So I might be mixing concepts here. But here goes:

In economics we have dominant strategies:

In biology, the speed at which a pure strategy spreads in the population is limited by its current frequency, as the payoffs govern the growth rate x˙i /xi . A pure strategy which strictly dominates another will have a higher growth rate and drive the dominated strategy to extinction. In economics, strategies that are rare, dominated, but better than average at some point, may develop quickly, in a way which is not limited by their frequency. They may have a higher growth rate than the strategy that dominates them, leading to survival of pure strategies dominated by other pure strategies. In this sense, biological dynamics are more rational than economic or social ones.

Now John Vervake popularises a notion of psychotechnology:

Your brain has evolved over several species to use tools. In fact: if you start to use a tool for a short amount of time your brain starts to model it as part of your body. (e.g. when parking your car you can “feel” it as if it’s an extension of your body) Clothes, glasses, walls, shoes… they’re all tools. And the use of tools can be exacted. Your brain’s use of tools can be moved from a physical thing to a cognitive thing. Example of a psychotechnology: literacy. (Words, language) It’s a standard set of tools that can enhance your cognition. You can put words somewhere and they stay there.


Can morals be viewed an evolving psycho-technological driven by dominant strategies which helps in preservation of the species and/or self? Has any mathematician/anthropologist modelled spread of morals like this?
Has any philosopher advocated for this?

  • Because of the relatively long cycle of human life, and because of the relatively cultural nature of moral progress, knowledge of viability of strategy is often left in want. As a result, a lot of moral reasoning is mere speculation about long-term cause and effect. Moreover, heuristics run rampant in the moral reasoning of those with less experience, education, and wisdom. One common example is the just-world hypothesis. In short, yes; but emotions, biases, ignorance, and shortsightedness hamper progress, making it slow and dirty.
    – Michael
    Commented Mar 4, 2022 at 17:20
  • Moreover, as the situation changes, particularly due to technological progress, but also due to increased population and increased division-of-labour, previously ideal strategies become obsolete or sub-optimal, yet culture takes time to catch up.
    – Michael
    Commented Mar 4, 2022 at 17:36
  • With that said, one ought to remember that for individuals, moral reasoning develops through stages, as I outlined in this answer. Hence, even in the case of modern or educated society, each person has to build a personal understanding of morality before being in a good place to contribute effectively to cultural moral and ethical progress.
    – Michael
    Commented Mar 4, 2022 at 17:55
  • Morals is strictly a subject matter that comes from Philosophy & not any of these other disciplines you discuss. The correct definition will only come from Philosophy.These other uses of the philosophy terminology are out of the original context and use their own context. This will only confuse people because you will recognize that the same terminology is used 10 different ways.When that happens people will often conclude there is no one correct definition. No there is one original correct definition.What you are witnessing is people in authority going too far with their levels of influence
    – Logikal
    Commented Mar 8, 2022 at 14:15


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .