Motivation

Buss’s book seems often to explain phenomena that might better be explained by reference to cultural or ideological context by pointing to some sort of evolutionary data. For instance: “Women historically appear to have solved the adaptive problem of acquiring resources in part by preferring men who are high in status. Modern women are desendants of these successful ancestors and so have inherited their mate preferences” (115). OK, but as Buss acknowledges, “notions of genetic determinism … are simply false,” and human behaviors are the result of interactions between adaptations and an environment. Given that not all women prefer men who are high in status, why is it that some do and some don’t? Doesn’t the answer to this question hinge on the sort of environment that adaptations develop in and interact with, and doesn’t the answer to this question say a lot more than the evolutionary assertion?

Also, does Buss overlook the importance of the sort of reproduction that occurs? As we discussed last week, rich people may have fewer offspring than poor people, but this may not mean that they’re less reproductively fit, since it may just be that it takes a lot more resources for rich parents to produce offspring who are like them (powerful and wealthy and highly educated) than for poor people to do so. So is Buss overlooking, to some extent, the importance of the “like them” point?