The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Typically, we wouldn't comment on a review of our own book. But Professor Dixson's review calls for exception, as he misrepresents arguments of our book, in some ways badly. Here, we clarify what we did write, and refer readers to pages or chapters where we wrote it.

1. Prof. Dixson implies that we claimed that women's estrus (and associated preferences) evolved as a strategy for seeking extra-pair copulation (EPC; see his pt. 3). We didn't. Human estrus, we argued, has a deep-time evolutionary origin dating to early vertebrates (chapter 8). Early humans hence possessed estrus prior to the evolution of human pair-bonding; estrus could not have originally evolved FOR EPC. Most of the evidence for homology in female preference during the fertile phase across mammalian species (including humans) we discuss has nothing to do with EPC (chapters 8, 9).

2. Nonetheless, human estrus, in some form (even if in some ways diminished), has been maintained since the evolution of pair-bonding (chapter 10). The question of whether estrous adaptations have been modified in the context of biparental care in humans is an open one. We propose that in some ways they have (chapters 10-12). We never suggest, however, that EPC is or has been rampant in human history (his pts. 2, 4), and our views don't imply it (pp. 239-241, 293-295). Indeed, we explicitly discuss evidence that it's rare (pp. 311-314), which leads us to question Prof. Dixson's statement that he read our book "carefully."

3. Relatedly, we explicitly emphasize the importance of paternal care to women's fitness (chapter 4) and, hence, the costs of EPC (e.g., pp. 307-311). In fact, we repeatedly argue that EPC rates are low precisely because of these costs (pp. 293-295, 311-314, 327). We're stunned that Prof. Dixson implies otherwise (his pt. 3). As we explain, however, rare EPC (and extra-pair paternity) is perfectly compatible with sexually antagonistic coevolution of the sort we describe, specifically when paternal care is very important (pp. 239-241, 293-295, 327; we cite leading authorities on sexual conflict, such as Arnqvist & Rowe, 2005). In raptors, like humans, male provisioning is crucial to offspring success and, accordingly, they have very low rates of extra-pair paternity (on average, ~1%). But males return to the nest to copulate with their mates up to 10 times a day, and the leading explanation is that they do so to assure paternity in the face of possible female EPC and persisting conflicts of interest between partners (pp. 297-298). As claims against our arguments about sexually antagonistic coevolution over potential female EPC, Prof. Dixson's assertions about the tremendous importance of paternal care and low EPC rates are non sequiturs (pp. 239-241, 293-295)

4. As Prof. Dixson notes (his pt. 4), we do claim that not all women could pair up with men who possess the most favorable genes. There's a simple mathematical argument behind that claim: In (near-)monogamy, if most females pair up then so do most males and, outside of Lake Wobegon, not every male can be above average (p. 238). So the claim that some females in any monogamously mating population might not be completely enamored with all of their mate's qualities hardly seems controversial; indeed, we're perplexed that Prof. Dixson imagines that every woman should be able to choose the best in a long-term mate (his pt. 4). In fact, several studies show that when women in their "real world" (to quote Prof. Dixson) are paired with men lacking features particularly attractive during estrus, they claim to experience greater attraction to men other than their partners specifically during estrus (pp. 247-253). Contrary to Prof. Dixson's claim (his pts. 1, 2), effect sizes are substantial. Nonetheless, we claim that virtually never does this attraction actually lead to EPC, and largely because losing a partner is often costly (pp. 311-314). But do these patterns of attraction (as well as men's greater vigilance of partners mid-cycle) speak to interesting phenomena of human relationships begging explanation? We certainly think so; readers can decide for themselves and, moreover, evaluate our proposed explanations. Prof. Dixson's complaints, however, take no aim at this matter whatsoever; they target claims he imagines we made, but never did.

5. We cite approximately 1200 scholarly works. Most come from evolutionary biology, reproductive biology, behavioral ecology, and anthropology. Perhaps half specifically pertain to humans, and a portion of those were authored by "evolutionary psychologists." If some arguments rely heavily on work of evolutionary psychologists, it's because these scholars, and not others, have done work pertinent to particular claims. But we express skepticism about some claims by evolutionary psychologists and others Prof. Dixson criticizes (e.g., p. 32, where we note that evolutionary psychologists often ignore trait origins; p. 258, where we take issue with particular claims about sperm competition). (At the same time, the idea that the work of evolutionary psychologists can't be trusted because they're evolutionary psychologists of course invokes ad hominem fallacy.) The suggestion that this is a book written from an exclusively evolutionary psychological perspective, and one that uncritically celebrates that approach (his last paragraph), then, is just plain wrong. Prof. Dixson even mistakes the professional identity of one of the two scholars quoted on the back cover (his final paragraph). Mark Pagel is an eminent evolutionary biologist. He is not an evolutionary psychologist.

No doubt, we do offer arguments that are not yet "proven." The book, as we emphasize, was written partly to prompt research agendas. Many of our arguments propose hypotheses, not conclusions. We encourage alternative explanations for interesting phenomena we discuss. More generally, we welcome constructive criticism and discussion of things we did say. But we object when someone criticizes claims we explicitly contradict. Prof. Dixson has been a harsh critic of others who have argued for the importance of EPC in humans (such as Baker and Bellis); perhaps he read much into what we wrote that simply wasn't there. In any event, we hope that we have made ourselves better understood to other readers.

(We had to give a star rating in this response, which, in the long run, should have minimal effect.)

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality

Product Description:
Research conducted in the last fifteen years has placed in question many of the traditional conclusions scholars have formed about human female sexuality. Though conventional wisdom asserts that women's estrus has been evolutionarily lost, Randy Thornhill and Steven W. Gangestad assert that it is present, though concealed. Women, they propose, therefore exhibit two sexualities each ovulatory cycle-estrus and sexuality outside of the estrous phase, extended sexuality-that possess distinct functions. Synthesizing research in behavioral evolution and comparative biology, the authors provide a new theoretical framework for understanding the evolution of human female sexuality, one that is rooted in female sexuality and phylogeny across all vertebrate animals.

Get 13% OFF

Want to buy The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality at other amazon sites? Click the corresponding icon below:

The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4 Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I teach evolutionary psychology in college, organizing my classes around the "logic of inquiry."I use this book to illustrate cross-cultural investigation, including the pragmatic difficulties of getting good data from massive studies.For that purpose, the book has its uses.
However, unless you are a critical, already-knowledgeable reader, this book may not be a good choice. The book exemplifies neither the state of the art nor a model of how to think soundly about the questions.
Buss's hypotheses tend to be very vague. Indeed, he often says things like, "Evolutionary psychology explains this constellation of traits," as if there were some one hypothesis held by all evolutionary psychologists.He rarely, if ever, presents alternative hypotheses from within evolutionary studies.
He presents little, if any, contradictory or complicating data, never shows what would be involved in falsifying his hypotheses, and never shows why his theory is better supported than others' views of evolution. You get no sense from this book of the vigorous, usually exciting debates on mating *within* evolutionary circles.
You get litle or no sense from this book that problems of sexual adaptivity do not occur alone.You would never know that for humans, copulation has less to do with reproduction than in nearly any other species-and that this complicates immensely understanding our evolved mating habits.
You would never know thatacross the animal kingdom problems of mate selection depend heavily on what we eat and how we attain it.You would never know that across the animal kingdom mating habits depend on social structure.You get no sense that evolutionary psychology must grapple with the difficult questions of how other essential-and extremely odd-characteristics of human life set limits or biases on mating.In general, you would think from reading Buss that mating has exclusively to do with reproduction or survival of offspring.
Indeed, if the logic of Buss's inquiry were correct, there would be no reason for species to differ sexually.He presents his arguments as if human mating patterns follow directly from the differential investments of males and females.But that difference exists in all species!Why, then, do species differ so?Buss doesn't even let you know (if he has even recognized) that this is a fundamental question.
You would never know from reading Buss the commonplace that motivation need not resemble function.That is, a behavior (or traits) may be pursued for motives that have nothing to do with why it is reproductively advantageous.For purpose of natural selection, why an organism prefers a behavior is of no moment.Though he obviously knows this, and mentions it in passing a couple of places, he writes as if the function were the cause of the behavior.In many, if not most, cases, we are caused to do something for reasons-e.g., how much fun it is-that have nothing to do with why it is naturally selected. This complicates understanding what's selected and why--especially since motivational systems have evolutionary and cultural histories of their own.
As others have noted, Buss's original work relies altogether too heavily on self-reports and "what if" questionnaires.
Now, we know fairly well (though Buss never tells you) that self-reports tend to reflect both cultural norms and a bias toward presenting one's self favorably (even, oddly enough, in anonymous questionnaires.) We can improve and cross-check self-reports, but the methods are cumbersome (requiring a great deal of time with each subject, generating massive amounts of data, and requiring extremely powerful statistical analyses) and expensive.This book gives little evidence that much of Buss's data has been appropriately cross-checked.And in fact, other researchers have shown that even with some of the same populations as Buss studied, more extensive testing shows results very different from Buss's.
However, we cannot cross-check answers to hypotheticals!For instance, a question like, "How many sexual partners would you have in the next year, if you could?" cannot possibly be checked for accuracy.
However, you can do things like correlating answers to that question with other variables.But it is not at all clear that Buss, suffering from a very simple-minded theory to guide his research, has tested for and analyzed the right variables. For instance, some researchers have shown that men suffering ambivalence and anxiety about sex tend to offer inflated numbers on questions like that-and that when data is analyzed controlling for psychopathology, men and women differ on the question far less than Buss claims.
Similarly, you'd never know from Buss the difficulties of identifying which of our traits are selected, and whether they are naturally or sexually selected.Generally, you need to know what to explain before you start explaining it.
Buss's writing style misleads, too.Though he does not overtly misrepresent his data, he places far more emphasis on ways that men and women disagree than agree, even though in fact his data show that the range of agreement vastly exceeds disagreement-and remains equally stable over time.
Generally, I think this book reflects more energy and ambition than insight and imagination.Buss's data matter, precisely because they cover so many subjects in so many locations.But the book also shows the danger of collecting massive amounts of data without an adequate theory to guide what you study.
The reason I structure my classes as I do is that, in fact, nobody knows yet just which elements of human life are accurately explained as naturally selected (or why or when), sexually selected (or why or when), cultural, geographical, and so forth.I emphasize to my students that these questions matter deeply (and why), that we know the standard social science model to be false, and that we are just beginning to develop a reliable science of human evolution.I want my students to be able to participate in the emerging inquiries, to know how to think correctly about data and about alternate candidates to explain the data.
To read Buss, you would think my design is all wrong-you'd think that the data are great, the answers are settled for all but the muddle-headed and stubborn, and that there are no alternative explanations.And if, having read Buss, you thought those things, you would be wrong.
That's another reason I use this book.It shows how much of what passes for truth needs much more scrutiny, proving my point that understanding the logic of inquiry matters most.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4

Get 45% OFF

Want to buy The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4 at other amazon sites? Click the corresponding icon below: