Humans as a model species for sexual selection research

Wilson, Michael L.; Miller, Christine; Crouse, Kristin N.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1320

Cited by 33 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to most mammals, the human sex difference in reproductive variability is rather modest (Stewart- Williams & Thomas, 2013). Nonetheless, genetic and anthropological data strongly suggest that there is such a difference (Betzig, 2012;Labuda et al, 2010; summarized in M. L. Wilson et al, 2017, Table 1). This may have resulted in the evolution of males that are somewhat more risk-prone than their female counterparts, not just behaviorally but developmentally as well.…”

Section: Evolutionary Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Stewart‐Williams¹,

Halsey²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a well-known and widely lamented fact that men outnumber women in a number of fields in STEM, including physics, mathematics, and computer science. The most commonly discussed explanations for the gender gaps are discrimination and socialization, and the most common policy prescriptions are targeted at those ostensible causes. However, a great deal of evidence in the behavioral sciences suggests that discrimination and socialization are only part of the story. The purpose of this paper is to highlight other aspects of the story: aspects that are commonly overlooked or downplayed. More precisely, the paper has two main aims. The first is to examine the evidence that factors other than workplace discrimination make a significant contribution to the gender gaps in STEM. These factors include relatively large average sex differences in career and lifestyle preferences, and relatively small average differences in cognitive aptitudessome favoring males, others favoring femaleswhich are associated with progressively larger differences the further above the average one looks. The second aim is to evaluate the evidence suggesting that these sex differences are not purely a product of social factors but also have a substantial biological (or "innate") component. A more complete picture of the many causes of the unequal sex ratios in STEM may productively inform policy debates, and is likely to improve women's situation across the STEM fields. Men, Women, and ScienceWhy the Differences and What Should Be Done?Never has the issue of gender disparities been as widely discussed, or as bitterly contested, as it has been in recent years. From the Oscars to the political podium, from TV shows to the workplace, disparities are identified and debate inevitably ensues. In the occupational realm, one of the primary focuses of this debate has been the differential representation of men and women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math). 1 This was epitomized by the infamous "Google memo," in which then-Google employee James Damore (2017) questioned the extent to which observed gender disparities in STEM are a product of workplace discrimination. The memo, and Damore's subsequent dismissal from Google, provoked a great deal of discussion and debate about the causes of STEM disparities and the origins of human sex differences. Unfortunately, much of this debate was decidedly inaccurate in its presentation of the research on the topic. A great deal was said about bias and discrimination, but relatively little about other factors contributing to STEM gender gaps (e.g., Chachra, 2017). Furthermore, to the extent that other factors were mentionedfactors such as average sex differences in academic interests these were typically attributed to socialization, rather than to biology or to a 1 Strictly speaking, the issue is not STEM per se, but rather STEM fields that focus on the non-living world, or that have a strong spatial or mathematical component. According to Ceci et al. (2014), the STEM fields should be divided into GE...

show abstract

Section: Evolutionary Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Stewart‐Williams¹,

Halsey²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Somewhat similar considerations apply to Wilson et al's incisive review of recent ideas on sexual selection and their application to human evolution [14]. Many features of human life are supposedly shaped by sexual selection.…”

Section: Exceptionalismmentioning

confidence: 95%

Humans as model organisms

Sterelny¹

2017

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like every other species, our species is the result of descent with modification under the influence of natural selection; a tip in an increasingly large and deep series of nested clades, as we trace its ancestry back to increasingly remote antecedents. As a consequence of shared history, our species has much in common with many others; as a consequence of its production by the general mechanisms of evolution, our species carries information about the mechanisms that shaped other species as well. For reasons unconnected to biological theory, we have far more information about humans than we do about other species. So in principle and in practice, humans should be usable as model organisms, and no one denies the truth of this for mundane physical traits, though harnessing human data for more general questions proves to be quite challenging. However, it is also true that human cognitive and behavioural characteristics, and human social groups, are apparently radically unlike those of other animals. Humans are exceptional products of evolution and perhaps that makes them an unsuitable model system for those interested in the evolution of cooperation, complex cognition, group formation, family structure, communication, cultural learning and the like. In all these respects, we are complex and extreme cases, perhaps shaped by mechanisms (like cultural evolution or group selection) that play little role in other lineages. Most of the papers in this special issue respond by rejecting or downplaying exceptionalism. I argue that it can be an advantage: understanding the human exception reveals constraints that have restricted evolutionary options in many lineages.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, whether adaptive models can produce an overarching framework that closes the divide between human and animal societies is still unclear and the subject of much discussion (e.g. Kokko 2017, Brosnan and Postma 2017, Bshary and Raihani 2017, Jasienska et al 2017, Rook et al 2017; Wilson et al 2017, Sterelny 2017, Briga et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of class-dependent reproductive effort in humans and other animals

Amm

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproductive effort is a major life history trait that largely determines an organism’s reproductive and survival schedule, and therefore it has a significant impact on lifetime fitness. A wealth of theoretical models have identified a wide range of factors that provide adaptive explanations for reproductive effort, including senescence, differential adult and offspring survival, and inter-generational competition. This work, however, is inadequate for explaining the levels of variation in reproductive effort found in stratified societies characterised by complex social dynamics. Rank and class-based societies are widespread in the natural world and common in social species, from insects and birds to humans and other mammals. In this article, I investigate how class and intra-generational social mobility influence the allocation of resources between fecundity and somatic tissue. I find that social mobility causes lower-class mothers to preferentially invest in survival, but only if class is associated with additional reproductive resources. If, by contrast, class is associated with extra survival resources, then upper-class mothers are always favoured to invest more in somatic maintenance, whilst lower-class mothers are always favoured to invest less in somatic maintenance, irrespective of social mobility. Moreover, I find that class-dependent reproductive effort leads to the emergence of distinct class-specific life-history syndromes, with each syndrome being associated with a suite of contrasting life-history traits. Finally, I find that these life-history syndromes are in close agreement with those observed in a human contemporary population. These findings lend support to the idea that evolutionary models can bridge the gap between the animal-human divide, and therefore be a valuable tool for public health decision-making and other human affairs.

show abstract

Humans as a model species for sexual selection research

Cited by 33 publications

References 93 publications

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Humans as model organisms

The evolution of class-dependent reproductive effort in humans and other animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About