Mating strategies as game theory: Changing rules?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):613-613 (2000)
| Abstract | Human behavior can be analyzed using game theory models. Complex games may involve different rules for different players and may allow players to change identity (and therefore, rules) according to complex contingencies. From this perspective, mating behaviors can be viewed as strategic “plays” in a complex “mating game,” with players varying tactics in response to changes in the game's payoff matrix. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLothar Philipps (1993). Artificial Morality and Artificial Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (1):51-63.
Christian G. Fermüller & George Metcalfe (2009). Giles's Game and the Proof Theory of Łukasiewicz Logic. Studia Logica 92 (1):27 - 61.
Daniel M. Hausman (2005). 'Testing' Game Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):211-223.
Cristina Bicchieri (1988). Strategic Behavior and Counterfactuals. Synthese 76 (1):135 - 169.
A. De Block & S. Dewitte (2007). Mating Games: Cultural Evolution and Sexual Selection. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4).
April L. Bleske & David M. Buss (2000). A Comprehensive Theory of Human Mating Must Explain Between-Sex and Within-Sex Differences in Mating Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):593-594.
Steven T. Kuhn (2004). Reflections on Ethics and Game Theory. Synthese 141 (1):1 - 44.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #203,919 of 556,898 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,898 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
