David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (1):41-49 (2010)
David Buss’s Sexual Strategies Theory is one of the major evolutionary psychological research programmes, but, as I try to show in this paper, its theoretical and empirical foundations cannot yet be seen to be fully compelling. This lack of cogency comes about due to Buss’s failure to attend to the interactive nature of his subject matter, which leads him to overlook two classic and well known issues of game theoretic and evolutionary biological analysis. Firstly, Buss pays insufficient attention to the fact that, since mate choice is a cooperative decision, what is adaptive for the two sexes individually is irrelevant to the evolutionary explanation of our sexual strategies; instead, all that matters is what is adaptive given the choices made by the other sex. Secondly, Buss does not pay enough attention to the difference between polymorphic and monomorphic evolutionarily stable states in his attempt to empirically confirm his theory. Because of this, the data he presents and analyses are unable to show that natural selection is the most important element in the explanation of the origins of our sexual strategies. In this way, I try to make clear that, at least as things stand now, Buss has failed to provide compelling grounds for thinking that Sexual Strategies Theory can make a major contribution to human psychology
|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
Carl T. Bergstrom & Peter Godfrey-Smith (1998). On the Evolution of Behavioral Complexity in Individuals and Populations. Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):205-31.
David M. Buss (1989). Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (1):1.
David M. Buss & Martie Haselton (2005). The Evolution of Jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (11):506-507.
Peter Carruthers (2002). Human Nature and the Limits of Science, John Dupré. Clarendon Press, 2001, 211 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):351-385.
Justin D'Arms, Robert Batterman & Krzyzstof Gorny (1998). Game Theoretic Explanations and the Evolution of Justice. Philosophy of Science 65 (1):76-102.
Citations of this work BETA
Armin W. Schulz (2014). Niche Construction, Adaptive Preferences, and the Differences Between Fitness and Utility. Biology and Philosophy 29 (3):315-335.
Similar books and articles
Christian G. Fermüller & George Metcalfe (2009). Giles's Game and the Proof Theory of Łukasiewicz Logic. Studia Logica 92 (1):27 - 61.
Steven T. Kuhn (2004). Reflections on Ethics and Game Theory. Synthese 141 (1):1 - 44.
Linda Mealey (2000). Mating Strategies as Game Theory: Changing Rules? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):613-613.
Joseph A. Buckhalt & Erica J. Gannon (2000). Scientific Truth and Perceived Truth About Sexual Human Nature: Implications for Therapists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):595-596.
Robert Van Rooy (2004). Evolution of Conventional Meaning and Conversational Principles. Synthese 139 (2):331-366.
Robert Van Rooy (2004). Evolution of Conventional Meaning and Conversational Principles. Synthese 139 (2):331 - 366.
Cristina Bicchieri (1993). Counterfactuals, Belief Changes, and Equilibrium Refinements. Philosophical Topics 21 (1):21-52.
Aarne Ranta (1988). Propositions as Games as Types. Synthese 76 (3):377 - 395.
Daniel G. Arce M. (1997). Correlated Strategies as Institutions. Theory and Decision 42 (3):271-285.
Karl Sigmund (2003). “Was You Ever Bit by a Dead Bee?” – Evolutionary Games and Dominated Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):175-176.
Daniel M. Hausman (2005). 'Testing' Game Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):211-223.
John Levi Martin & Matt George (2006). Theories of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital. Sociological Theory 24 (2):107 - 132.
Added to index2010-09-12
Total downloads20 ( #136,301 of 1,707,715 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #352,634 of 1,707,715 )
How can I increase my downloads?