May 30, 2010
Mating competition explains excess male mortality
From PhysOrg:
Researchers have long known that women outlive men on average, and more recently have discovered that men have higher mortality risks across the entire lifespan. University of Michigan researcher Daniel Kruger offers this explanation: It is all about sex. Women invest more physiologically in reproduction than men, thus men compete with other men for mating partners and try to make themselves attractive to women. This competition leads to strategies that are riskier for men both behaviorally and physiologically, and these result in higher levels of mortality.
"If mating competition is responsible for excess male mortality, then the more mating competition there is, the higher excess male mortality will be," said Kruger, an assistant research professor in the U-M School of Public Health. In the current study, Kruger shows that two factors related to the level of male reproductive competition contribute to higher rates of risk-taking and mortality. The first factor is polygyny, the social situation in which one man maintains sexual relations with many women (the opposite is polyandry—one women and many men). Several species of primates show high levels of polygyny, where one dominant male mates with most of the females in the group, and other males are left out. Human cultures have varying degrees of polygyny, and Kruger found that the more prevalent the practice, the higher the rate of male mortality.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 08:30 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Read the linked paper: There are solid hypotheses here. Given some basic psychological drives (for resources, sexual partnership, etc.), economic and sexual inequality in a culture will lead to higher levels of competition and violence. This is all just good sense, and is true for any species with those basic drives.
But then, we get the assertion that "natural" male competitiveness, risk-taking, and hierarchical thinking is explained by sexual selection.
This is a bizarre, lurching inversion of explanation. Instead of explaining complex social behaviour in terms of simple drives and social situations, we are now (illegitimately) positing complex, innate drives and attempting to reach back into evolutionary history for an explanation of those drives. Our evidence is that apes and dolphins and birds display the same behaviour... but we just established that they must display the same behaviour, given their basic needs. Why make the leap to "natural" competitiveness, violence, etc.?
In terms of legitimacy and testability the gulf between these two kinds of hypotheses is vast, and we slide between them so effortlessly. Why?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 30, 2010 12:09:42 PM
The merits of the first part are lost on me aswell. Without an explanation how this difference persists now, it is not clear if male mortality in our society can in any way be linked to later behaviour. It could very well be the case, but to prove this is something different.
In the first million years all species were swimming, and what the heck, we can still swim!
In psychology its just like in Marx sketch of communism in the German ideology:
In the morning working on the scanners, in the afternoon analysis of data, and evenings drinking and thinking up theories...
Posted by: Joop van Dijk | May 30, 2010 7:12:28 PM
Post a comment