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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @FreisinnigeZtg @VivianOppen
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,
Rolf Degen @DegenRolfThe idea that females select males according to signs of good genes is high in popularity and low in reproducibility https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Beauty-Darwins-Forgotten-Theory/dp/0385537212/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494698605&sr=1-1&keywords=darwin+beauty … pic.twitter.com/F61tTnfeTv1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
Rolf Degen Retweeted Rolf Degen
Haven't read that one. Always after the latest stuff. In general terms, I do subscribe to evolutionary psychology. It is still the best part of psychology, which needs Darwin. And it it seems to be able to clear the dung out:https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/999280466577559552 …
Rolf Degen added,
-
-
Replying to @DegenRolf @VivianOppen
As a follower I know that you subscribe to evolutionary psychology. I am extremely skeptical to put it mildly, but have to admit that I have only kind of a hunch so far. If Malthus is wrong, populations must behave in a very different way, which then pulls the rug under Darwin.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FreisinnigeZtg @VivianOppen
Rolf Degen Retweeted Rolf Degen
Sex differences in mate preferences, the most basic tenet of evolutionary psychology, are large and completely unbeaten: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1027821532071034880 … The tragedy of the male sex drive is WILDLY self-evident:https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/984440607094472704 …
Rolf Degen added,
Rolf Degen @DegenRolfHere is a bit more on the tragedy of the male sex drive, from Roy Baumeister's book - in my view the most profound and stirring book about sex ever written. https://www.amazon.com/Social-Dimension-Sex-Roy-Baumeister/dp/0205324428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523527827&sr=1-1&keywords=the+social+dimensions+of+sex … pic.twitter.com/aI8GKkYJv6Show this thread2 replies 1 retweet 1 like - 1 more reply
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.