Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

It seems like Prum is taking many interpretational liberties and often engages in anthropomorphization.

"The other evolutionary answer is the aesthetic route — the resolution of differences between male and female needs and desires by behaviors and rituals that respect the other sex’s priorities and their decisions about how to pursue them."

The thing about beauty is that it is in the eye of the beholder. It is still subject to the fundamentals of natural selection. Those animals that have an eye for asthetic (phenotyipic) traits that signal something about the environmental and sexual fitness of their mate will have hearty offspring. For example it is possible that Bower birds who make the 'prettiest' nests are great scavengers in general, a trait that can also be used to collect food for their children.

Further, I doubt it has much to do with the male Bower "respecting the female's priorities and decisions about how to pursue them". The male that fails an attempt to court a potential mate is not thinking "well dang, if i dont respect her for not appriciating my nest. After all it was a half-ass attempt and dont i know it".

It is probably thinking at most, when she flys away - 'do not follow; waste of energy; reengage collecting red bobbles and find worm'

Lastly I think 'oddity' is being interpreted as 'beauty'; an animal might have something unique going on - maybe some allele that codes for a protein variant resulting in some funky red spots on its feathers; more importantly that same protein variant confers some pathogenic immunity. Now, a female bird that chooses this mate might also have a genetic predisposition that makes her more attracted to that red spotty hairdo. Two important things happen here. First these two will have offspring that probably will, if female, like those red spots, or if male, have those red spots (and the immunity); and secondly there is a phenotype - 'an odd visual asthetic' - that can be used to indicate what this birds genes are (specifically that it has this good immunity allele). Simply having the immunity allele would make it more fit, but the females would have no way of knowing. Having a phenotype that indicates something to the female will in my estimation likely increase the rate at which this allele proliferate since these beautiful red spots confer a nice environmental adaptation

Sure, that's exactly the 'hidden fitness argument' mentioned in the article, which the author is arguing is insufficient to explain observed behaviors.

A thought I had while reading the review: survival is the low bar on fitness. Once you've passed the bar and have ten males to choose from, some sort of differentiation can easily come into play, regardless of whether or makes much sense with regard to utility.

First, it is completely sufficient. How is it not? I think the author is taking an idea that is already embedded in evolutionary theory and presenting it as a novel idea that doesnt fall under the scope of 'survival of the fittest'

Anything that increases an organism's odds of passing on their genes compared to another conspecific can be considered 'fitness'. Survival is not taken to mean within a single generation, survival refers to the genes; attracting a sexual partner is a central component of being evolutionarily fit.

Lastly, even within a single generation, I'm not so sure you can claim survival is a low bar - when you are in the food chain.

a) Sure, fitness can take an expansive definition. The question is whether sexual selection is a separate force from natural selection. If so, fitness would break down into environmental fitness and reproductive fitness.

b) the height of the survival bar of quite variable. Suppose you've got a decent niche that holds steady for a few millennia. Or your an invasive species with no real competition but others of your kind. In either case there's plenty of space for variation to arise which won't depend on natural selection pressure.

Right, but that's "the adaptationist view that beauty is an “honest signaling” of evolutionary fitness," and which he explicitly rejects.

Where does the underlying "aesthetic" preference come from? Why are some things beautiful and others not, in this context?

I don't know, I guess you'd have to read the author's book or Darwin's.

I don't think his basis for rejecting that premise is fair.

That's like rejecting the premise that certain vegetables taste good to us because they are good for us! Our senses evolved to pick out things that are good for us.

But according to the article, Darwin himself said it "constituted an evolutionary mechanism separate, independent, and sometimes contrary to natural selection," not merely a signal for it.

I feel like that quote might be out of context. If not, well then Darwin is wrong. After reading this article more carefully, one thing I'm certain is that Richard Prum lacks a fundamental understanding of evolution and natural selection.

To me it seems clear that females' aesthetic preferences are subject to selection bias, no different than the male aesthetic, or any other physiological or behavioral quality that makes two conspecific animals slightly different.

Also did anyone else notice the reviewer seems like Prum's book is literally getting them off..

"Prum seeks to prevail less through brute force of attack than by making his case with clarity, grace and charm. His attention never strays far from nature, and his writing in these bird passages is minutely detailed, exquisitely observant, deeply informed, and often tenderly sensual. When describing, say, the “throbbing” display of the lavishly decorated argus bird, he delivers a feathery brush of the erotic."

The fuck.

It's all good until "my attempt is a half-ass attempt"

This requires self consciousness.

Lack of self consciousness (the same trait that prevents them from recognizing themselves in a mirror) logically makes it more of a "my nest is the best. It sure will do the trick" invariably.

Self conscious individual w/o much experience to learn from (i.e. not instinctual) will be at loss in the grand scheme of evolution of beauty and nest weaving.

> (As noted, she doesn’t get everything; once she and the male mate and part, she raises the offspring by herself.)

You can argue of course its genes of good scavenger that get selected for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com