing him or her priority access to coveted resources."
-----
"status (deference) is exchanged for
something (e.g., leadership, proximity, immediate resources)"
-----
It is worth noting that coalitional value and status are not
the same thing.
Coalitional value is the marginal fitness value
a person adds to a coalition;
status is the amount of power via
deference he or she wields over subordinates.
-----
"Researchers
generally divide status into prestige: status in which subordinates defer because they desire
rewards from the prestigious
person, and dominance: status in which subordinates defer
because they
fear punishment from the dominant person."
-----
"Although coalitional value often leads to status,
a person’s
coalitional value and his or her status can be discrepant. In
general, when a person strives for status that he or she does not
deserve (i.e., status that is higher than his or her coalitional
value would predict), then that person will have to resort to
tactics of dominance such as coercion, insults, threat of force,
etc."
-----
Prestige is freely conferred because
the person’s coalitional value is high and therefore they provide commensurate
rewards to a coalition; dominance, on the
other hand, is not freely conferred because the dominant individual is usually trying to
garner more status than his
coalitional value would suggest he should have.
-----
"We assume that
coalitional value mechanisms ...
evolved over
many millions of years, and may be present to some degree
in chimpanzees."
-----
"many animals defer to other, more dominant animals to
avoid costly and potentially deadly agonistic encounters
(Maynard Smith and Price 1973). In some sense, even a crude
dominance/pecking order follows the logic of a status exchange system. The beta animal defers to avoid death and
the alpha accepts to avoid potentially costly injuries and to
secure the benefits of helpful subordinates in future coalitional
conflicts, which increase the alpha’s reproductive success"
-----
"One important challenge a large group faces is coordination:
Who defers to whom? Who listens to whom? The solution to this coordination problem, we believe, is the coalitional
value system. The person who most benefits the group, the
best leader or warrior, receives deference from others. But, not
only does he receive deference but also people believe that
other group members should defer to him. They regulate other
people in the coalition, urging them to defer to the leader,
because if the leader has maximum deference (and therefore
maximum resources) the leader will best be able to benefit the
group as a whole. This likely led, after many generations, to
the psychological capacities and propensities that make human social life so unique in the animal kingdom: “we intentionality,” exquisite theory of mind, complex groups with specialized roles, social norms, and on and on (Smaldino 2020;
Wellman et al. 2001)."
-----
"The primary construct of the CVT is
a mental gauge that
estimates and tracks one’s own and others’ values to the coalition. For simplicity, we will call this a coalitional value gauge
(gauge for evaluating self and for evaluating others).
The
gauge that evaluates the self’s coalitional value is likely
strongly related to what social psychologists have traditionally
called self-esteem (e.g., Mahadevan et al. 2018). The information from the gauge is fed into a number of other mental
systems, causing a variety of physiological, behavioral, and
cognitive responses. For example, if the gauge calculated that
another person in one’s coalition has higher value than one’s
self, then the gauge, through interactions with other systems,
would produce predictable emotional and cognitive responses
such as awe, admiration, deference, increased blood pressure,
reverence, visual attention, etc. (Keltner and Haidt 2003; Long
et al. 1982). Of course, these aspirational and positive emotions might be tinged with envy and bitterness, especially if
the high-status person is rude or dismissive (Buss 2001). If, on
the other hand, the gauge calculated that another person was
lower, then it would produce assertion, contempt, erect posture, expected subordination, etc. These responses are likely
heightened in coalitionally relevant contexts."
-----
"
Very few people want to belong to
groups that are destined for persistent failure and incredibly
low status even if doing so would guarantee high (relative)
coalitional value, e.g., most people would not choose to be the
best engineer for a destitute company."
-----
