Cooperative game theory vs. sexual selection

by on March 3, 2006 at 10:22 am in Science | Permalink

Roughgarden said that pairings are often better explained by creating a viable team than by finding the highest quality genes. Couples are usually genetically similar, she said, and their differences are often complementary: Both members provide the team with the strengths the other lacks.

"To make an analogy with humans, the number of children a couple can raise to adulthood is more influenced by the income of the family rather than the genetic makeup," Akcay said. "We think that in most species, this is what is going on: Males and females choose each other for ecological benefits rather than superior genetic makeups."

Read more here, including criticisms, hat tip to www.politicaltheory.info for the pointer.

Half Sigma March 3, 2006 at 10:40 am

I don’t get why there’s anything special about this article. Evolutionary psychology has always theorized that women have two mating strategies: (1) find a man who will be able to provide for offspring so they have a better chance of living to adulthood (2) have a child with an “alpha male” because his alpha-male genes will make up for not being around to provide for his child.

Keith March 3, 2006 at 12:37 pm

Actually, based on the short article, it looks like their theories are very similar to Becker’s theory of marriage.

Especially look at the sections of the paper where he discusses assortative mating.

David Alexander March 3, 2006 at 2:09 pm

and a third, optimal strategy: collect the genes of the alpha males whenever they are availible, but simultaneously have a long-term partnership with a beta to provide for these kids.

You’ve uncovered the deepest and darkest fear of every beta male in the world.

lj March 3, 2006 at 4:26 pm

Talking about this topic have a look at this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186301,00.html “> Eating More Chocolate May Be Better for Your Health

CB March 3, 2006 at 6:50 pm

Weird fact: Joan Roughgarden used to be Jonathan Roughgarden.

Jason March 5, 2006 at 8:29 pm

I would imagine that Ms. Roughgarden’s theory holds true only if botht he male and female have an equal investment in raising the offspring. And since the handicap principle seems to do a better job of explaining everything else, I’m not quite sure why this cooperative approach might be better, but maybe I’m missing something.

w3f March 16, 2006 at 9:15 pm
geller April 5, 2006 at 7:48 pm
nancy May 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm

SHE SHOULD HAVE gotte this sooner

rena May 26, 2006 at 1:01 am
ralph June 8, 2006 at 12:02 am

this is what happends when one loses his mind…in its entirety

Hamas Militants Storm Palestinian TV Facility

rico June 22, 2006 at 12:38 am
JESS July 5, 2006 at 10:59 pm
TUKJYU July 27, 2006 at 1:32 am
verna August 9, 2006 at 5:49 pm
jeil August 16, 2006 at 8:36 pm
wef3r August 30, 2006 at 7:02 pm
weftrwr September 6, 2006 at 9:41 pm
herbie September 20, 2006 at 6:00 pm
jim October 4, 2006 at 7:33 pm
trilogy October 25, 2006 at 10:26 pm
ce November 8, 2006 at 6:25 pm
swdwde December 22, 2006 at 3:10 pm
ASXS January 3, 2007 at 9:40 pm
wcdwcd January 19, 2007 at 1:36 am
asdasd January 24, 2007 at 10:52 pm
edewd January 31, 2007 at 9:44 pm
WSQW March 23, 2007 at 2:01 am

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: