What makes a value survive as a group gets bigger?

Following Henrich’s mechanism for the collective structure of cooperation among individuals. Individuals do not act alone. Specifically, Henrich cites cooperation between individuals as a method of transmitting information. He cites multiple cases as evidence of a collective brain. First, he cites the Tasmanian people, who were cut off by rising sea levels after the last ice age. Over the next millennia, we find their toolkit greatly simplified as technology was lost to time due to isolation. Another case he cites is the Inuit, who lost advanced technology such as kayaks and bows and arrows when an epidemic killed those who had the knowledge to create and use them. Years later, another Inuit group made contact with them, and they regained all the knowledge they had lost. The mechanism, Henrich argues, is one of information transmission between individuals. As groups become isolated and shrink in size, he repeatedly finds toolkits and technology shrinking as fewer people have the knowledge necessary to pass down relevant information to the next generation. As a group grows in size, information spreads much more quickly and efficiently. Toolkits and technology grow at an increasing rate, and groups maintain a larger security net to protect their knowledge.

The logic used for information transmission can similarly be applied to that of value transmission. What does it mean at a fundamental level to cooperate in a group? Most importantly, group members must not kill each other. Each group member has their own self-interests, goals, and needs. By the nature of natural selection, an individual should, above all else, make it their life’s work to fulfill their personal needs. If their personal needs are not met, they may suffer greatly, or even die. However, surviving as an individual is not easy. It can be done, but one must complete an endless list of tasks each day simply to survive outside of a group. Forming a group, no matter how small, simplifies the long list of tasks an individual must complete each day. Just adding one more individual halves the task list. Take hunter-gatherers, for example. A single individual must hunt and gather for survival, but adding a single other individual allows one to hunt and the other to gather. The more individuals are added to the group, the more tasks can be split out and time spent beyond mere survival. So hunter-gatherer groups agreed that living in a group would greatly increase their chances of survival and improve their quality of life. They began to form larger groups to hunt and gather together.

In this structure we have created, communication is vital to success. A hunter cannot avoid the needs of the gatherers, and a gatherer cannot avoid the needs of a hunter. The hunter must also be aware of the structure the gatherer operates under, even if the hunter never actually gathers. Similarly, the gatherer must be aware of the structure the hunter operates under. Without this knowledge, they would not be able to plan accordingly and work together efficiently. The sharing of this knowledge and planning between individuals of differing tasks defines our cooperative structure. These individuals must share their knowledge with one another to plan for the group’s survival.

What does it take for individuals to cooperate in a group? The survival plan must be aligned with the best interests of each group member. Disagreements are no doubt common when negotiating in individuals’ best interests. As long as those disagreements do not lead to murder within the group, which would undoubtedly kill the group altogether, the group will come to agreements and compromises that align individuals under one common goal.

What do the hunters prioritize in this season? What do the gatherers prioritize in this season? How much food should be feasted on now? How much should be stored for later? Is bad weather ahead? How do we find long-term shelter for the winter? All questions that must be answered in order to properly cooperate within a group with varying tasks. The answers to these questions tell us what the group values the most.

Values begin at the individual level and are prioritized for individual survival. However, when the individual must cooperate within a group, values must be negotiated and compromised to push the group towards a collective goal. The individual’s values are not forgotten in this system, but they are prioritized in a meaningful way to the group. Values that do not become a top priority for the group may become a secondary priority for a few individuals within the group. In this way, values are not necessarily lost; they are organized into a structure.

As groups grow in size, more and more interests must be negotiated among the group’s members. Often, the individual’s highest-priority values cannot be prioritized in a large group. For example, in American cities, individuals place a high value on making a living and moving beyond paycheck-to-paycheck living to enjoy life. However, the city cannot provide for these individuals. Instead, it focuses its resources on public institutions such as education, transportation, and infrastructure. The individual places a high value on these public functions; however, they are not the highest priority. Between the negotiations over what a large group of individuals should focus on, only those that can be physically accomplished with the group’s resources will be prioritized.

It tends towards values representing self-transcendence, as Schwartz’s 10 basic values indicate. Negotiation between individuals cannot allow self-enhancement values to rise to the top of the value structure because, by their nature, they are zero-sum. The group would not function properly if it focused on each member’s individual needs. A counter-example to this is Roman society, where the elite value structure was built on glory, honor, and dominance. The key here was the way honor and power were achieved. Only by holding office, successfully completing public projects, commanding legions, or building roads can an individual achieve their personal goals.

So the individual needs sink to the lower end of the value structure, and the collective needs rise to the top. This method of sorting values as a group, as the group grows in size, reflects a transition from the individual to the group and follows a similar pattern of organizing around cooperation that Henrich observed in his studies.