Even though Pietraszewski acknowledges the tentative nature of the theory and the multiple lines of adjacent research needed to flesh it out, he insists that the finite set of primitives he identified is necessary and sufficient for defining social groups in the context of conflict. In this commentary I expose three interrelated conundrums that cast doubt on this simplistic presumption.

Drawing from conflicts observed in online communities (e.g., astroturfing and shadow banning), I extend Pietraszewski's theory to accommodate phenomena dependent on the intersubjectivity of groups, where representations of group membership (or beliefs about group membership) diverge. Doing so requires enriching representations to include other agents and their beliefs in a process of recursive mentalizing.

David Pietraszewski's theory of social groups offers a developmentally plausible account of how we reason about group membership, as it delineates clear boundaries to the hypothesis space that children must navigate. Merits notwithstanding, the account remains silent with respect to the arbitration problem: It does not explain how children can appropriately select among competing frames when interpreting social interactions.

Group representations need not reduce to triadic conflict roles, although we infer group membership from them. A conceptual primitive of <group> as one solidary, bounded unity or clique may motivate and facilitate reasoning about cooperative group interactions in context with and without intergroup conflict and may also be necessary for representing which agents would replace one another in a triadic conflict.

Groups are only real, and only serve as a basis for collective action, when their members perceive them to be real. For a computational model to have analytic fidelity and predictive validity it, therefore, needs to engage with the psychological reality of groups, their internal structure, and their structuring by (and of) the social context in which they function.

We welcome a computational theory on social groups, yet we argue it would benefit from a broader scope. A neuroscientific perspective offers the possibility to disentangle which computations employed in a group context are genuinely social in nature. Concurrently, we emphasize that a unifying theory of social groups needs to additionally consider higher-level processes like motivations and emotions.

The target article is an appeal to allow explicit computational theorizing into the study of social groups. Some commentators took this proposal and ran with it, some had questions about it, and some were confused or even put off by it. But even the latter did not seem to outright disagree – they thought the proposal was mutually exclusive with some other enterprise, when in fact it is not. Unfortunately, scientists studying social groups have not yet avoided the thread-bare trope of the blind men studying the different parts of the elephant: We see mutual exclusivity when we should see complementarity. I hope we can all take the next steps of examining how the different enterprises and approaches within our area of research might all fit together into a unified whole.

Many male traits are well explained by sexual selection theory as adaptations to mating competition and mate choice, whereas no unifying theory explains traits expressed more in females. Anne Campbell's “staying alive” theory proposed that human females produce stronger self-protective reactions than males to aggressive threats because self-protection tends to have higher fitness value for females than males. We examined whether Campbell's theory has more general applicability by considering whether human females respond with greater self-protectiveness than males to other threats beyond aggression. We searched the literature for physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to major physical and social threats, and found consistent support for females' responding with greater self-protectiveness than males. Females mount stronger immune responses to many pathogens; experience a lower threshold to detect, and lesser tolerance of, pain; awaken more frequently at night; express greater concern about physically dangerous stimuli; exert more effort to avoid social conflicts; exhibit a personality style more focused on life's dangers; react to threats with greater fear, disgust, and sadness; and develop more threat-based clinical conditions than males. Our findings suggest that in relation to threat, human females have relatively heightened protective reactions compared to males. The pervasiveness of this result across multiple domains suggests that general mechanisms might exist underlying females' unique adaptations. An understanding of such processes would enhance knowledge of female health and well-being.

Extended staying alive theory (SAT) raises the issue of the extent to which its various attributes are linked or whether they provide alternative means to the same adaptive ends. Theories such as SAT that consider an array of sex differences may benefit from the application of the multivariate D statistic, rather than using a series of d values, as is common at present.

Benenson et al. postulate that human females evolved unique survival adaptations to facilitate maternal and grandmaternal care. This hypothesis is consistent with the broader hypothesis that female phenotypes are more ecologically optimal, but further evidence is needed to make a compelling case that sex differences in self-protection are not primarily the result of more intense sexual selection on males.

We extend Benenson et al.'s hypothesis from the individual level to the societal level. Because women have highly limited reproductive rates, societies have generally prioritized female survival and regarded males as expendable. We describe various lines of evidence that are consistent with this hypothesis, and we offer additional predictions about differential attitudes toward male versus female endangerment.

Incorporating theoretic insights from ageing biology could advance the “staying alive” hypothesis. Higher male extrinsic mortality can weaken selection against ageing-related diseases and self-preservation, leading to high male intrinsic mortality. This may incidentally result in female-biased longevity-promoting traits, a possibility that will require rigorous testing in order to disentangle from the adaptive self-preservation hypothesis presented in the target article.

The target article interprets women's lower competitiveness than men's as evidence of adaptation to help women avoid physical conflicts and stay alive. This commentary advances the additional hypothesis that strategically suppressing competitiveness, thus signaling egalitarian intentions, could be an adaptation to catalyze cooperative behavior from males and females, turning natural competitors (other women) into allies and men into supportive partners.

Benenson et al. (2022) amass impressive evidence of robust sex differences as support for expanding “staying alive” theory. We argue for a broader and more domain-specific conceptualization focusing on life history tradeoffs between survival and mating success. Using three examples – women's disgust, fear of rape, and cultivation of bodyguards – we illustrate these tradeoffs and suggest a broader theoretical framework.

Evidence that women voluntarily expose themselves to some threats more than men do challenges the generalizability of the claim that women exceed men in self-protective responses. Examples include women's higher rates of living organ donation and rescuing Jews during the holocaust. In general, women's efforts to keep other people alive can take precedence over their efforts to protect themselves.

The target article takes myriad human female patterns and aligns them as a unit emerging from an expanded version of “staying alive” theory (SAT). Females and males do differ, however, to treat the complexity of human response to threats as an explicit, evolved sexually dimorphic package is not reflective of current knowledge regarding health, sex/gender, and behavior in Homo sapiens.

We argue that Benenson et al. need to consider not only sex differences in the effects of care on offspring survival but also in age-specific fertility when predicting how longevity affects fitness. We review evidence that staying alive has important effects on both women's and men's fitness, and encourage consideration of alternative explanations for observed sex differences in threat responses.

The authors propose that many morbidities higher in women than men are adaptations protecting survival, selected because survival has been especially crucial to mothers' reproductive success. Following their lead, I pursue variation in tradeoffs between reproduction and survival recognized by Darwin that were likely central to the evolution of many traits that distinguish us from our great ape cousins.

Females are disproportionately affected by intimate partner abuse that can result in severe physical and mental harm. Benenson et al. provide little exploration of how female-evolved traits enhance females' survival in abusive relationships. Discussion centres on “why” females do not “just leave” an abusive relationship and the effectiveness of female-evolved traits in navigating intimate partner abuse over time.

The target article proposed that women display greater self-protectiveness than men to major physical and social threats because such self-protective responses have higher fitness value for women than men. Rather than having evolutionary roots, we suggest the various physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to social and physical threats exhibited more by women than men are instead rooted in sociocultural forces.