2,359
edits
Talk:Fisherian runaway: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[User:Mikey|Mikey]] ([[User talk:Mikey|talk]]) 04:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC) | [[User:Mikey|Mikey]] ([[User talk:Mikey|talk]]) 04:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
== Altmarks final editt == | |||
<span id="zyzz"></span>[[File:Buff.jpg|thumb|right|One popular sex icon for men: Zyzz, died young of sudden cardiac arrest from too much steroid use to make himself look hyper-masculine. He was not a [[reproductive success]].]] | |||
'''Fisherian runaway''' is a mechanism by which sexual selection leads to exaggerated, [[Maladaptiveness|maladaptive]] and unhealthy, physical traits (ornamentation) in some individuals of a species. Which plays a role in the evolution of [[beauty]]. In the [[manosphere]] the term is often misunderstood to refer to individuals exaggerating their appearance as lifestyle choice, but actually refers to individuals ''evolving'' more exaggerated appearance than what is optimal. However, the sexual preferences that result motivate body modifications like breast enlargement, hormone supplements and bodybuilding. Contrary to popular belief, [[sexual selection]] hasn't been explicitly proven to be the sole cause of extinctions. Only rapid environmental change such as the end of the Ice Age, by not affording enough nutrients to provide for the species formerly advantageous but now [[Maladaptiveness|maladaptive]] physical traits. | |||
The base sexual preference of an entire species can make them more likely to go extinct,<ref>https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.12601</ref><ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/</ref><ref>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131646.htm</ref><ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04059-7</ref> but the runaway selection of the most exaggerated members alone, cant cause the entire species to go extinct. There are scientific models that show under a stable environment, a feedback loop can develop where male intrasexual competition leads to a linear increase in size dimorphism, outstripping the ability of the environment to to support this increased size.<ref>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2410506</ref>The name Fisherian runaway derives from the originator of the concept, Ronald Fisher, the 20th century British statistician, geneticist, eugenicist and racialist. | |||
== Mechanism == | |||
[[File:Peacock courting peahen.jpg|alt=|thumb|"The females may be dull looking, but they're very picky." A peacock courting a peahen]] | |||
Females/males become more choosy about a heritable trait for the simple reason that other females/males find the trait attractive. As the selective pressure for females/males to prefer the trait increases so too does the selective pressure for females/males to produce the trait, creating a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback_loop positive feedback loop]. In response to the increased choosiness, males and females evolve to enlarge, overcomplicate or beautify that trait in efforts of becoming more attractive (larger dick size, larger breasts, etc.) The exponential nature of positive feedback loops leads to the inevitable conclusion, that the attractive trait eventually becomes comically unhealthy and [[Maladaptiveness|maladaptive]]. For example a man's dick becoming too long and large to fit inside the vagina, or a woman's breasts becoming so large and heavy the woman can no longer walk, and has to crawl, or be carried from point A to point B. | |||
These feedback loops in a stable environment do not become maladaptive for the entire species, because the comically unhealthy and [[Maladaptiveness|maladaptive]] individuals don't [[Reproductive success|reproduce]].{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pV5k5ruVak|frame|}} | |||
Such feedback loops can be initiated by arbitrary aesthetic selection, but also when a trait is slightly correlated with fitness (e.g. health), or when a trait is similar in appearance to attractive or otherwise valuable objects or body parts.<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]], p. 444</ref> For example, women's breasts may have evolved to mimic their buttocks because the latter was already a sexually attractive body part before humans developed upright posture, and then Fisherian runaway may have lead to breasts becoming increasingly larger and increasingly attractive to men. | |||
In summary, beauty could have evolved simply by sexual selection, i.e. mate selection favoring objective [[beauty]] (simplicity). But feedback loops as mentioned above may have exaggerated aspects of it, leading to increased sexual dimorphism and amplified and narrowed the attraction to specific kinds of beautiful physical traits. This also stabilizes the phenotype, making it harder to adapt to environmental changes. Any sort of [[sexual dimorphism]], whether behavioral or ornamental likely tends to get reinforced by such feedback loops because [[sexual dimorphism]] is inherently attractive.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Even_chickens_prefer_sexually_dimorphic_human_faces.2C_to_the_same_extent_as_humans</ref> | |||
Since females are [[Bateman's principle|more choosy]] in many species throughout the animal kingdom (including humans), the males tend to be more ornamented. | |||
== [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle Zahavi's handicap principle] == | |||
Also called the ''good genes hypothesis'', this claims the exaggerated ornament is a costly and hence a reliable signal of other desirable traits. For example, a peacock with a very large tail would be easy prey (which is costly), and thus would most likely have other good traits that make up for this handicap (good genes). There is, however, little supporting scientific evidence. In humans in particular, beauty is not strongly correlated with health at all (those it is weakly), and even less with cognitive ability.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Attractive_people_are_perceived_much_more_positively_than_they_really_are</ref> | |||
== Animal examples == | |||
=== Peafowls === | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzWCpoWdiBk|frame|}} | |||
=== Sabre Tooth Tigers === | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkwr2ZHnzcE|frame|}} | |||
=== Irish Elk === | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZEYcbhcLsw|frame|}} | |||
== Humans == | |||
[[File:1MnqnOm.jpg|400px|thumb|right|The preference for [[few millimeters of bone|few millimeters of bone, cartilage and hairline]] could come from aesthetic sexual selection, but maybe has been strengthened by feedback loops in sexual selection]] | |||
Even though human females are more choosy in accordance to [[Bateman's principle]], both sexes are ornamented. Women have [[Boobs|permanently swollen breasts]], an hour glass shaped body etc., men have a V-shaped upper body, more toned muscles, beards, very large penises compared to other great apes, and [[:Category:Aesthetics|various other features]]. Both sexes have clearly defined [[Hairline|hairlines]] and very clear skin. None of these features serve a known biological purpose besides being good looking, so they're sexually selected, mostly by aesthetic selection common to many higher animals,<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> and possibly by feedback loops like Fisherian runaway and sensory bias,<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]]</ref> leading to exaggeration and strengthened sexual dimorphism. | |||
== Sexy son hypothesis == | |||
The sexy son hypothesis in evolutionary biology and sexual selection—proposed by Ronald Fisher in 1930—states that a female's ideal mate choice among potential mates is one whose genes will produce male offspring with the best chance of [[reproductive success]]. | |||
This implies that the male's ability to provide is less important, especially in polygynous species (like humans are, moderately) where the lesser paternal investment must be outweighed by the benefit in reproductive success the female achieves through mating with an attractive male. She forgoes direct benefits (resources and protection) in exchange for indirect genetic benefits (greater reproductive success). Though these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, of course.<ref>https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/19/2/456/214088</ref> | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idc_XZpB0h0|frame|}} | |||
Since having sexy sons stems from women choosing the mate they are most physically attracted too, the male equivalent is doing the same thing (resulting in sexy daughters). However, men are typically [[bateman's principle|less choosy]] in regards to their standard in female looks (at least for relationships that require less investment). Males choosing women whom they were most physically attracted too, and could attain, having been the norm throughout human history, has resulted in the development of female ornamental traits designed to attract men. | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrkgPgt234|frame|}} | |||
== Fisherian Chad Meme == | |||
Fisherian Chad is one of the irrational fears in the [[tradcon|traditional conservative]] section of the manosphere, that a small group of Chads will doom the species to extinction thru nuclear warfare, or by some other means. This is one of the few memes that simply has 0 truth whatsoever. | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZsuIyfQgs|frame|}} | |||
== See Also == | |||
*[[Chadification]] | |||
*[[Zyzz]] | |||
[[Category:Theories]] | |||
[[category:Science]] | |||
[[Category:Lookism]] | |||
[[Category:Aesthetics]] | |||
{{A}} | |||
== References == | |||
<references /> | |||