The problem with all of this is that humans don't really fit the mold. In other animals it is always the male who is adorned. The male lion has the mane. The male peacock has the long tail. Even in less glamorous birds like ducks. The male is more colorful.
In humans however, it appears that it is the women who spend more time primping and preening. (Good thing, I've already disqualified myself from running for office.) Males tend to spend less time on their appearance. Even though I'm the worst offender for bringing in animal behavior models, this would seem to make these models less applicable to humans. David Mitchell ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001 3:27 pm Subject: RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust > Since Darwin we normally think that it is women who choose which > males to mate with since males want to mate indiscriminately. Thus > you would expect it would be the male who would have to adapt to > the woman and not the other way around. However, if we are talking > about males supporting women and/or forming lifetime bonds then we > have an evolutionary game and it isn't clear what the outcome is. > However, that just puts us back in the dilemma that I proposed > earlier. We can see that it might be in men's interest to want to > mate when threatened but not women. I don't deny the empirical > fact, I just don't buy the explanations that have been given. - - > Bill Dickens > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/03/01 12:12PM >>> > I think the popularity of "Nightmare on Elm Street", etc., > including with many young women, is fairly relevant, > and supportive of "stress arousal". > > I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women: > the men are "more than usually" aroused; > which leads to "more than usual" arousal in the women. > I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually > aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe > evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall, > and b) less likely to keep a father around to help > with the kids she does have. > > > > Tom Grey > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust > > > I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a > problem with > it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know > if women > are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it > wouldseem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if > she waited for > the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would > presumablybe a more fit sub-sample of the original population and > would be more likely > to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens > > > William T. Dickens > The Brookings Institution > 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 797-6113 > FAX: (202) 797-6181 > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > AOL IM: wtdickens > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM >>> > With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress > shouldcause > sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology > can > certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most > models > of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; > females were > gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred > the more > perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or > major > battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to > become sexually > > aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce > itself! > Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at > home -- will > > be able to bear his young. > >
