Minds of gods and human cognitive constraints: socio-ecological context shapes belief
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What believers say about gods’ thoughts, concerns, and dispositions reflects both the minds of believers and the societies in which they live. A review of the psychology of religion literature reveals a paradox: individuals benefit from belief in divine benevolence, while groups benefit from belief in divine punishment. We propose that a resolution to this paradox lies in the combination of cognitive systems and culturally-transmitted social norms. We suggest that, as access to reflective thinking capacity is depleted, unreflective thinking driven by culturally-transmitted decision rules that are themselves shaped by local environments (e.g., norms, schemas, and scripts) play a central role in shaping beliefs about the minds of gods. We first review the psychological literature and examine how cognition and social norms might combine to favor certain patterns of beliefs around what gods know, care about, and do. We use a cultural evolutionary lens to indicate ways that various beliefs about gods’ minds may confer adaptive benefits to individuals or groups across various socio-ecological contexts, focusing on three cultural strategies: honor, face, and dignity. Along the way, we draw from existing data to predict what shapes gods’ minds may take and suggest ways to test predictions drawn from this review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it