OK! Thank you
Angry floof. The paper makes a better argument than the horror story I was painting. Their paper lays out the changes in evolutionary, social,and chemical terms with fair rsupport for each aspect. And the paper builds on Tomasello and Vaish's (2013) paper "
Origins of HumanCooperation and Morality"
https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/S...files/2015/06/annurev-psych-113011-143812.pdf
Abstract: From an evolutionary perspective, morality is a form of cooperation.Cooperation requires individuals either to suppress their own self-interest or to equate it with that of others. We review recent research on the origins of human morality, both phylogenetic (research withapes) and ontogenetic (research with children). For both time frames we propose a two-step sequence: first a second-personal morality in which individuals are sympathetic or fair to particular others, and second an agent-neutral morality in which individuals follow and enforce group-wide social norms. Human morality arose evolutionarily as a set of skills and motives for cooperating with others, and the ontogeny of these skills and motives unfolds in part naturally and in part as a result of sociocultural contexts and interactions
In fact if you look at the paper
Ruby Sparks you'll see recognition that your 'both' presumption is fundamental to the overall argument for HSD. In fact the paper recognizes that evolution is not this or that. it clearly illustrates the existence of this and that all the way along. Apes and Canines exhibit both PAN (Chimpanzee competitive/aggressive) and HSD (Human Social Development) characteristics. It's just that the development of serotonin linked behaviors with testosterone linked behaviors can work together due to slight modifications in neural architecture in both dogs and apes.
In fact it is easy to demonstrate both aggressive and cooperative social outcomes are likely in humans and dogs. IOW the paper doesn't suggest the reversal of anything. The paper supports the addition of more social nuance in these mammals social behavior.
In fact I still disagree with the notion that it's one way or the highway as the authors suggest in their final four summary points.
5. The HSD suggests that natural selection for prosociality and against aggression played a large role in human evolution. Over the past 80,000 years, fossil humans show morphological evidence for selection against aggression that coincides with an increase in cultural artifacts in the fossil record.
6. Selection for in-group prosociality drove human self-domestication in the Paleolithic.Changes in oxytocin and eye sclera color provide two possible mechanisms to explain the increases in cooperative communication, increases in in-group cooperation, and intensification of intergroup conflict that evolved as a result of this selection.
7. Evolutionarily labile neurohormones and neuropeptides provide a ready target of selection for prosociality over aggression. However, human tolerance is flexible beyond what can be accounted for by muted subcortical responses alone. Phylogenetic comparisons suggesting a strong link between inhibition and absolute brain size point to the critical role of cortical regions in allowing for human levels of self-control and tolerance.
8. Human self-domestication predicts increased developmental windows for traits relating to increased tolerance and cooperative communication. Early-emerging social cognition,which develops despite secondary altriciality, together with graded synaptic pruning continuing into adulthood, played a central role in the evolution of H. sapiens.
Why I disagree?
5. Yes there moderation of aggression. Aggression wasn't eliminated. It is obvious it still can predominate within small, medium, and large intrasocial behavior.
6. I agree humans are not fighting fish, see 6. However humans still vary according to habitat, skin, water, etc.
7. Things don't change there so attributing this aspect to the fact that they do is just plain wrong. IOW way to large a net for this suite of adaptations. Being flexible isn't being different in nature. it's an adjustment of existing behavioral tools.
8. The evidence they provide supports the struggle goes on to tune intrasocial behavior and to tune intersocial behavior, happily. The paper does not provide evidence that cooperation replaces aggression, it can moderate it.
I have an uneasy feeling that Gould (Wynne-Edwards) rises his head in their arguments without evidence.