The problem with all of this is that humans don't really fit the mold.
In other animals it is always the male who is adorned. The male lion
has the mane. The male peacock has the long tail. Even in less
glamorous birds like ducks. The male is more colorful.
In humans however, it appears that it is the women who spend more time
primping and preening. (Good thing, I've already disqualified myself
from running for office.)Males tend to spend less time on their
appearance.
Even though I'm the worst offender for bringing in animal behavior
models, this would seem to make these models less applicable to humans.
David Mitchell
- Original Message -
From: William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001 3:27 pm
Subject: RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Since Darwin we normally think that it is women who choose which
males to mate with since males want to mate indiscriminately. Thus
you would expect it would be the male who would have to adapt to
the woman and not the other way around. However, if we are talking
about males supporting women and/or forming lifetime bonds then we
have an evolutionary game and it isn't clear what the outcome is.
However, that just puts us back in the dilemma that I proposed
earlier. We can see that it might be in men's interest to want to
mate when threatened but not women. I don't deny the empirical
fact, I just don't buy the explanations that have been given. - -
Bill Dickens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/03/01 12:12PM
I think the popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.,
including with many young women, is fairly relevant,
and supportive of stress arousal.
I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women:
the men are more than usually aroused;
which leads to more than usual arousal in the women.
I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually
aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe
evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall,
and b) less likely to keep a father around to help
with the kids she does have.
Tom Grey
-Original Message-
From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a
problem with
it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know
if women
are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it
wouldseem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if
she waited for
the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would
presumablybe a more fit sub-sample of the original population and
would be more likely
to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 797-6113
FAX: (202) 797-6181
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AOL IM: wtdickens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM
With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress
shouldcause
sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology
can
certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most
models
of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors;
females were
gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred
the more
perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or
major
battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to
become sexually
aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce
itself!
Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at
home -- will
be able to bear his young.
