09-04-2010, 03:48 AM
Hi,
I'm sure. My post was mostly in jest. But it does seem that people of all ages, from baby to ancient, want what the shouldn't have the most.
I think Zahavi is projecting. Or, at least, the way it is reported here is incorrect. In the gene based theory of evolution, the gazelle communicates nothing. And the cheetah would not read such a communication even if it existed.
Well, yes. No matter how you take your evolution, species survival depends on the procreation of the fittest. That evolution is about 10,000 years behind civilization makes many of our motives obscure. Using sloppy terminology, a woman wanted a man who would survive to help her through the pregnancy and the child rearing. She wanted a survivor who wouldn't get killed on a hunt, but still a brave man who would take part of the hunt. Doing stupid things and surviving them was one way boys could show prospective mates that they were both brave and survivors. The ones that died improved the species be eliminating one form of weakness. The ones that didn't compete improved the species by removing a different form of weakness.
The problem is, the selection factors of then applied to the situation of now doesn't really make sense. Or work out. For one thing, they lived in a three mile per hour world, we live in a sixty (or more).
--Pete
(09-03-2010, 11:35 AM)ShadowHM Wrote: With all due respect, Pete, my sons have managed to find dangerous and stupid things to try out that nobody ever dreamed of telling them not to do.
I'm sure. My post was mostly in jest. But it does seem that people of all ages, from baby to ancient, want what the shouldn't have the most.
Quote:Edit: This kind of behaviour has been called "The Handicap Principle". Quoting from the Wikipedia entry (bolding mine):
Quote:Instead, Zahavi proposed that each gazelle was communicating to the cheetah that it was a fitter individual than its fellows and that the predator should avoid chasing it.
I think Zahavi is projecting. Or, at least, the way it is reported here is incorrect. In the gene based theory of evolution, the gazelle communicates nothing. And the cheetah would not read such a communication even if it existed.
Quote:The theory resonates for me because this 'seek out dangerous things to do' behaviour does seem to emerge in adolescence, just as the young men are starting to get into that 'seek out a mate' mode and the accompanying search for status-conferring behaviour.
Well, yes. No matter how you take your evolution, species survival depends on the procreation of the fittest. That evolution is about 10,000 years behind civilization makes many of our motives obscure. Using sloppy terminology, a woman wanted a man who would survive to help her through the pregnancy and the child rearing. She wanted a survivor who wouldn't get killed on a hunt, but still a brave man who would take part of the hunt. Doing stupid things and surviving them was one way boys could show prospective mates that they were both brave and survivors. The ones that died improved the species be eliminating one form of weakness. The ones that didn't compete improved the species by removing a different form of weakness.
The problem is, the selection factors of then applied to the situation of now doesn't really make sense. Or work out. For one thing, they lived in a three mile per hour world, we live in a sixty (or more).
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?