David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):615-616 (2000)
Gangestad & Simpson provide a persuasive argument that both men and women have evolved conditional mating strategies. Their references to “ancestral” males and females are rather vague, which is unfortunate, as they seek to justify their arguments by invoking human evolutionary history. When one actually examines the evidence for human evolution further, more support for their arguments can be found, as predominant types of mating strategies are likely to have shifted in light of environmental and anatomical developments. We can also see in the archaeological record evidence for a further dimension of strategic pluralism – the use of material culture to advertise good genes in some species of ancestral males.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stephen Beckerman (2000). Mating and Marriage, Husbands and Lovers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):590-591.
Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (2000). The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):573-587.
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.
Klaus Jaffe (1999). On the Adaptive Value of Some Mate Selection Strategies. Acta Biotheoretica 47 (1).
Elizabeth M. Hill (2000). Conditional Mating Strategies Are Contingent on Return From Investment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):605-606.
Agustin Fuentes (2000). Human Mating Models Can Benefit From Comparative Primatology and Careful Methodology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):602-603.
Michael R. Cunningham (2000). Adaptive Flexibility, Testosterone, and Mating Fitness: Are Low FA Individuals the Pinnacle of Evolution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):599-600.
John Archer & Mani Mehdikhani (2000). Strategic Pluralism: Men and Women Start From a Different Point. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):588-588.
David M. Buss (2005). Sex Differences in the Design Features of Socially Contingent Mating Adaptations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):278-279.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Craig T. Palmer & Hasker P. Davis (2000). More Women (and Men) That Never Evolved. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):598-599.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #242,089 of 1,140,334 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,127 of 1,140,334 )
How can I increase my downloads?