Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:58:56.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An expanded “staying alive” theory (SAT) underplays complexity in Homo sapiens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

Agustín Fuentes Open the ORCID record for Agustín Fuentes [Opens in a new window]
Agustín Fuentes*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA [email protected]://anthropology.princeton.edu/people/faculty/agustin-fuentes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article takes myriad human female patterns and aligns them as a unit emerging from an expanded version of “staying alive” theory (SAT). Females and males do differ, however, to treat the complexity of human response to threats as an explicit, evolved sexually dimorphic package is not reflective of current knowledge regarding health, sex/gender, and behavior in Homo sapiens.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e136
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (2004). Are men and women really so different? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgerhoff-Mulder, M., & Rauch, K. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: Variations and solutions. Evolutionary Anthropology, 18, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, L. (2022). Bitch: On the female of the species. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Drea, C. M. (2005). Bateman revisited: The reproductive tactics of female primates. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 45(5), 915–923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunsworth, H. M. (2020). Expanding the evolutionary explanations for sex differences in the human skeleton. Evolutionary Anthropology, 29(3), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eliot, L., Ahmed, A., Khan, H., & Patel, J. (2021). Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 667–697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuentes, A. (2016). The extended evolutionary synthesis, ethnography, and the human niche. Current Anthropology, 57(Suppl. 13), 13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/685684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, A., & Wiessner, P. (2016). Reintegrating anthropology: From inside out. Current Anthropology, 57(Suppl. 13), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettler, L. T. (2016). Becoming DADS: Considering the role of cultural context and developmental plasticity for paternal socioendocrinology. Current Anthropology, 57, S38–S51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowaty, P., Kim, Y.-K., & Anderson, W. (2012). No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman's classic study of Drosophila melanogaster. PNAS, 109, 11740–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravlee, C. C. (2020). Systemic racism, chronic health inequities, and COVID-19: A syndemic in the making? American Journal of Human Biology, 32(5), e23482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2018). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, N. (2020). Measures of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and gender binarism for health equity research: From structural injustice to embodied harm – An ecosocial analysis. Annual Review of Public Health, 41, 37–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morbeck, M. E., Galloway, A., & Zihlman, A. (1996). The evolving female: A life history perspective. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, K. (2021). The evolution of human infancy: Why it helps to be helpless. Annual Review of Anthropology, 50, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sear, R. (2020). Do human “life history strategies” exist? Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(6), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sear, R. (2021). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the “traditional” human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 376, 20200020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spikins, P. (2015). How compassion made us human: The evolutionary origins of tenderness, trust and morality. Pen & Sword Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Tang-Martinez, Z., & Ryder, T. B. (2005). The problem with paradigms: Bateman's worldview as a case study. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 45(5), 821–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xirocostas, Z. A., Everingham, S. E., & Moles, A. T. (2020). The sex with the reduced sex chromosome dies earlier: A comparison across the tree of life. Biology Letters, 16, 20190867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed