His suggestion that actually female mate choice primary acts on female rather than male fitness is a really under-explored and counterintuitive result.
Yes. Like a lot of his stuff, some of the most interesting parts have been the least explored. His suggestion that actually female mate choice primary acts on female rather than male fitness is a really under-explored and counterintuitive result that he explores in his nature paper with Seger 'Asymmetry in the evolution of female mating preferences' (i.e. selecting good genes for daughters). It's only been cited 63 times as compared to PI and sexual selection with 20,000 citations.
Is there a possible connection there to the anecdote that more traditionally masculine men (in temperament, physique, occupation) tend to have more daughters?
I once got a Facebook friend request from Trivers out of the blue. I was gobsmacked. Why? I never met him or had any correspondence. I quickly accepted the invitation by arguably the 3rd most important theorist in evolutionary psychology, after Darwin and Hamilton.
You described well the roller coaster ride of being his graduate student. I would have liked to have met him in person, but only if he had been in a pleasant mood...
Yes Trivers was a brilliant man. I enjoyed “The Folly of Fools” very much even though he beat around the bush on self-deception’s role in sexual And it’s a pity that he spent so much time with Epstein.
I don't think he spent that much time with Epstein. He was never great at writing grants and had trouble getting funding for his research and Epstein was interested in evolutionary theory so he paid for some of Bob's research (not much -- maybe 40k). But regardless of thar relationship what's really a shame is that our culture is more focused on some dumb emails than his extraordinary insights into human behavior. Curious what you mean by him 'beating around the bush' regarding self-deceptions role in sexual selection
His suggestion that actually female mate choice primary acts on female rather than male fitness is a really under-explored and counterintuitive result.
Yes. Like a lot of his stuff, some of the most interesting parts have been the least explored. His suggestion that actually female mate choice primary acts on female rather than male fitness is a really under-explored and counterintuitive result that he explores in his nature paper with Seger 'Asymmetry in the evolution of female mating preferences' (i.e. selecting good genes for daughters). It's only been cited 63 times as compared to PI and sexual selection with 20,000 citations.
Is there a possible connection there to the anecdote that more traditionally masculine men (in temperament, physique, occupation) tend to have more daughters?
A beautiful tribute to a perfectly imperfect man.
Yep. We are all broken. Bob was too. But he was a giant too.
I once got a Facebook friend request from Trivers out of the blue. I was gobsmacked. Why? I never met him or had any correspondence. I quickly accepted the invitation by arguably the 3rd most important theorist in evolutionary psychology, after Darwin and Hamilton.
You described well the roller coaster ride of being his graduate student. I would have liked to have met him in person, but only if he had been in a pleasant mood...
Very well done!
Thanks, Rob.
Thanks for reading it Ray. Turns out there was more to Bob than a couple of stupid emails to Epstein.
Right, he was a complicated man. Perhaps his problem was that he was a candid human.
Ever walk into a high school classroom not to get smacked?
Powerful
Thank you for this tribute.
Yes Trivers was a brilliant man. I enjoyed “The Folly of Fools” very much even though he beat around the bush on self-deception’s role in sexual And it’s a pity that he spent so much time with Epstein.
I don't think he spent that much time with Epstein. He was never great at writing grants and had trouble getting funding for his research and Epstein was interested in evolutionary theory so he paid for some of Bob's research (not much -- maybe 40k). But regardless of thar relationship what's really a shame is that our culture is more focused on some dumb emails than his extraordinary insights into human behavior. Curious what you mean by him 'beating around the bush' regarding self-deceptions role in sexual selection