On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:59:53 -0700, Stephen Black wrote: >I recently challenged TIPSters to provide the name for a scientific concept. >The phenomenon is that subordinate males can gain access to females for >copulation while the alpha males are competing with each other. What do >we call these sneaky f*ckers and their opportunistic strategy? [snip] >... I recommend that everyone teaching evolutionary psychology >make sure to discuss the concept and to utter the term which dares not speak >its name. That oughta make those little f*ckers sit up and pay attention.
Sometime I wonder if retirement is making Stephen Black lose touch with academic reality. I'm going to assume that Stepehn is actually serious about the "SF" phrase and isn't just pranking Tips. It is with this in mind that I make the following comments: (1) I have heard the "SF" phrase used and occasionally seen it in print. A google search reveals that it has wide usage, but usually in non-scientific contexts. Searching books.google.com turns up the phrase in a fairly large number of books (N=616) in a variety of topics: see: http://tinyurl.com/paqlfm Even that great skeptic Michael Shermer refers to the concept in the first volume of "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", see: http://tinyurl.com/pmtzru However, it is another thing to claim that biologists or people doing research on evolution use the "SF" phrase commonly (it is telling that even Wikipedia no longer has an entry on the "SF Strategy", instead it redirects to an entry on "Sexual Conflict"; the other two entries don't actually use the "SF" phrase). (2) An implication of what Stephen argues is that the "SF" phrase should be readily detectable in relevant databases such as www.Jstor.org which has articles by John Maynard Smith as well as articles about him and other candidates for originator of the "SF" phrase but there are only three hits on Jstor for "SF" and none of them are biology or evolution related. A search of Medline turns up no hits (probably because the f-bomb is not found in the database; see www.pubmed.gov ). A search of the Annual Reviews website which includes "The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics" as well as other annual review in biology and the social sciences (such as "The Annual Review of Psychology" of which the 2009 issue is the 60th volume in the series) turns up no use of the "SF" phrase. Using the term "sneakers" provides 14 hits though not all are relevant to the "SF" concept. One that is relevant is the following: MALE AND FEMALE ALTERNATIVE REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS IN FISHES:A New Approach Using Intersexual Dynamics S. A. Henson and, R. R. Warner Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1997 28, 571-592 The "SF" phrase does not appear in the Wiley Interscience database, the Sage Fulltext Collections, or PsycInfo (even when searching all text for the phrase). It is not a commonly used expressed in print. Perhaps it is used in public presentations or other contexts where a public record might not be made (Maynard Smith is reported several times to have uttered the phrase but appears to never have used the phrase in print). So, why the emphasis on it? (4) Stephen can make all the recommendations he wants about what phrases to use in class, especially those that may cause a challenge to the practice of academic freedom at one's institution. Stephen, as far as I know, isn't teaching anymore so he's can't determine what the consequences might be of using something like the "SF" phrase in a class. I would suggest caution to those who don't have tenure or are teaching as adjunct faculty. Especially if you will have to justify it to your dean that the "SF" phease is commonly used in relevant literature. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
