iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

But compensation isn't everything. Consistent with deterrence, payments included an additional penalty beyond restitution of the lost resource. As the Mentawai adage goes, sabbek silinia, sabbek tulounia—"one is its exchange, one is its fine." Only accidents required restitution alone.

010

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

Also consistent with compensatory concerns, Mentawai participants asked that victims be repaid in the currency of their loss—steal a pig, get paid back in pigs, not coconut trees.

100

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

We test predictions of this idea with scenarios that pull compensation & deterrence apart. For example: vary the harm to the victim while holding the offender's gain fixed. Pure deterrence predicts no effect. Yet consistent with compensatory concerns, demands rose with the victim's loss.

110

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

Human punitive psychology is paradoxical: models say punishment evolved for deterrence, yet people are intuitive retributivists—wanting to "restore a balance," not maximize deterrence. Our solution: retribution restores mutual benefit b/w partners by both compensating victims & deterring offenders.

120

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 28/05/2026

Why do humans punish? Our new paper, with @manvir.bsky.social, is out in Psychological Science! With experiments in a small-scale society (Mentawai) & the US, we test whether punitive cognition evolved to deter wrongdoing or restore fairness. link: tinyurl.com/msrmu7cc pdf: tinyurl.com/mvprz8fb

24313

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 16/06/2025

Actually, we checked for halo effect by also measuring perceptions of warmth. In many conditions, people do not expect lower warmth to follow—only lower self-control or cooperativeness. So, as far as we can tell, it doesn't look like a halo effect.

000

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

4. We tried to disentangle signalling beliefs (that indulgence *reveals* low self-control) from erosion beliefs (that indulgence *causally reduces* self-control). We asked participants to predict the outcome of an experiment manipulating indulgence. Results were similar—suggesting a causal belief.

130

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

3. The perception that bodily pleasures reduce self-control and cooperativeness predicts puritanical moral judgments. The more people see indulgence as decreasing self-control & coop—and restraint as increasing them—the more they morally condemn bodily pleasures.

110

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

2. The perceived effect of harmless bodily pleasures on trustworthiness was largely—or fully—mediated by their perceived effect on self-control. (⚠️Note: The mediator wasn’t manipulated experimentally: these results are correlational!)

120

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

1. People perceived indulging targets as becoming more likely to cheat, less trustworthy (moral character), and less self-controlled. Weaker or null effects on warmth suggest that the effect is specific to self-control and cooperativeness—not a halo effect or demand characteristic.

110

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

But in a recent BBS paper, I and others suggested that these judgments may, in fact, be reducible to reciprocity-based mechanisms. Harmless bodily pleasures may be moralized because they’re seen as impairing self-control—a capacity needed to refrain from cheating.

130

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

A core debate in moral psych: “monist” vs. “pluralist” theories. Monists argue that all moral judgments, despite their diverse content (e.g. purity, fairness), are produced by a single calculator in the mind (e.g. reciprocity). Pluralists disagree: we need distinct mechanisms beyond reciprocity.

120

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

🧵New paper out in Cognition Why do people moralize harmless carnal sins (e.g. gluttony, masturbation)? @danielnettle.bsky.social & I find that these behaviors activate reciprocity-based moral judgment—no need for a distinct "purity" module. 50 days free link: authors.elsevier.com/a/1l18D2Hx2-...

47727

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Predictions of this account? We derive many of them and review psychological, anthropological, and historical evidence. Check the pdf to find out more! drive.google.com/file/d/1NTv8...

140

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Because people can police with both selfish and prosocial interests, the policing framework explains why religions take both extractive forms ("God commands that women obey men!") and prosocial forms ("Stingy people will burn in hell!").

130

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Yet people have obvious interests in deterring others from cheating. So they communicate beliefs in moralizing gods to manipulate others into cooperating. Prosocial religions emerge from mutual policing, where each person, lacking trust in others, tries to incentivize others with supernatural belief

150

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Our solution: turn to folk-psychology and strategic interests. While it’s not clear that beliefs in moralizing gods *actually* make people more cooperative, it’s clear that people *think* that they do.

150

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

(1) Supernatural punishment isn't more common in large vs. small societies. While it covers fewer behaviours in smaller ones, the core idea—that supernatural forces punish free-riding—occurs even where large-scale cooperation is absent. (see cool papers by @bgpurzycki.bsky.social & many others)

160

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Since the 2010’s, the standard account is that supernatural punishment evolved by cultural group selection to promote large-scale cooperation. But new data has accumulated since then, making—in our view—this hypothesis unlikely for several reasons.

140

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Across societies, people believe in moralistic supernatural punishment—gods or supernatural forces that punish antisocial behavior. Why do these religious beliefs develop so reliably?

150

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 11/02/2025

Where do moralizing religions come from? Useless cognitive by-products?Cultural group selection for complex societies? Our Psych Review paper argues: neither. Let’s rethink their cognitive & evolutionary origins🧵 w/ @manvir.bsky.social @nbaumard @jbaptistandre.bsky.social doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

68340

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 04/10/2023

In this context, we defend a monist & cooperation-based theory of morality. The unique logic of reciprocal obligations, we argue, best explains the design-features of moral judgements across domains—not only fairness, but also purity, loyalty, authority, etc.

100

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 04/10/2023

2. The cooperation debate. Did moral cognition evolved exclusively for cooperation? Or did other adaptive challenges, such as pathogen avoidance, coordination for side-taking in conflicts, and self-serving use of moral principles, shape the moral mind in our evolutionary history?

110

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 04/10/2023

Commentaries nicely reflect the two central debates that purity raises for moral psych: 1. The monism-pluralism debate. Are all moral judgements, despite the diversity of their content (e.g., purity, fairness, authority), produced by a single calculator in the mind?

110

Léo Fitouchi @lfitouchi.bsky.social · 04/10/2023

Thanks so much to all commentators for their deep & sharp & productive arguments!

100