2. What is the cross-cultural prevalence of the seven moral values (love, loyalty, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness, property) posited by the theory of Morality-as-Cooperation’ (MAC)? 2/
3. Previous research, hand-coding ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies, found examples of most of the seven morals in most societies, and observed these morals with equal frequency across cultural regions. journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.10…
4. What about all the other societies? We developed a new Morality-as-Cooperation Dictionary (MAC-D), and used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to machine-code ethnographic accounts of ethics from an additional 196 societies (the entire HRAF corpus).
5. Again, we find evidence of most of the seven morals in most societies, across all cultural regions. (The frequency of moral words was roughly the same across previously coded, and new, societies.) Some examples:
LOVE: “A cardinal rule of conduct between parents and children is spelled out in the saying, ‘Thou shall agriaha thine children.’…’to give birth to,’ ‘to nourish an infant,’ or ‘to sustain it with life-giving support.’” – Garifuna (Middle America & Caribbean)
LOYALTY: “a strong explicit value: that one should show neighbourliness and a positive interest in the life of all members of one’s local community” – Pashtun (Asia)
RECIPROCITY: “every debt incurred must be repaid and…the ledger of obligations and favors received should remain in balance…quid pro quo is the rule…Navajo…would be loath to accept a favor without making some return.” – Navajo (North America)
HEROISM: “The chief virtue [is] physical bravery; then come personal endurance, both of pain and hardship, constancy in vengeance, and individual strength.” – Mapuche (South America)
DEFERENCE: The “ideal…man and woman…has the following characteristics: (a) Obedience…(b) Respect for his elders, or seniors…(c) Submissiveness…” – Zulu (Africa)
FAIRNESS: “they feel, some mechanism is required to enforce equity…the lot system effectively makes it impossible for anyone to implement favoritism.” – Greeks (Europe)
PROPERTY: “a word igege…which may be translated ‘moral law’, or…‘moral prohibition’. The examples were…not to steal a man’s vegetables, canoes, spears, &c.; not to usurp his fishing rights; not to take his dog to hunt” – Orokaiva (Oceania)
6. We find some counter-examples (mostly admiration of open theft), and detect some minor regional variation:
7. We also successfully validate the machine-coding against the previous hand-coding. Each moral sub-dictionary remained a significant, and was the best, predictor of the corresponding hand-code when controlling for the other six sub-dictionaries.
8. These findings lend further support to the theory of ‘morality-as-cooperation’. And MAC-D emerges as the most comprehensive and well-validated tool for machine-reading moral corpora. <ends>
ps ps Please feel free to use the MACD in your own research. The dictionary files (.dic) are available on the OSF page osf.io/86qry/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨NEW PAPER 🚨 Never mind moral universals in 60 cultures, how about moral universals in 256 cultures?! 🧵 #moralityascooperation @HRAF755 doi.org/10.1016/j.heli…
Previous research found evidence for the universality of MAC's seven moral rules across 60 cultures. But what about the other ~200 cultures in @HRAF755? doi.org/10.1086/701478
To find out we built new MAC moral dictionaries (LIWC), and used them to assess the frequency of seven different moral themes (family values, group loyalty, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness, property rights) (.dic files available here: ) osf.io/86qry/
Tit-for-Tat (TFT) is not the (only) answer to prisoners dilemmas. Change the rules of Axelrod's tournaments slightly, and other more punitive (T&C) and more sophisticated (S&R) strategies emerge as winners doi.org/10.1371/journa…
Generally: "There are infinitely many payoff matrices that satisfy the defining conditions of the PD…but only one of them was chosen for the original tournaments…conclusions about cooperation in the PD game may not be readily generalizable from one set of payoffs to another."
1. Group Selection: A guide for the confused OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Ignore Multilevel Selection.
People have been arguing about group selection for decades. What’s going on? Is it something you need to know about? <thread>
2. tl;dr No. There’s nothing to see here. New-fangled ‘group-’ or ‘multilevel-selection’ is just a complicated way of saying ‘selection for cooperation’. Go and do something more interesting instead.
3. It all starts with the ‘problem of altruism’. Altruists pay a cost to benefit others. Egoists do not–they accept benefits but pay no costs and provide no benefits. So altruists appear to be at a disadvantage to egoists, and it’s unclear how evolution could ever favour altruism
The philosopher @mpigliucci critiques morality-as-cooperation (MAC) and the 60 culture study here, but I think he misconstrues the central argument. (I hope we can discuss and resolve this interesting issue.) #moralityascooperation
We don't 'confuse descriptive and prescriptive’. MAC is primarily a (meta-ethical, descriptive) theory about the nature of morality (that it is a system of cooperative rules). From this theory we derive predictions about the content of morality (ie what the prescriptions will be)
So, the argument is not 'if universal, then good', it's more like 'if morality is a system of cooperative rules, then these cooperative rules will be regarded as good (universally)’.
1/ What's wrong with Moral Foundations Theory? (And how to get moral psychology right) <a long thread>
2/ Once the exclusive preserve of theology and philosophy, the study of morality is now a thriving interdisciplinary mix of evolutionary theory, genetics, biology, animal behaviour, psychology and anthropology.
3/ On this view, there is nothing mysterious or magical about morality — it is merely a collection of biological and cultural mechanisms for promoting cooperation.
1/ Do you need God to be good? Some thoughts on morality and religion, prompted by debates like this: @RFupdates
2/ There are lots of interesting questions about morality, like (i) what are the origins of morality, (ii) what explains its content, (iii) what motivates people to be moral, (iv) are there objective moral standards?
3/ Natural (scientific, atheist) accounts of ethics answer all of these questions, whereas super-natural accounts (like Christian theology, or ‘divine command theory’) do not.