Fisherian runaway: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fisherian runaway (edit)

Revision as of 21:15, 23 November 2019

2 bytes added ,  23 November 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
=== Beauty ===
=== Beauty ===
Feedback loops like Fisherian runaway may have played a role in the evolution of beauty. 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>
Feedback loops like Fisherian runaway may have played a role in the evolution of beauty. 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>
==Criticism==
===Good Genes Hypothesis===
Also called ''Zahavi's handicap principle'', 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 and ornament 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>
===Environmental factors and extinction===
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, arguably cannot cause the entire species to go extinct.  However, together with environmental factors, runaway female selection has played a role in extinction, for example in the the Irish Elk.<ref>The evolution of sexual strategy in modern humans: an interdisciplinary approach by Collins, Kendra Marie, https://studyres.com/doc/2550939/--california-state-university</ref><ref>Moen et al., 1999</ref>
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>


=== Sexy son hypothesis ===
=== Sexy son hypothesis ===
Line 41: Line 51:
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrkgPgt234|frame|}}
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrkgPgt234|frame|}}


==Criticism==
===Good Genes Hypothesis===
Also called ''Zahavi's handicap principle'', 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 and ornament 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>
===Environmental factors and extinction===
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, arguably cannot cause the entire species to go extinct.  However, together with environmental factors, runaway female selection has played a role in extinction, for example in the the Irish Elk.<ref>The evolution of sexual strategy in modern humans: an interdisciplinary approach by Collins, Kendra Marie, https://studyres.com/doc/2550939/--california-state-university</ref><ref>Moen et al., 1999</ref>
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>
== Is human female mate choice maladaptive? ==
== Is human female mate choice maladaptive? ==


Bibipi
Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538

edits

Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/37912"

Navigation menu