1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: …excuse me sir?
Oh, so when you said "This does happen in a lot of animals (a few vertebrates and a lot of invertebrates) but I’ve never seen a study that says it happens in humans or anything closely related to us."[1] can you clarify what "this" you are referring to?
1: https://old.reddit.com/r/NotHowGirlsWork/comments/uc37f7/excuse_me_sir/i68wxxq/
Cause it sounds like "this" is referring to the pictured tweet, but you don't know of any species that actually does miscarry for a "better" mate. And that's pretty misleading to lay people, as you should well know as a grad student.
Comment by mime454 at 26/04/2022 at 14:17 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don’t see how you can interpret it that way because I was very clear (human women) have very little incentive to do this. I’d argue that the Bruce Effect rodents and maybe lions listed in that wiki article do do “this” (abort their fetuses and go rapidly into estrous for the new male, even if it occurs after the traditional breeding season). They do “this” in the sense that this story fits all the data we have about the behavior. Very few argue they consciously choose it and especially not with our narratives about selfish genes in mind.
Like I was saying, all evolutionary stories are stories that can have multiple narrative interpretations that fit all the data we have. You could make a case that the Bruce Effect is about reduction in violence and prevention of infanticide (an argument I think I have a pretty fair summary of in my comments) or you could argue that they do this to mix their genes with “winners” in a conflict rather than losers. The anti infanticide argument doesn’t really explain why female rodents immediately become fertile for the new male even outside of their usual cycle. Infanticide and waste of parental investment for the mother could be prevented without going into heat for the new male.
I want to make clear again that none of this has anything to do with humans.