That's a great way to phrase the question. It highlights, I think, that evolutionary _psychology_ is a bit strange. It's much stranger than, say, the article Roger posted, which refers to evolutionary anthropology. In this question, there are 2 concrete things: 1) the extent to which poly[andry|gyny] is engaged vs. 2) the extent to which it is accepted, discussed, thought about, etc. It (again) brings to mind the ubiquity of hypocrisy (a form of game playing) as a kind of falsification method for evolutionary psychological hypotheses. The preacher preaches against some behavior, but then is found to engage in that behavior. Or, another example, an insecure male watches youtube videos which present rhetoric he can wear on his sleeve (Peterson) and how-to instructions on how to better *present* a persona, but deep down, in his physiology, he is insecure, the opposite of the affect presented.
So, if evopsych is *anything*, it should be about the *disconnect* between behavior and what we say/think about that behavior. On 03/01/2018 03:07 PM, Prof David West wrote: > Finally, and to the point of this thread, might the prevalence of polygyny > and the rarity of polyandry among humans be an evolutionary adaptation" > and/or an evolutionary psychology adaptaptation? > > Evidence suggests that women can accommodate the sexual needs of multiple > husbands, but not the procreative needs. cultural evolution might allow for > polyandrous relations within the context of cultural evolution but the > procreative needs would dominate biological evolution. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
