Revenge of Lamarckianism!
They thought they had Lamarck beaten...THEY WERE WRONG!
Beautiful people have more daughters
It is commonly believed that whether parents conceive a boy or a girl is up to random chance. Close, but not quite; it is largely up to chance. The normal sex ratio at birth is 105 boys for every 100 girls. But the sex ratio varies slightly in different circumstances and for different families. There are factors that subtly influence the sex of an offspring.
One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents. Throughout history, sons from wealthy families who would themselves become wealthy could expect to have a large number of wives, mistresses and concubines, and produce dozens or hundreds of children, whereas their equally wealthy sisters can have only so many children. So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances—more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)
This hypothesis has been documented around the globe. American presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries have more sons than daughters. Poor Mukogodo herders in East Africa have more daughters than sons...
Beautiful people have more daughters
It is commonly believed that whether parents conceive a boy or a girl is up to random chance. Close, but not quite; it is largely up to chance. The normal sex ratio at birth is 105 boys for every 100 girls. But the sex ratio varies slightly in different circumstances and for different families. There are factors that subtly influence the sex of an offspring.
One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents. Throughout history, sons from wealthy families who would themselves become wealthy could expect to have a large number of wives, mistresses and concubines, and produce dozens or hundreds of children, whereas their equally wealthy sisters can have only so many children. So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances—more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)
This hypothesis has been documented around the globe. American presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries have more sons than daughters. Poor Mukogodo herders in East Africa have more daughters than sons...
Posted by sealionii on
Tuesday July 10, 2007 at 4:54pm
Such sorts of blurring and confusion are common in evolutionary psycho- / bio- logy.
(g)TW Discussion 1, Panda's Thumb
(g)TW Discussion 2
Discussion 2, Behavioral Ecology
The funny part is where this discussion (behavioral ecology, just above) discusses the ramifications of the gTW hypothesis as resulting in "dumpy" women having more daughters. Not beautiful ones.
In any case, I suggest a couple readings of The Moral Animal.
As for the rest of the list, I am now persuaded that Uncle Mark is less likely to get divorced than Uncle Neil (that poor man with only girls). And the next time someone pinches my butt at work (not very likely to happen again, as I'm no longer employed by BYU), I'll remember it's not because I'm a woman, it's because boys will be boys and they're treating me like a male.