Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although the theory of evolution might seem to imply that all animals must be selfish by nature, this is not the case because social animals can propagate their selfish genes in psychologically unselfish ways. To understand the moral aspect of human nature, we must understand the adaptive functions that moral traits served in early human environments. I argue that the central function of morality is to uphold adaptive systems of cooperation. Even though some cooperative strategies are susceptible to exploitation by selfish strategies, there are several ways in which the kind of cooperative behavioral strategies that people consider moral can evolve. Primitive psychological sources of moral behavior, such as moral emotions, and advanced sources, such as perspective-taking and moral reasoning, evolve and develop throughout the life span in a Russian Doll manner. Although the original function of perspective-taking and moral reasoning may have been to help early humans advance their interests in strategic social interactions, these processes may now motivate people to behave in moral ways. We are evolved to be as good as our early ancestors had to be to reap the benefits of sociality and cooperation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".