Jeffrey A. Kurland
Bio: Jeffrey A. Kurland is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Reciprocal altruism & Norm (social). The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 124 citations.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose that females who mate frequently improve their chances of conception with multiple inseminations and concurrently deplete the sperm supplies available to competing females, and the implications of this hypothesis for the evolution of human female sexual behavior and concealed ovulation are discussed.
Abstract: Female primates are noted for a varied and assertive pattem of sexual activity that does not necessarily correspond with conception. In general, they mate with multiple partners, or repeatedly with one male, even during periods when conception is unlikely. This pattem requires explanation because females incur costs for nonconceptive matings by interacting with potentially aggressive males and limiting the energy they can expend in foraging or caring for present offspring. Previous explanations of female sexual behavior have concentrated on postnatal benefits to females and their infants. That is, females in polygynous groups may mate with multiple partners to confuse paternity, avoid male-imposed infanticide, and receive patemal care from many males. An alternative explanation is that females who mate frequently improve their chances of conception with multiple inseminations and concurrently deplete the sperm supplies available to competing females. Under certain conditions, such as a low male: female sex ratio in seasonally breeding roups, sperm can be a relatively limited resource. Thus some females may be able to improve their reproductive success by frequent matings, even during nonfertile periods. The implications of this hypothesis for the evolution of human female sexual behavior and concealed ovulation are discussed.
TL;DR: Hallowell's approach permits the building of a thrid but complementary explanation based on selection for the ability to internalize others and to attend to their representations even in the absence of their prototypes.
Abstract: A. I. Hallowell tried to turn anthropology towards a sociobiology while the former field was still strongly opposed to any consideration of the evolution of human behavior. His work is of more than historical interest, however, because he stressed the evolution of the human ability to internalize social norms and evaluate self and others in terms of them. This ability is the basis of our species's trait of cultural rather than biological adaptation to diverse ecological settings. Sociobiologists have dealt with the evolution of norm acquisition under the rubric of "altruism." Insofar as adherence to norms either directly increases the fitnes of kin (kin selection) or indirectly increases the fitness of all participants (reciprocal altruism), both Hamilton and Trivers have offered explanations for adherence to social norms. Hallowell's approach permits the building of a thrid but complementary explanation based on selection for the ability to internalize others and to attend to their representations even i...
TL;DR: The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as mentioned in this paper is a remarkable and strikingly original work which is published in German and English in parallel pages and it is difficult to appreciate the reason for this, seeing that the author is evidently familiar with our language and has himself carefully revised the proofs of the translation.
Abstract: 13 EADERS of Mr. Bertrand Russell's philosophical £v works know that one of his pupils before the outbreak of the war, an Austrian, Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, caused him to change his views in some important particulars. Curiosity can now be satisfied. The “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus “which Mr. Ogden has included in his new library of philosophy is a remarkable and strikingly original work. It is published in German and English in parallel pages. It is difficult to appreciate the reason for this, seeing that the author is evidently familiar with our language and has himself carefully revised the proofs of the translation. Also we should have liked to have the Tractatus without Mr. Russell's Introduction, not, we hasten to add, on account of any fault or shortcoming in that introduction, which is highly appreciative and in part a defence of himself, in part explanatory of the author, but for the reason that good wine needs no bush and that Mr. Russell's bush has the unfortunate effect of dulling the palate instead of whetting the appetite. In his penultimate sentence Mr. Russell says; “To have constructed a theory of logic which is not at any point obviously wrong is to have achieved a work of extraordinary difficulty and importance.” We agree, but how uninspiring when compared with Mr. Wittgenstein's own statement of aim: “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. By Ludwig Wittgenstein. (International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method.) Pp. 189. (London: Kegan Paul and Co., Ltd.; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc., 1922.) 10s. 6d. net.
TL;DR: This paper found that self-benefit appeals are more effective when consumers' responses are private in nature; in contrast, other-benefit messages are publicly accountable for their responses, which is related to a desire to manage impressions by behaving in a manner consistent with normative expectations.
Abstract: Despite the growing need, nonprofit organization marketers have not yet fully delineated the most effective ways to position charitable appeals. Across five experiments, the authors test the prediction that other-benefit (self-benefit) appeals generate more favorable donation support than self-benefit (other-benefit) appeals in situations that heighten (versus minimize) public self-image concerns. Public accountability, a manipulation of public self-awareness, and individual differences in public self-consciousness all moderate the effect of appeal type on donor support. In particular, self-benefit appeals are more effective when consumers' responses are private in nature; in contrast, other-benefit appeals are more effective when consumers are publicly accountable for their responses. This effect is moderated by norm salience and is related to a desire to manage impressions by behaving in a manner consistent with normative expectations. The results have important managerial implications, suggest...
TL;DR: Evidence that female mammals compete for both resources and mates in order to secure reproductive benefits is reviewed, revealing female competition to be a potentially widespread and significant evolutionary selection pressure among mammals, particularly competition for resources among social species for which most evidence is currently available.
Abstract: Following Darwin's original insights regarding sexual selection, studies of intrasexual competition have mainly focused on male competition for mates; by contrast, female reproductive competition has received less attention. Here, we review evidence that female mammals compete for both resources and mates in order to secure reproductive benefits. We describe how females compete for resources such as food, nest sites, and protection by means of dominance relationships, territoriality and inter-group aggression, and by inhibiting the reproduction of other females. We also describe evidence that female mammals compete for mates and consider the ultimate causes of such behaviour, including competition for access to resources provided by mates, sperm limitation and prevention of future resource competition. Our review reveals female competition to be a potentially widespread and significant evolutionary selection pressure among mammals, particularly competition for resources among social species for which most evidence is currently available. We report that female competition is associated with many diverse adaptations, from overtly aggressive behaviour, weaponry, and conspicuous sexual signals to subtle and often complex social behaviour involving olfactory signalling, alliance formation, altruism and spite, and even cases where individuals appear to inhibit their own reproduction. Overall, despite some obvious parallels with male phenotypic traits favoured under sexual selection, it appears that fundamental differences in the reproductive strategies of the sexes (ultimately related to parental investment) commonly lead to contrasting competitive goals and adaptations. Because female adaptations for intrasexual competition are often less conspicuous than those of males, they are generally more challenging to study. In particular, since females often employ competitive strategies that directly influence not only the number but also the quality (survival and reproductive success) of their own offspring, as well as the relative reproductive success of others, a multigenerational view ideally is required to quantify the full extent of variation in female fitness resulting from intrasexual competition. Nonetheless, current evidence indicates that the reproductive success of female mammals can also be highly variable over shorter time scales, with significant reproductive skew related to competitive ability. Whether we choose to describe the outcome of female reproductive competition (competition for mates, for mates controlling resources, or for resources per se) as sexual selection depends on how sexual selection is defined. Considering sexual selection strictly as resulting from differential mating or fertilisation success, the role of female competition for the sperm of preferred (or competitively successful) males appears particularly worthy of more detailed investigation. Broader definitions of sexual selection have recently been proposed to encompass the impact on reproduction of competition for resources other than mates. Although the merits of such definitions are a matter of ongoing debate, our review highlights that understanding the evolutionary causes and consequences of female reproductive competition indeed requires a broader perspective than has traditionally been assumed. We conclude that future research in this field offers much exciting potential to address new and fundamentally important questions relating to social and mating-system evolution.
01 Jan 1980
TL;DR: This chapter provides an overview of evolutionary theory and archaeology and reasons to believe that scientific evolution can be expanded to provide an explanatory framework for cultural phenomena.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter provides an overview of evolutionary theory and archaeology. If evolution is taken to mean what it does in the sciences, it has yet to be systematically applied in either sociocultural anthropology or archaeology. There are reasons to believe that scientific evolution can be expanded to provide an explanatory framework for cultural phenomena. The applicability of evolutionary theory to archaeology is not established by a demonstration of its explanatory power for sociocultural phenomena. If it is to be used in archaeology, it must be rewritten in terms that have empirical representation in the archaeological record. Archaeological evolutionary theory will have to be constructed by deducing the consequences of evolutionary theory as employed in biology and as applicable to ethnographic data for artifacts, and their frequencies and distributions. Even so, a few aspects of the archaeological record, those not directly subject to selection, will require explanation in strictly cultural terms. It is clear that archaeologists want to obtain the kinds of explanations that only scientific evolution is able to provide.