No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Does ultrasociality really exist – and is it the best predictor of human economic behaviors?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2016
Abstract
We agree that human economic structures can be informed by comparative analyses; however, we do not agree with several of Gowdy & Krall's specific assertions, which may hinder the generative potential of their model. We discuss these limitations from both biological and economic perspectives, and offer an alternative explanation for the expression of human economic behaviors based on individual optimization strategies.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Alexander, R. D. (1989) The evolution of the human psyche. In: The human revolution, ed. Stringer, C. & Mellars, P., pp. 455–513. University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1984) Evolution of eusociality. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
15:165–89.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology
7:1–16; 17–52.Google Scholar
Hughes, W. O. H., Oldroyd, B. P., Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science
320(5880):1213–16. doi: 10.1126/science.1156108.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology
46:35–57.Google Scholar
Vigil, J. M. (2007) Asymmetries in the social styles and friendship preferences of men and women. Human Nature
18:143–61.Google Scholar
Vigil, J. M. (2009) A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
32(5):375–428.Google Scholar
Target article
The economic origins of ultrasociality
Related commentaries (26)
Agriculture and the energy-complexity spiral
Agriculture increases individual fitness
Autonomy in ants and humans
Biological markets explain human ultrasociality
Contributions of family social structure to the development of ultrasociality in humans
Differences in autonomy of humans and ultrasocial insects
Differentiation of individual selves facilitates group-level benefits of ultrasociality
Does ultrasociality really exist – and is it the best predictor of human economic behaviors?
Human agricultural economy is, and likely always was, largely based on kinship – Why?
Human and ant social behavior should be compared in a very careful way to draw valid parallels
Humans are ultrasocial and emotional
Laying the foundation for evonomics
Malthus redux, and still blind in the same eye
On the effectiveness of multilevel selection
Rome was not built in one day: Underlying biological and cognitive factors responsible for the emergence of agriculture and ultrasociality
Social insects, merely a “fun house” mirror of human social evolution
The continuing evolution of ultrasocial economic organization
The convergent and divergent evolution of social-behavioral economics
The day of reckoning: Does human ultrasociality continue?
The similarity and difference between ant and human ultrasocieties: From the viewpoint of scaling laws
Ultrasociality and the division of cognitive labor
Ultrasociality and the sexual divisions of labor
Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely
Ultrasociality, class, threat, and intentionality in human society
Ultrasociality: When institutions make a difference
“If it looks like a duck…” – why humans need to focus on different approaches than insects if we are to become efficiently and effectively ultrasocial
Author response
Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change