As far as I understand it, it's things as in the second paragraph: basically macho behavior. Pretty arbitrary judgment that that has to count as "good." Not even in a looser sense that it's adaptive for anything. Could be just a feedback loop as for the plumage of male peacocks.
-
-
Replying to @FreisinnigeZtg @VivianOppen
This was no wild-goose chase. They systematically tested behaviors that according to ovulatory shift theory are testosterone-dependant handicaps signalling genetic quality & being attractive at ovulation. like bodily & behavioral signs of manliness. Also flirtation as IQ signs.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DegenRolf @VivianOppen
That's the argument that you only derive hypotheses and then test them, which is in principle okay. You could also do that at random or via astrology. If it works out, it is fine. However, this is supposed to lead to productive hypotheses: But then apparently this one fell flat.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Which then also casts doubt on the underlying reasoning. It's no longer clear why you can interpret the results in this light. eg. that these cues are signs for what you claim. That would not even follow if it had worked out, as you could only establish a connection for the cues.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Prima facie it could also be a meaningless feedback loop. Apart from that, a higher chance of fathering a cuckoo child does not logically imply that you will have relatively more descendants. (If it were so and it had worked for a long time, it would also be the norm.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreisinnigeZtg @VivianOppen
Rolf Degen Retweeted Rolf Degen
Not meaningless, but an arbitrary preference, as in the sexy son hypothesis. If women like it, it becomes a sure-fire success.https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1016341650023636992 …
Rolf Degen added,
Rolf Degen @DegenRolfReplying to @ACCapitalist @Inoran9It is a bit complicated. According to the best and latest research, beauty is not linked to health/good genes. But it is fitness enhancing, merely because it is sought after by others. The sexy son (or daughter) theory explains how. pic.twitter.com/qGQn5PKYBE1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DegenRolf @VivianOppen
Meaningless in the sense that it is not "adaptive" for anything, just so, accidental. (In quotes because "adaptive" is an elusive concept as far as I can see. Not to say there are not also features that are pretty obviously an adaptation to something.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreisinnigeZtg @VivianOppen
The thing about sexy-son "adaptations" is that they tend to become counteradaptive to survival. Darwin recognized this, and it robbed him off his sleep. The lesson was later forgotten; good genes reduced sexual selection to natural selection. And failed, as we see now.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DegenRolf @VivianOppen
I would say it fails for logical reasons alone. Natural selection in the original sense is about chances of survival. Sexual selection about chances of finding a mate. There is no reason why the two would always have to align and one then collapses into the other.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Once you concede that they at least sometimes do not align (ie. chances of survival go up for a trait, but down for finding a mate or vice versa), it cannot be the same thing. Arguments that try to overcome this, must fail at some point.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Rolf Degen Retweeted Rolf Degen
Richard Prum has written an ingenious and enlightening book on the subject. Also a great 1 hour talk on youtube. The man has thought this through:https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/863454791283994627 …
Rolf Degen added,
-
-
Replying to @DegenRolf @VivianOppen
Thanks a lot for the reference and engaging with my sloppy remarks. I have thought about this, but not really thought it through, more a hunch that something is wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just out of interest: Have you read David Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales"? And if so what's your take? I found it very thought-provoking. I don't think he gets it right, but he is on to something. (Title may look like "intelligent design," but that's not it, Stove was an atheist.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.