This HTML5 document contains 48 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n19http://localhost/temp/predkladatel/
n15http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/riv/tvurce/
n14http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/RIV%2F00216208%3A11310%2F13%3A10191102%21RIV14-MSM-11310___/
n13http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/subjekt/
n12http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/
shttp://schema.org/
skoshttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n3http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/
n17http://bibframe.org/vocab/
n2http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n4http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/klicoveSlovo/
n20http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/duvernostUdaju/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n11http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/jazykVysledku/
n9http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/aktivita/
n18http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/obor/
n5http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/druhVysledku/
n10http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/gregorian-year/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:RIV%2F00216208%3A11310%2F13%3A10191102%21RIV14-MSM-11310___
rdf:type
n12:Vysledek skos:Concept
rdfs:seeAlso
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.817299
dcterms:description
Stewart-Williams and Thomas argue that we are not an %22MCFC species%22, suggesting that humans lie somewhere on a continuum between peacocks and gibbons, and considerably closer to the latter, in terms of sexual dimorphism, paternal investment and mating strategy. One problem with their argument is that they seek to categorise humans according to one strategy or the other. Another is that both examples are of species in which there is little variability in mating strategy, either due to phylogenetic or socio-ecological constraints. In contrast, humans exhibit plasticity in mating strategy in ways that (if one were compelled to choose one species with which to compare humans) are more akin to a species like the dunnock. Thus their argument that interests of men and women are comparable and mutually compatible, simply because pair-bonding is the commonest strategy in human societies, belies both the inherent conflicts of interest between the sexes and the flexibility observed in actual human reproductive behavior, past and present. Only minimal differences in interest between the sexes are needed to exert differential selection pressures on males and females that lead to different outcomes in terms of mating psychology. We agree that more research on male choice and female competition will be illuminating, but only if it is done within a framework that recognises the full range and variability of human mating psychology. Stewart-Williams and Thomas argue that we are not an %22MCFC species%22, suggesting that humans lie somewhere on a continuum between peacocks and gibbons, and considerably closer to the latter, in terms of sexual dimorphism, paternal investment and mating strategy. One problem with their argument is that they seek to categorise humans according to one strategy or the other. Another is that both examples are of species in which there is little variability in mating strategy, either due to phylogenetic or socio-ecological constraints. In contrast, humans exhibit plasticity in mating strategy in ways that (if one were compelled to choose one species with which to compare humans) are more akin to a species like the dunnock. Thus their argument that interests of men and women are comparable and mutually compatible, simply because pair-bonding is the commonest strategy in human societies, belies both the inherent conflicts of interest between the sexes and the flexibility observed in actual human reproductive behavior, past and present. Only minimal differences in interest between the sexes are needed to exert differential selection pressures on males and females that lead to different outcomes in terms of mating psychology. We agree that more research on male choice and female competition will be illuminating, but only if it is done within a framework that recognises the full range and variability of human mating psychology.
dcterms:title
Humans Are Dunnocks, not Peacocks: On Cause and Consequence of Variation in Human Mating Strategies Humans Are Dunnocks, not Peacocks: On Cause and Consequence of Variation in Human Mating Strategies
skos:prefLabel
Humans Are Dunnocks, not Peacocks: On Cause and Consequence of Variation in Human Mating Strategies Humans Are Dunnocks, not Peacocks: On Cause and Consequence of Variation in Human Mating Strategies
skos:notation
RIV/00216208:11310/13:10191102!RIV14-MSM-11310___
n12:predkladatel
n13:orjk%3A11310
n3:aktivita
n9:I
n3:aktivity
I
n3:cisloPeriodika
3
n3:dodaniDat
n10:2014
n3:domaciTvurceVysledku
n15:4748034
n3:druhVysledku
n5:J
n3:duvernostUdaju
n20:S
n3:entitaPredkladatele
n14:predkladatel
n3:idSjednocenehoVysledku
78344
n3:idVysledku
RIV/00216208:11310/13:10191102
n3:jazykVysledku
n11:eng
n3:klicovaSlova
mammals; preferences; monogamy; mhc; evolution; prunella-modularis; intrasexual competition; australopithecus-afarensis; mate choice; sexual selection
n3:klicoveSlovo
n4:mate%20choice n4:preferences n4:prunella-modularis n4:intrasexual%20competition n4:australopithecus-afarensis n4:sexual%20selection n4:mammals n4:monogamy n4:mhc n4:evolution
n3:kodStatuVydavatele
US - Spojené státy americké
n3:kontrolniKodProRIV
[C88CD603BD2A]
n3:nazevZdroje
Psychological Inquiry
n3:obor
n18:AN
n3:pocetDomacichTvurcuVysledku
1
n3:pocetTvurcuVysledku
2
n3:rokUplatneniVysledku
n10:2013
n3:svazekPeriodika
24
n3:tvurceVysledku
Havlíček, Jan Roberts, S. Craig
n3:wos
000323813000013
s:issn
1047-840X
s:numberOfPages
6
n17:doi
10.1080/1047840X.2013.817299
n19:organizacniJednotka
11310