As andie repeatedly points out (on hiatus?), you can make up any kind of just-so stories you want about the "selective advantages" of characteristic X. That kind of data-free speculation doesn't contribute at all to testing or evaluating modern evolutionary theory. Similarly, concerning the tired nature/nurture debate you allude to above: the only reasonable response to the question, "Are human psychological characteristics the result of natural selection, or are none the result of natural selection" is "yes".
> CB: I think we should take a different approach. We should argue
> that humans' sociality and culture bestowed adaptive advantage on our
> species, and that , if not "justice", then "love" and altruism are
> part of the original human essence. I use "essence" instead of
> "nature", because I'm saying that culture, that defining
> characteristic of our species, is fundamentally social and altruistic.
> (Or it was; it has turned into its opposite in many ways with the rise
> of class antagonistic society).
>
Well, we can make up any narratives we want. Just don't call it empirically validated evolutionary theory.
Miles