Aaron Nathaniel Sell

TL;DR: The fact that stronger men favored greater use of military force in international conflicts provides evidence that the internal logic of the anger program reflects the ancestral payoffs characteristic of a small-scale social world rather than rational assessments of modern payoffs in large populations.

TL;DR: Tests support the hypothesis that the human cognitive architecture includes mechanisms that assess fighting ability—mechanisms that focus on correlates of upper-body strength, and are the first empirical demonstration that, for humans, judgements of strength and judgement of fighting ability not only track each other, but accurately track actual upper- body strength.

TL;DR: The results provide the first direct evidence that both men and women can accurately assess men's physical strength from the voice, and suggest that estimates of strength are used to assess fighting ability.

TL;DR: The question the research has been addressing is how to incorporate the study of value and motivation into the framework of the cognitive sciences, and a new way of thinking about motivation that is both computational and grounded in evolutionary biology is proposed.

TL;DR: Data are reviewed showing that better fighters feel entitled to better outcomes, set lower thresholds for anger/aggression, have self-favoring political attitudes, and believe more in the utility of warfare.