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)|
References found in this work BETA
Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.David M. Buss - 1989 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (1):1.
Debunking Adapting Minds.Edouard Machery & H. Clark Barrett - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (2):232-246.
Game Theoretic Explanations and the Evolution of Justice.Justin D'Arms, Robert Batterman & Krzyzstof Gorny - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (1):76-102.
The Evolution of Jealousy.David M. Buss & Martie Haselton - 2005 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (11):506-507.
On the Evolution of Behavioral Complexity in Individuals and Populations.Carl T. Bergstrom & Peter Godfrey-Smith - 1998 - Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):205-31.
Citations of this work BETA
Niche Construction, Adaptive Preferences, and the Differences Between Fitness and Utility.Armin W. Schulz - 2014 - Biology and Philosophy 29 (3):315-335.
Similar books and articles
Giles's Game and the Proof Theory of Łukasiewicz Logic.Christian G. Fermüller & George Metcalfe - 2009 - Studia Logica 92 (1):27 - 61.
Mating Strategies as Game Theory: Changing Rules?Linda Mealey - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):613-613.
Scientific Truth and Perceived Truth About Sexual Human Nature: Implications for Therapists.Joseph A. Buckhalt & Erica J. Gannon - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):595-596.
Counterfactuals, Belief Changes, and Equilibrium Refinements.Cristina Bicchieri - 1993 - Philosophical Topics 21 (1):21-52.
Correlated Strategies as Institutions.G. Arce M. Daniel - 1997 - Theory and Decision 42 (3):271-285.
“Was You Ever Bit by a Dead Bee?” – Evolutionary Games and Dominated Strategies.Karl Sigmund - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):175-176.
Added to index2010-09-12
Total downloads33 ( #154,661 of 2,163,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,037 of 2,163,624 )
How can I increase my downloads?