CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEmile Durkheim and SociologyLanguage and cultural evolution

Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality

Open access
Windzio, Michael·2026·Human Nature
DOI 10.1007/s12110-026-09531-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans tend to be prosocial towards in-group members, but often hostile towards out-group members. In line with ethology and evolutionary psychology, this study develops the concept of Durkheimian learning, meaning that groups actively integrate individuals by cultural transmission of behavioral norms. Yet humans might have genetically evolved predispositions for indoctrinability and constrained learning of what is adaptive for self-interested individuals living in groups. In-group prosociality might have coevolved with tendencies towards out-group rejection. The mechanism behind this outcome might have been cultural-group selection in combination with gene-culture co-evolution. The feasibility of the argument will be illustrated by two simulation experiments of a selfish-teamwork game. Inspired by the Price equation of multilevel selection, the simulations combine fuzzy group-boundaries and between-group competition with cooperative behavior and intergenerational cultural transmission of prosocial behavior within groups. Results show that group boundaries, e.g. due to cultural markers, can explain the evolution of cooperative behavior. However, efficient Durkheimian learning and intergroup competition might have accelerated its expansion, despite of considerable levels of between-group migration. This insight will be discussed in the light of recent arguments from cultural evolutionary psychology.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper develops a neo-Durkheimian, gene-culture coevolution argument that humans evolved indoctrinability and constrained “Durkheimian learning,” producing in-group prosociality that can coevolve with out-group rejection. Agent-based simulations show that group boundaries and high-fidelity cultural norm transmission can sustain cooperation despite fuzzy boundaries and intergroup migration.

Key findings

  • In Experiment #1, with a 20% probability of team-workers moving to a preferred spatial area, team-workers quickly dominate; with an extremely fuzzy 10% boundary, they do not outcompete egoists.
  • In Experiment #2, low norm-transmission (20%) in group N leaves its share stable under fierce intergroup competition (−5 points), but N increases after ~300 steps when losing is less severe (−2 points); high norm-transmission (80%) lets N thrive under both competition treatments.
  • When N’s norm-transmission is high, group T begins to decline after ~300 steps; group E always declines relative to the other groups, slightly accelerated by high norm-transmission in N.
  • Price equation illustration: covariance 0.96, transmission bias 0.2, so wΔz = 1.16; average change in character trait is 0.44615.

Methods

  • Agent-based NetLogo simulations on a 51 × 51 patch world. Experiment #1: N = 100 agents, 60% team-workers and 40% egoists, 3 boundary-fuzziness treatments, 100 repetitions = 300 runs. Experiment #2: three groups of N = 100 each (T with 60% cooperators, E with 40% cooperators, N initially 40% cooperators with cultural transmission), 2 × 4 treatments, 100 repetitions = 800 runs.
  • Agents move randomly, meet, and play a “selfish teamwork” game; Experiment #2 adds intergroup competition (25% chance each loses 1 point; 75% chance of costly fierce competition where the superior loses 1 and the inferior loses 2 or 5 points) and intergenerational norm transmission in group N (20% vs. 80%).
  • Analysis uses the multilevel Price equation and compares group shares over simulation steps.

Limitations

  • Stated: future research should examine migration limits and how efficient assimilation must be so immigration does not undermine team-working and intergroup success; it should also more systematically consider positive intergroup relationships and varying parochial altruism.
  • Stated: the simulation is illustrative; high-fidelity cultural transmission does not always generate enough team-workers, and results fan out considerably under fierce intergroup competition.
  • Evident from the text: the simulations are abstract and parameter-specific, with no empirical validation; assumptions such as no memory, simplified payoff/competition rules, and fixed reproduction/death thresholds limit generalization.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12110-026-09531-2

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 134 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    CS does not function flawlessly in hunter-gatherer contexts.

    “Yet CS does not function flawlessly in huntergatherer contexts (Singh & Glowacki, 2022)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Singh & Glowacki, 2022 source

      The “Non-egalitarianism” section (page unavailable) reports that some mobile, small-scale forager societies deviate from egalitarianism and exhibit coercive leadership. That supports the general point that social arrangements in hunter-gatherer contexts do not always work flawlessly, but the cited passages do not identify or assess the specific process abbreviated “CS.” (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    When morality and norms are group-specific, we believe it is the in-group who knows the 'right' way to do things, but not the other group.

    “When morality and norms are group-specific, we believe it is us, the in-group, who knows the 'right' way to do things, but not the other group (Tomasello, 2018: 87).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tomasello, 2018 source

      Section 3, “From collaboration to culture and ‘objective’ morality” (page unavailable), says that groups develop their own norms, treat them as defining right and wrong, and regard them as how “we” regulate “us.” It also says only members of one’s cultural group could be counted on to share its values. It does not say that people believe other groups do not know the right way to do things; that part is stronger than the source supports. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    Flexibility in niche construction required learning reliably the specific set of taken-for-granted knowledge, the cognitive gadgets, to survive in the respective niche.

    “This flexibility in niche construction required learning reliably the specific set of taken-forgranted knowledge, the cognitive gadgets (Heyes, 2018), to survive in the respective niche.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Heyes, 2018 source

      The section “Cultural evolutionary psychology is still evolutionary psychology” (p. 1) describes Heyes’s cognitive gadgets as cognitive functions created through cultural practices, supporting the claim that they are learned rather than innate. The passages do not establish that reliably learning a specific set of taken-for-granted knowledge was required to survive in a particular constructed niche. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    In a study on the evolution of self- and other-regarding preferences, Grund et al. considered cultural socialization, but did not take intergroup conflict into account.

    “In a study on the evolution of self-and other-regarding preferences, Grund et al. (2013) considered cultural socialization, but did not take intergroup conflict into account.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grund et al., 2013 source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) confirms that Grund et al. study the evolution of self- and other-regarding preferences. It mentions a cultural mechanism proposed by another researcher, but says their own model uses fitness-based reproduction without a cultural modification of reproduction rates; it does not establish that they considered cultural socialization in their model. The model description (Results > Model, page unavailable) describes individual interactions and reproduction, not intergroup conflict. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Cultural markers indicate who belongs to the same or similar cultural group and who is likely to share one's taken-for-granted knowledge, norms and morality.

    “Cultural markers indicate who belongs to the same or similar cultural group and who is likely to share one's taken-for-granted knowledge, norms and morality (Henrich, 2016: 201;Tomasello, 2018: 91).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Henrich, 2016 source
    • cites Tomasello, 2018 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • May combine two claims. 37

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Richerson and Boyd cite an illustrative example of an !Kung San man confronted by an arrow tip of unfamiliar style, which illustrates the relevance of symbols for the territorial demarcation of group-boundaries also in hunter-gatherers.

    “Richerson and Boyd (2005: 221) cite an illustrative example of an! Kung San man who was confronted by an arrow tip of unfamiliar style.In his view, the arrow tip had been lost by unfamiliar, and therefore dangerous, people who entered the territory.This example illustrates the relevance of symbols for the territorial demarcation of group-boundaries also in hunter-gatherers (Singh & Glowacki, 2022)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Richerson & Boyd, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Singh & Glowacki, 2022 source

      The Corporate groups section (page unavailable) reports that the Ju/’hoansi had named groups that held land rights, supporting the territorial-group aspect of the claim. It does not describe an unfamiliar arrow tip or say that symbols demarcated those groups’ territories; the arrow-tip anecdote is attributed to Richerson and Boyd in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Heyes' cognitive gadget model assumes the evolution of general-purpose cognitive capacity in increasingly complex cultural environments.

    “Heyes (2018) challenges the theories of evolved cognitive modularization by her own 'cognitive gadget' model: in line with Turner and Maryanski (2024: 79), she assumes the evolution of general-purpose cognitive capacity in increasingly complex cultural environments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Heyes, 2018 source

      The section “Cultural evolutionary psychology is still evolutionary psychology” (p. 1) describes Heyes’ model as challenging innate cognitive modules and building culturally created functions on biologically selected, domain-general mechanisms. It does not say that general-purpose cognitive capacity evolved in response to increasingly complex cultural environments; that added evolutionary account is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Turner and Maryanski, 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cognitive gadgets are results of cultural evolution and can be comparatively quickly replaced in dynamic environments.

    “According to Heyes' strong argument, these gadgets are results of cultural evolution.Cognitive gadgets usually fitted to the various different human niches, and could be comparatively quickly replaced with other, more appropriate cognitive gadgets in dynamic environments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Heyes, 2018 source

      The section “Cultural evolutionary psychology is still evolutionary psychology” (p. 1) describes cognitive gadgets as culturally constructed, supporting their cultural origins. The same section (pp. 2–3) discusses adaptation and modification but does not establish that gadgets fit different human niches or can be comparatively quickly replaced in dynamic environments; p. 3 cautions against treating them as independently modifiable units. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The same argument might hold for varying intensities of parochial altruism across different groups, which is an additional expression of the moral ambivalence of human sociality.

    “The same argument might hold with respect to varying intensities of parochial altruism across different groups (Pisor & Ross, 2024), which is, in the end, an additional expression of the moral ambivalence of human sociality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pisor & Ross, 2024 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Given the data in Table A1, Appendix A1, the covariance of w_i and z_i is 0.96, the transmission bias E(w_i •Δz_i) is 0.2, so that w̅ Δz̅ = 0.96 + 0.2 = 1.16.

    “Given the data in Table A1, Appendix A1, the covariance of w i and z i is 0.96, the transmission bias E(w i •Δz i ) is 0.2, so that w ̅ Δz ̅ = 0.96 + 0.2 = 1.16 (see appendix for details of the computation and derivation).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The result of cov(w_i, z_i) is clearly positive, so cooperative behavior z_i increased fitness w_i.

    “The result of cov(w i ,z i ) is clearly positive, so cooperative behavior z i increased fitness w i .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment #2, Group E always declines relative to the other groups due to strong group-level selection, and this decline is slightly accelerated when norm-transmission probability in Group N is high.

    “Graphs E and F show that Group Ealways declines relative to the other groups due to the strong selection effect at the group-level, and this decline is slightly accelerated when the norm-transmission probability in Group N is high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Commitment and cultural transmission facilitate cooperation within groups, which implies spanning a boundary against others who are considered less cooperative, often competitive, or threatening.

    “Herein lies the ambivalence of human sociality: commitment and cultural transmission facilitate cooperation within groups, which implies spanning a boundary against others, who we consider as less cooperative, often as competitive, or even as threatening.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Early humans had to actively generate social integration by collective practices, and individuals had to learn social norms and taken-for-granted knowledge.

    “As Durkheim's classic argument suggests (Durkheim, 1915), early humans had to actively generate social integration by collective practices, and individuals had to learn social norms and taken-for-granted knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Durkheim, 1915

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Durkheim viewed the totem as a sacred symbol of the clan.

    “In Durkheim's view, the totem is a sacred symbol of the clan.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Durkheim, 1915

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationcitation

    Humans might have genetically evolved predispositions for indoctrinability and constrained learning of what is adaptive for self-interested individuals living in groups.

    “Yet humans might have genetically evolved predispositions for indoctrinability and constrained learning of what is adaptive for self-interested individuals living in groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998 source
    • cites Plotkin, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Humans are self-interested individuals living in groups.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CS might have been the primary form of social interaction in ancient hunter-gatherer groups.

    “CS might have been the primary form of social interaction in ancient huntergatherer groups (Fiske, 1992: 693).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiske, 1992 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Since our well-being depends on group membership, we are sensitive to our group's morality and willing to accept it in order to avoid social exclusion.

    “Since our well-being depends on group membership (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2009), we are sensitive to our group's morality, and willing to accept it in order to avoid social exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cacioppo & Patrick, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ellemers, 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    During religious rituals organized around the totem, group members attribute strong and extraordinary collective emotions to the power of the totem; these emotions are 'collective effervescence' and represent the power of the group.

    “When performing religious rituals organized around the totem, group members attribute the experience of strong and extraordinary collective emotions to the power of the totem.He described these emotions as 'collective effervescence', which in fact represent the power of the group (Durkheim, 1915: 221).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Durkheim, 1915

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Group cohesion must be permanently (re-)produced by performing religious rituals, by generating collective effervescence towards the totem, and particularly by cultural transmission.

    “rather than being guaranteed by an 'innate trait' (Maryanski & Turner, 1992: 66), group cohesion must be permanently (re-)produced by performing religious rituals, by generating collective effervescence towards the totem (Maryanski, 2018: 259), and particularly by cultural transmission (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Maryanski, 2018 source
    • cites Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Humans tend to be prosocial towards in-group members but often hostile towards out-group members.

    “Humans tend to be prosocial towards in-group members, but often hostile towards out-group members.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Berreby, 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ellemers, 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Cultural learning was adaptive not only for the individual but especially for the group, and the evolutionary mechanism may have been cultural-group selection.

    “Given that cultural learning was adaptive not only for the individual but especially for the group-the primary locus of social interaction and cultural transmission-the evolutionary mechanism may have been cultural-group selection, a variant of multilevel selection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Groups actively integrate individuals by cultural transmission of behavioral norms.

    “this study develops the concept of Durkheimian learning, meaning that groups actively integrate individuals by cultural transmission of behavioral norms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Coalitions emerge as mechanisms of social control to suppress freeriders and despotic individuals.

    “which ledBoehm (2012: 199-202) to examine how coalitions emerge as mechanisms of social control to suppress freeriders and despotic individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boehm, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The mechanism of multilevel selection requires either more or less clear group boundaries, or the group's capacity to extend cultural transmission to immigrants so that assimilation is possible; otherwise the group cannot function as a unit of cultural-group selection.

    “Such a mechanism, however, requires either more or less clear group boundaries, or the group's capacity to extent cultural transmission to immigrants so that assimilation is possible.Otherwise, the group cannot function as a unit of cultural-group selection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There are considerable levels of inter-group migration, producing fuzzy group boundaries.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Human nature is not inherently group-oriented, but rather individualistic.

    “According to Maryanski (2018: 230), human nature is not inherently group-oriented, but rather individualistic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Maryanski, 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In CS, every individual contributes to the collective good conditional on capabilities; resources are distributed according to individual need rather than achievement or contribution.

    “every individual contributes to the collective good conditional on his or her capabilities; resources are distributed according to individual need rather than achievement or contribution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiske, 1993

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cultural transmission follows basic rules, such as imitating the successful or the most common behavior, so that humans often simply copy cultural practices with high fidelity, without testing alternatives themselves.

    “Cultural transmission follows basic rules, such as imitating the successful or the most common behavior, so that humans often simply copy cultural practices with high fidelity, without the burden of testing alternatives themselves (Muthukrishna, 2025: 74;Richerson & Boyd, 2005: 114-126).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Muthukrishna, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Richerson & Boyd, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In most mammalian species, mothers intensively interact with their newborn children after birth, e.g. by licking or vocalization, which correlates with the emission of oxytocin.

    “Likewise, in most mammalian species, mothers intensively interact with their newborn children after birth, e.g. by licking or vocalization (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998: 36), which correlates with the emission of the neurotransmitter oxytocin (Sapolsky, 2018: 109).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998 source
    • cites Sapolsky, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin seems to be important in mother-child bonds, and could have been a preadaptation that became extended to regulate the distinction between in- and out-group.

    “Oxytocin seems to be important in mother-child bonds, and could have been a preadaptation (Turner, 2021: 44) that became extended to regulate the distinction between in-and out-group (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998: 38).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Turner, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Plotkin suggests that cognitive modularization corresponds with a disposition toward constrained learning: humans are disposed to narrowing down the search space of possible content to learn.

    “Plotkin (1998) suggests that cognitive modularization corresponds with a disposition toward constrained learning: from an evolutionary perspective, learning should be adaptive, which is why humans are disposed to narrowing down the search space of possible content to learn (Plotkin, 1998: 166).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Plotkin, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Both kin-selection and reciprocal altruism require more or less stable group-boundaries.

    “Both mechanisms require more or less stable group-boundaries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Self-control relies on the evolved large neocortex and is a condition of norm compliance.

    “Self-control relies on the evolved large neocortex (Boehm, 2012: 173), and is a condition of norm compliance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boehm, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to gene-culture coevolution theory, such cognitions are learned, but humans might be genetically prepared to learn what is adaptive in social environments.

    “According to the gene-culture coevolution theory such cognitions are learned, but humans might be genetically prepared to learn what is adaptive in social environments (see below) (Plotkin, 1998: 166).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Plotkin, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In primates, females transfer to another group after the onset of puberty, and probably this pattern already existed in australopithecines.

    “In primates, females transfer to another group after the onset of puberty (Boesch, 2012: 120), and probably this pattern already existed in australopithecines (Dunbar, 2016: 133), who lived ~3mio.years ago.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Boesch, 2012 source
    • cites Dunbar, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Babies might have benefited from an evolved predisposition for rudimentary forms of a theory of mind and for attracting potential caregivers' attention.

    “Babies might have benefited from an evolved predisposition for rudimentary forms of a theory of mind and for attracting potential caregivers' attention (Hrdy, 2009: 139-141), not just by crying.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hrdy, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In humans, neither genetic group selection nor reciprocal exchange can explain the evolution of altruism, if the latter does not consider a group boundary that increases the likelihood of interacting with cooperators.

    “In humans, in contrast, neither genetic group selection nor reciprocal exchange can explain the evolution of altruism, if the latter does not consider a group boundary that increases the likelihood of interacting with cooperators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Konner assumes a 'cultural acquisition device' (CAD) whose emotional dimensions consist of attachment, positive identification, fear of strangers, negative identification and emotion management.

    “Similar to Chomsky's concept of a 'language acquisition device', Konner (2010: 720) assumes a 'cultural acquisition device' (CAD).The emotional dimensions of the CAD consist of attachment, positive identification, fear of strangers, negative identification and emotion management.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Konner, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Deliberation on complex issues can push groups toward more extreme decisions than a simple aggregation of members' initial views would suggest.

    “As a result, deliberation on complex issues can push groups toward more extreme decisions than a simple aggregation of members' initial views would suggest (Sunstein, 2019: 80).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sunstein, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Conformity in groups often emerges because we avoid social disapproval.

    “Sunstein (2019: 87-88) argues that conformity in groups often emerges because we avoid social disapproval.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sunstein, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The group can establish a false belief which is then perpetuated over subsequent generations-the false belief becomes established as a culture.

    “In other words, the group can establish a false belief which is then perpetuated over subsequent generations -the false belief becomes established as a culture.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacobs & Campbell, 1961 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Choi and Bowles show in their simulation study that the combination of parochialism and altruism might have increased the success in violent intergroup conflict, and thereby increased the reproductive benefit of the parochial altruists.

    “Choi and Bowles (2007) show in their simulation study that the combination of parochialism and altruism might have increased the success in violent intergroup conflict, and thereby increased the reproductive benefit of the parochial altruists.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Choi & Bowles, 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Although pre-natal and early learning surely influenced these results, it is likely that they indicate a predisposition for a coalitional psychology, which interprets language as a cultural indicator of group-boundaries.

    “Although pre-natal and early learning surely influenced these results (Heyes, 2018: 64), it is likely that they indicate a predisposition for a coalitional psychology (Bloom, 2013: 109-111;Tooby & Cosmides, 2010), which interprets language as a cultural indicator of group-boundaries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bloom, 2013 source
    • cites Tooby & Cosmides, 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Being socially embedded into our in-group of people we know and trust has positive effects on our mental and physical health, which is also mediated by oxytocin.

    “Being socially embedded into our in-group of people, who we know and trust, has positive effects on our mental and physical health, which is also mediated by oxytocin (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cacioppo & Patrick, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In Bowles' study, the transmission process is basically genetic.

    “Again, the transmission process in Bowles' study is basically genetic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowles, 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In an earlier study, the effect of between-group competition was combined with the presence or absence of institutions protecting altruists from being exploited by egoists.

    “In an earlier study, the effect of between-group competition was combined with the presence or absence of institutions protecting altruists from being exploited by egoists (Bowles, 2004: 448).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowles, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The efficiency of cultural transmission has not yet been the focus of these studies.

    “However, the efficiency of cultural transmission has not yet been the focus of these studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bowles, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Bowles, 2006 source
    • cites Bowles, 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Competition and conflict might increase between-group migration.

    “Generally, competition and conflict might increase between-group migration (Richerson & Boyd, 1998: 81).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Richerson & Boyd, 1998 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Cultural practices of reducing differences in reproductive success, e.g. by food sharing, could have led to genetic group differences strong enough to allow for group-selection, given intergroup competition and despite between-group migration.

    “Moreover, cultural practices of reducing differences in reproductive success, e.g. by food sharing, could have led to genetic group differences strong enough to allow for group-selection, given intergroup competition and despite of between-group migration (Bowles, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowles, 2006 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The relative share of altruists in the population increased with the probability of intergroup conflict, and this increase was even stronger in a scenario where such institutions existed.

    “The relative share of altruists in the population increased with the probability of intergroup conflict, and this increase was even stronger in a scenario where such institutions existed (Bowles, 2004: 464).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowles, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The same holds for the models elaborated by Gintis and Helbing.

    “The same holds for the models elaborated by Gintis and Helbing (2015: 21-22).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gintis & Helbing, 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Heyes' view can probably be reconciled with a minimalist approach limiting domain-specificity to Durkheimian learning.

    “Prob-ably, Heyes' view can be reconciled with a minimalist approach which limits domainspecificity to Durkheimian learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The scenario where the superior agent loses 1 point and the inferior loses 2 points is conservative because the superior agent does not benefit from winning the competition.

    “This scenario is rather conservative since the superior agent does not benefit from winning the competition, that is, he or she does not acquire goods or reproductive resources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to the Price equation, the transmission bias E(w_i •Δz_i) is crucial for the change in character across generations, just as is the selection pressure at the higher level, which is in this case the costs of losing in a situation of intergroup competition.

    “According to the Price equation, the transmission bias E(w i •Δz i ) is crucial for the change in character across generations, just as is the selection pressure at the higher level, which is in this case the costs of losing in a situation of intergroup competition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Price, 1970 source
    • cites Bourrat, 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Evolution might have prepared humans to quickly learn about cultural markers, norms and symbols of their in-group, which the paper describes as Durkheimian learning.

    “Evolution might have prepared humans to quickly learn about cultural markers, norms and symbols of their in-group, which the present study describes by the concept of Durkheiminan learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Groups often carried out conflict by ambushing and small-group hit-and-run attacks, whereby perpetrators try to minimize their own risks.

    “Groups carried out conflict often by ambushing and small-group hit-and-run attacks, whereby the perpetrators try to minimize their own risks (Wrangham 2019b: 237).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wrangham 2019b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Indoctrination is how humans substitute pheromonic biomarkers of group membership.

    “Indoctrination is the way how humans substitute pheromonic biomarkers of group membership.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Multilevel selection still works if we replace the assumption of violent conflict with the assumption of intense competition between groups.

    “Besides, multilevel selection still works if we replace the assumption of violent conflict with the assumption of intense competition between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Humans do not draw rigid boundaries by pheromonic biomarkers, so they must actively create group integration by collective rituals and cultural transmission.

    “Since humans do not draw rigid boundaries by pheromonic biomarkers, they must actively create group integration by collective rituals and cultural transmission.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    From a multilevel selection perspective, groups compete against each other for scarce resources, which is likely to turn into conflict.

    “From a multilevel selection perspective, groups compete against each other for scarce resources, which is likely to turn into conflict.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In Experiment #2, the agent with lower energy always loses intergroup competition, implying an advantage for groups whose team-workers generate much group-benefit.

    “The agent with the lower energy always loses, which implies an advantage for groups whose team-workers generate much group-benefit.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The cognitive gadget theory assumes that language comes first and mentalizing is a result of learning and acquiring cognitive gadgets.

    “The cognitive gadget theory assumes that language comes first and mentalizing (theory of mind) is a result of learning and acquiring cognitive gadgets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Human sociality is rather a product of nurture than nature, but dispositions to indoctrinability might have genetically evolved.

    “Human sociality is rather a product of nurture rather than nature (Maryanski, 2018: 214), but what might have genetically evolved are dispositions to indoctrinability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Maryanski, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Durkheimian learning is a component of the social and cultural brain.

    “Accordingly, Durkheimian learning is a component of the social and cultural brain and, only in this regard, the argument assumes modularized cognitive specialization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The argument assumes modularized cognitive specialization, limited to Durkheimian learning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    In humans, selection at the group-level primarily works as cultural-group selection, which might be based on evolved psychological dispositions at the individual level.

    “In humans, selection at the group-level primarily works as cultural-group selection, which might be, however, based on evolved psychological dispositions at the individual level: the 'cultural brain' allows high-fidelity cultural transmission, our emotionality enables us to experience 'collective effervescence' (Durkheim, 1915), to respond with shame and guilt when violating norms (Turner, 2000(Tu”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Durkheim, 1915

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Turner, 2000 source
    • cites Hare & Woods, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Turner and Maryanski highlight that visual and vocal expression of emotions were the 'first languages' in early hominins.

    “Turner and Maryanski (2024: 96-98) highlight, in contrast, that visual and vocal expression of emotions were the 'first languages' in early hominins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Turner and Maryanski, 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    This inclination could have led to a severe disadvantage within the own group, since other group members were afraid of violent retaliation and therefore avoided contact with individual exploiters.

    “This inclination, however, could have led to a severe disadvantage within the own group, since other group members were afraid of violent retaliation and therefore avoided contact with individual exploiters.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Xiao et al., 2026 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Norm transmission requires high fidelity, also with respect to the assimilation of immigrants.

    “Yet norm transmission requires high fidelity, also with respect to the assimilation of immigrants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Once the adaptive value of cultural learning within the own group is in place, the group level gains in importance and individuals become increasingly prepared for Durkheimian learning.

    “According to the argument in the present paper, once the adaptive value of cultural learning within the own group is in place, the group level gains in importance and individuals become increasingly prepared to Durkheiminan learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Group-boundaries and costly competition between groups could be an equivalent mechanism of how cognitive and behavioral dispositions of in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation have evolved.

    “Group-boundaries and costly competition between groups could be an equivalent mechanism of how cognitive and behavioral dispositions of in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation have evolved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Conceptualizing groups as fuzzy sets overcomes common metaphors that view groups as clearly bounded containers.

    “Conceptualizing groups as fuzzy sets-whose inherent tendency toward disintegration must be actively countered-overcomes common metaphors that view groups as clearly bounded containers (Pietraszewski, 2021: 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pietraszewski, 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Immigrant assimilation in group N in Experiment #2 is in line with the cognitive gadget model because assimilation implies cultural transmission between groups is possible.

    “For instance, the fact that immigrant assimilation is possible in group N in Experiment #2 is in line with the cognitive gadget model: assimilation implies that cultural transmission between the groups is possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the following simulation, the fitness w_i of cooperative behavior might differ between the individual and the group level: defection in the selfish teamwork-game is beneficial to the individual within groups, but groups compete against each other, so that groups with higher in-group cooperation might have a selective advantage in intergroup competition.

    “In the following simulation, the fitness w i of cooperative behavior might differ between the individual and the group level: defection in the selfish teamwork-game (see below) is beneficial to the individual within groups, but groups compete against each other, so that groups with higher in-group cooperation might have a selective advantage in intergroup competition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Selection pressure on enhanced emotions increased social bonding among hominins.

    “Turner and Maryanski (2024: 89) argue that it was the selection pressure on enhanced emotions which increased the social bonding among hominins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Turner and Maryanski, 2024 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In Experiment #1, team-workers' probabilistic preference for a spatial area increases their probability of interacting with other team-workers and reduces their risk of being exploited by egoists.

    “Given the arguments in the theoretical section, teamworkers' tendency towards a preferred location increases the probability of interact- ing with other team-workers, and thereby reduce the risk of meeting and becoming exploited by egoists.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
70 of 70

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Humans are self-interested individuals living in groups.

    “what is adaptive for self-interested individuals living in groups”
    “what is important for a species of group-living, but self-interested, individuals”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are considerable levels of inter-group migration, producing fuzzy group boundaries.

    “also given fuzzy group boundaries due to consider-able levels of inter-group migration”
    “despite of considerable levels of between-group migration”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Durkheimian learning assumes a genetic preparedness to learn bonding with the group.

    “Durkheimian learning assumes a genetic preparedness to learn bonding with the group.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The argument assumes modularized cognitive specialization, limited to Durkheimian learning.

    “the argument assumes modularized cognitive specialization.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Group-level fitness index changes between equations 3 and 4

    Minor

    Equation 4 is described as inserting the lower-level equation into equation 3, but it changes group-level fitness from Ω k to Ω i while retaining Z k. Substitution alone would not change that index.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Berreby, D. (2008). Us and them: The science of identity. University of Chicago Press.
  2. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Human evolution: Our brains and behavior. Oxford University Press.
  3. Ferguson, R. B. (2015). Pinker’s list. Exaggerating pre-historic war mortality. In D. P. Fry (Ed.), War, peace, and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary and cultural views (pp. 113–131). Oxford University Press.
  4. Fry, D. P. (Ed.). (2015). War, peace, and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary and cultural views. Oxford University Press.
  5. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.
  6. Muthukrishna, M. (2025). A Theory of Everyone: The New Science of Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going. MIT Press.
  7. Plotkin, H. (1998). Evolution in mind: An introduction to evolutionary psychology. Cambridge.
  8. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187, 5–60.
  9. Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling. Modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press.
  10. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Harvard University Press.
  11. Wilson, D. S. (2014). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.

Authors
Windzio, M.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
Corresponding author
Windzio, Michael
ORCID
Windzio, Michael
Venue
Human Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2026-09-02
ISSN
  • 1045-6767 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4776
DOI
10.1007/s12110-026-09531-2
OpenAlex
W7205016027
Semantic Scholar
cbecb735b0c1980d563762171a91604d71035832
Cited by
0
References
59
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Human Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Universität Bremen
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Emile Durkheim and Sociology
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
cultural transmission, gene-culture coevolution, cultural group selection, multilevel selection, Price equation, intergroup competition, group boundaries, cultural markers, intergenerational learning, evolution of cooperation, sociality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review