The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller
Authors: Geoffrey Miller
Ads: Link
with other adaptations, giving
sexual selection a status equal to that of selection for survival. In
expanding and clarifying the definition of biological adaptation,
Williams helped to overcome the machine aesthetic of the Modern Synthesis, and its emphasis on ornaments as species-recognition markers.
Finally, the reductionistic behaviorism of previous decades gave way to cognitive psychology in the 1970s, Once again it became
respectable to talk about the mind. Cognition, choice, judgment, decsion-making, and planning became part of psychology once again. This laid the foundation for the modern understanding of mate choice in general.
An increased acceptance of the role of female choice may have also been due to social trends. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and the rise of feminism led to more women studying and contributing to biology, and to a new appreciation of female choice in human social, sexual, and political life. Married male biologists could no longer take for granted the obedient support of their wives. They faced a new world in which women made choices more consciously and took more control of their lives. Although evolutionary theory was still extremely male-dominated, individual males were feeling more pressure from female choice. Female biologists doing field-work also drew more attention to female choice among the animals they studied. This was especially important in primatology, as women such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Sarah Hrdy, Jeanne Altmann, Alison Jolly, and Barbara Smuts explored female social and sexual strategies. Dismissing the idea that female choice could influence the direction of evolution began to look both sexist and unscientific. By drawing attention to the evolution of social and sexual behavior in animals, the sociobiology of the 1970s did for the study of animal sexuality what feminism did for the study of human sexuality. It empowered thinkers to ask "Why does sex work like this, instead of some other way?"
The Handicap Principle Raises the Stakes
The mathematical difficulties with sexual selection were the last barrier to crumble. In 1975, Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi turned to sexual selection theory and proposed a strange new idea that he called the "handicap principle." It revived Fisher's fitness-indicator idea in a counter-intuitive way. Zahavi suggested that the high costs of many sexual ornaments are what keep the ornaments reliable as indicators of fitness. Peacock tails require a lot of energy to grow, to preen, and to carry around. Unhealthy, unfit peacocks
can't afford big, bright tails. The ornament's cost guarantees the ornamented individual's fitness, and this is why costly ornaments
evolve.
Zahavi promoted his idea actively and ambitiously, suggesting that the handicap principle applies not only to sexual ornaments, but to warning coloration, threat displays, and many aspects of human culture. Within a year of Zahavi's first paper, Richard Dawkins realized the handicap principle was potentially important, and gave it a remarkably balanced appraisal in his influential 1976 bestseller The Selfish Gene. But to other biologists such as John Maynard Smith, Zahavi's principle seemed so confused that it could not possibly explain sexual ornamentation. Mathematically inclined biologists thought the handicap principle was an easy target, and attacked it vigorously.
The controversy over Zahavi's idea marked the true revival of sexual selection theory. Within ten years of his 1975 paper, more research was published on sexual selection than in the previous hundred years. Fisher's fitness-indicator idea was finally in play, its share value boosted by Zahavi's takeover bid. Soon Fisher's runaway process attracted more intellectual capital as well. In 1980 Peter O'Donald published Genetic Models of Sexual Selection, summarizing twenty years of thinking about the mathematics of sexual selection. This inspired a spate of new mathematical modeling. In the early 1980s Russell
sexual selection a status equal to that of selection for survival. In
expanding and clarifying the definition of biological adaptation,
Williams helped to overcome the machine aesthetic of the Modern Synthesis, and its emphasis on ornaments as species-recognition markers.
Finally, the reductionistic behaviorism of previous decades gave way to cognitive psychology in the 1970s, Once again it became
respectable to talk about the mind. Cognition, choice, judgment, decsion-making, and planning became part of psychology once again. This laid the foundation for the modern understanding of mate choice in general.
An increased acceptance of the role of female choice may have also been due to social trends. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and the rise of feminism led to more women studying and contributing to biology, and to a new appreciation of female choice in human social, sexual, and political life. Married male biologists could no longer take for granted the obedient support of their wives. They faced a new world in which women made choices more consciously and took more control of their lives. Although evolutionary theory was still extremely male-dominated, individual males were feeling more pressure from female choice. Female biologists doing field-work also drew more attention to female choice among the animals they studied. This was especially important in primatology, as women such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Sarah Hrdy, Jeanne Altmann, Alison Jolly, and Barbara Smuts explored female social and sexual strategies. Dismissing the idea that female choice could influence the direction of evolution began to look both sexist and unscientific. By drawing attention to the evolution of social and sexual behavior in animals, the sociobiology of the 1970s did for the study of animal sexuality what feminism did for the study of human sexuality. It empowered thinkers to ask "Why does sex work like this, instead of some other way?"
The Handicap Principle Raises the Stakes
The mathematical difficulties with sexual selection were the last barrier to crumble. In 1975, Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi turned to sexual selection theory and proposed a strange new idea that he called the "handicap principle." It revived Fisher's fitness-indicator idea in a counter-intuitive way. Zahavi suggested that the high costs of many sexual ornaments are what keep the ornaments reliable as indicators of fitness. Peacock tails require a lot of energy to grow, to preen, and to carry around. Unhealthy, unfit peacocks
can't afford big, bright tails. The ornament's cost guarantees the ornamented individual's fitness, and this is why costly ornaments
evolve.
Zahavi promoted his idea actively and ambitiously, suggesting that the handicap principle applies not only to sexual ornaments, but to warning coloration, threat displays, and many aspects of human culture. Within a year of Zahavi's first paper, Richard Dawkins realized the handicap principle was potentially important, and gave it a remarkably balanced appraisal in his influential 1976 bestseller The Selfish Gene. But to other biologists such as John Maynard Smith, Zahavi's principle seemed so confused that it could not possibly explain sexual ornamentation. Mathematically inclined biologists thought the handicap principle was an easy target, and attacked it vigorously.
The controversy over Zahavi's idea marked the true revival of sexual selection theory. Within ten years of his 1975 paper, more research was published on sexual selection than in the previous hundred years. Fisher's fitness-indicator idea was finally in play, its share value boosted by Zahavi's takeover bid. Soon Fisher's runaway process attracted more intellectual capital as well. In 1980 Peter O'Donald published Genetic Models of Sexual Selection, summarizing twenty years of thinking about the mathematics of sexual selection. This inspired a spate of new mathematical modeling. In the early 1980s Russell
Similar Books
