the link was to show that in quarters regarded as authoratative on these sorts of issues in Crookedtimber land (PZMeyers) that Roughgarden is considered not particularly reliable. And her argument is not just about sexuality but attempts to debunk and replace sexual selection altogether and not just on the level of psychology, as Brendan believes, but on all levels including physiology –
“In social selection, the expensive tail on a peacock does not seduce a peahen. Instead, that tail is primarily a badge that earns the peacock membership in male power-holding cliques.”

It’s an odd statement from someone who is supposedly an ecologist – Peacocks don’t form those sorts of alliances with other males.

I can’t see how her alternative therory “social selection” can be anything other than Lamarckian.

The thesis that sexual selection influences behaviour/psychology can hardly be called “dubious” – it is either true in some instances or not. And in some instances it is. (In the case of hair clour Frost is arguing for teh reverse – that behaviour influences physiology).

Anyway! All I really know about sexual selection is Dawkin’s discussion of it The Blind Watchmaker and it all seemed very plausible then. But that was an example about physiology, not behaviour (it was the example of the peacock’s tail). Now Dawkin’s was using SS (Sexual Selection) as a way of explaining physiological phenomena that were not, apparently, in the organism’s (or the gene’s) interests to have. Now that I can swallow.

But look at Roughgarden’s arguments. What s/he is arguing against is the concept that sexual selection has an impact on high level behaviours, which is a whole other ball game.

In other words, you can have your cake and eat it. You can accept that SS explains many features of animal and for that matter, human physiology. And yes that, presumably, has some knock on effect on behaviour.

But to repeat, the idea that this then has an impact on psychology, let alone human psychology, is a far more dubious proposition.

Re: neil—This link does not seem to be in response to brendan’s article, but about a claim by Roughgarden that Darwin offered an argument against homosexuality.

PS It’s also interesting to note that Joan Roughgarden was born John Roughgarden.

Oh for heavens sake, Chris, the evidence is everywhere around you.
Why do you think people are so much more obsessed with “welfare queens” and bureacracy horror stories than with the success of welfare and government? People seem quite willing to condemn a thousand to misery if it will prevent one from somehow gaining an unfair advantage.

I am aware that the theory currently in favour is that all the Neanderthals and all homo sapiens in Europe died out during the last Ice Age, and Europe was resettled from Asia afterward. But the blond Neanderthal theory would explain the distribution of blond hair pretty well.

And, yeah, its a common misunderstanding that recessive genes somehow tend to disappear because they are recessive. Google “Hardy-Weinberg Law”.

maybe you might re-evaluate that after reading this thread – http://pharyngula.org/comments/594_0_1_0_C/

I can sort of see why some aren’t too keen on evolutionary psychology but to go further and attack sex selction is weird.

the artilce Bredan links to is filled with some very odd and not exactly scientific reasoning.

Yabba dabba doo!

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2005summer/stories/sexual.html

I’m not an expert (to say the least) but her arguments strike me as fairly devastating.

Theories about sexual selection can be traced back to Darwin in 1871. He proposed that males fertilize as many females as possible with inexpensive sperm, whereas females, with a limited supply of large eggs, select the genetically highest quality males to endow their offspring with superior capabilities. Since its proposal, problems with this narrative have continued to accumulate, and it is our view that sexual selection theory needs to be replaced. We suggest an approach that relies on the exchange of direct ecological benefits among cooperating animals without reference to genetic benefits. This approach can be expressed mathematically in a branch of game theory that pertains to bargaining and side payments.

Reproductive Social Behavior: Cooperative Games to Replace Sexual Selection
Joan Roughgarden, Meeko Oishi, Erol Akçay
Science 17 February 2006
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 965 – 969

The present Eskimos moved into the Canadian Far North in historical times (Christian era). Before that they were in Asia, though still pretty far north. Curiosity of history: the Turks migrated from almost the same place during almost the same period.

As a female, let me introduce a small bit of hard-headed science into this mix.

Ever since Darwin, people have been trying to figure out what makes for genetic success. Darwin and others came up with the idea of sexual selection, which has been interpreted as male selection of suitable females (the meme currently under discussion) or female selection of suitable males.

The former version was seen to be a projection of male scientists’ prejudices, but its replacement, partial or total by the latter version has not solved a number of evolutionary questions.

A recent issue of Science contained an article suggesting a game-theory alternative to the idea of sexual selection. (Sorry, I’ve discarded it and never did sign up for the online version.) This approach has the advantage of doing away with just-so stories like this one, which are unprovable and frequently reflective of the originator’s prejudices.

For instance, we have the sickle-cell allele in Europe, it’s just not as common as in Africa.

Note that poor children got rickets in nineteenth and early twentieth century industrial England, and it wasn’t because the rich children were whiter. It was because they were getting a better diet.