{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029614325068870524, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004132231404958678, 'mean_word_length': 4.858870967741935, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human Social Motivation in Evolutionary Perspective: Grounding Terror Management Theory

disproved? Further, with regard to the claim that the most basic human motive is the desire for continued life, I have a number of questions. First, when a mother risks her life to save her child, what is the motive? Is kin selection the same as the life-preservation instinct? Where does prosocial behavior fit into the present model? Where does preserving one's genes fit in if it entails risking one's own life? The role of groups is not well handled. Everything is from an individual motivational perspective. Perhaps it is to groups that we needed to look to understand, self-sacrificing acts as well as self-categorization processes. We may join groups to handle threats or opportunities that are beyond individual capabilities. For example, hunting large animals may require a group effort. More specifically, it appears that social support groups are often the most effective ways to manage terror. Similarly, people in'a relationship live longer, and so forth. At this level, a fundamental problem with TMT it is that the view of human social motivation is not social enough. Indeed, the ultimate terror is to be socially disconnected and be unable to bridge that gap, as in autism and schizophrenia. Perhaps as Shotter (1983) commented about dispositions in general, terror management should be treated as in the "dance rather than the dancers" (p. 39).