Game of Thrones and How the Lion Cuckolded the Stag

GoTIf you are one of the many fans addicted to the TV phenomenon that is Game of Thrones, chances are you are counting the hours to tonight’s season finale, especially after the most recent episode, Battle of the Bastards. However, before the episode airs, I’d like to go all the way back to season one and revisit some of the events that led to the war in Westeros, all from an evolutionary perspective of course. You do not need to be a Game of Thrones connoisseur to understand this post, so even if you are not into the show, I promise you will still read a few interesting things in this blog entry, and if you are a fan, do not worry for there are no spoilers, although I do give a crash explanation and recap of season one.

As many may know, Game of Thrones is set in the fictitious medieval land of Westeros, and like many medieval worlds, it is composed of different houses, all under the rule of one king. When the show begins, Westeros is ruled by king Robert Baratheon (his house sigil a stag) who overthrew the previous king with the help of several houses. House Stark lent its forces mostly because Lord Eddard (Ned) Stark was a close friend of Robert, and because he wanted revenge for the death of his father and brother at the hands of the previous king. House Lannister (house sigil a lion) joined Robert’s army when Lord Tywin Lannister made a deal by which his men would aid Robert so long as he married Tywin’s daughter, Cersei.

Robert Baratheon was an awful king, but I will not go into details regarding his reign. Suffice is to say that despite his ruling abilities, he won the throne by right of conquest. Years later, Cersei Lannister gave him three children, and for a time the land of Westeros was at peace. Additionally, because Robert had no interest in ruling, he left most of the job to his advisor or Hand of the King, Jon Arryn. It is during these years that the show begins, shortly after Jon Arryn dies and Robert decides to appoint a new Hand, this time his beloved friend Ned Stark.

Fast forward a few episodes and we learn that Jon Arryn died because of poison, which led Ned to believe Jon knew something of uttermost importance. Eventually Ned finds out that Queen Cersei was having an incestuous relationship with her brother Jamie, and that, perhaps more importantly, all three of her children were Jamie’s and not Robert’s. He confronts Cersei, but coincidentally Robert has a hunting accident and dies shortly, never knowing that his children were actually not his. To ensure that no one would pose a threat to her children, Cersei plots to have Ned accused of treason. Eventually Ned is beheaded and the war begins, and although there are many other motives for the war, the whole series is set in motion by the Lannister’s incest and the fact that the royal children are not the king’s.

In evolutionary terms, poor Robert was cuckolded. Cuckoldry occurs when a man invests resources on offspring that are not genetically his. From an evolutionary perspective, the end goal is not merely to survive, but to be able to reproduce and pass our genes into future generations. Additionally, humans tend to invest a lot of time and resources into making sure offspring reach reproductive age. There are also gender differences with regards to parental investment. According to Trivers (1972) women and men pay different costs when it comes to the effort spent reproducing. For women, having one child requires at least the 9 months of gestation, time during which she cannot have other offspring regardless of how many men she copulates with, not to mention the chances of dying at childbirth, which were significantly greater during our ancestral past. Meanwhile, the cost for men is smaller because the minimum effort required to produce one heir is merely the time required to impregnate the female. A single man could benefit from impregnating as many females as possible because this increases the likelihood that at least some of them will become pregnant with his children. The downside to this strategy is that the time the man spends impregnating females is time that could be spent ensuring any children of his survive. As a result, many men prefer to forego extra mating opportunities and spend more time investing in a few offspring. Think of it as a quantity versus quality deal. The point is that because men invest time and resources into their offspring, paternal certainty is essential. If a man is raising a child that is not genetically his, then his efforts are benefitting a rival’s genes, and he is losing the evolution game. A woman does not have this problem because, thanks to internal fertilization, she can be entirely sure that whatever children she has are hers.

To be fair, Robert went for both reproductive strategies. In fact, he was known for sleeping around with anyone but his wife, and even fathered 20 illegitimate children, yet the offspring who benefited from his investment (at least when it comes to resources since he was never much of a caregiver) were not his! These children were to inherit the crown and all the prerogatives that come with it, whereas Robert’s bastards, who did carry his genes albeit not his name lived in the Westerosi slums, likely to die any given day if not for the secret aid Jon Arryn provided once he discovered them, which brings us to another lesson in paternity: how Jon and Ned discovered the truth about the royal children. Both Hands had their eureka moment when they finally realized that all of the king’s bastards had inherited his dark, black hair, while the princes and princess had the golden locks typical of the Lannister house. Actually, when Ned met one of the bastards, he only had to look closely at the boy to realize he was one of Robert’s sons because the kid greatly resembled his father. It was paternal resemblance, or lack of it, that ultimately led to the truth.

Paternity resemblance is a major paternal assurance tactic, and it happens even without the male consciously analyzing whether a child looks like him. Platek, Burch, Panyavin, Wasserman & Gallup (2002) morphed participants’ faces with a variety of children’s faces and asked them to make hypothetical investment decisions such as which child was most attractive, which child they would be most likely to adopt, which child they would like to spend the most time with, and so on. They found neither males nor females were particularly good at picking out which child face was morphed with theirs, yet when asked which children they would invest in, males constantly chose the face that had the highest resemblance. This finding did not hold true for females, who instead tried to spread out their investment as much as possible.

Another study (Burch & Gallup, 2000) found that the higher the perceived resemblance between a man and his child, the fewer mate guarding tactics the male used on his partner; the less physical violence the male perpetrated, and the lower the frequency of the couple’s arguments regarding commitment and communication. Additionally, new mothers and relatives are more likely to report alleged paternal resemblance of newborns than maternal resemblance, suggesting that allegations of resemblance are responses to the problem of paternal uncertainty (Daly & Wilson, 1982).

Perhaps one of the reasons Robert was such a neglecting father was because he, without any conscious awareness like the men in the Platek et al (2002) study, did not perceive any resemblance with his children. Then of course, his neglect may have also been due to the fact he never cared for anything else but drinking and sleeping around. One thing is certain, though, Cersei did an incredible job at keeping him in the dark with regards to her children, and like any mother, she went to great extremes to ensure her babies, the carriers of her genes, got to sit on the throne. Whether they will remain on it is a very different matter altogether, but only time will tell.


Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family          violence. Evolution and Human Behavior21(6), 429-435.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1982). Whom are newborn babies said to resemble?. Ethology          and Sociobiology3(2), 69-78.

Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G. (2002).                Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than                                          females. Evolution and Human Behavior23(3), 159-166.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection & the                     Descent of Man, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 136-179.

Posted in Vania Rolón | Comments Off on Game of Thrones and How the Lion Cuckolded the Stag

NEEPS X: On Cooperation and Interdisciplinarity

Some of the original NEEPSters during the latest conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Some of the original NEEPSters during the latest conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Between June 2nd and June 5th, the St. Mary’s University campus in Halifax, Nova Scotia saw one of its conference rooms invaded by a group of evolutionary theory fanatics. As the tenth conference of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society took place, old friendships were revisited and new friendships were made. Referred to as “the best little evolutionary society in the world” by former president Daniel Kruger, NEEPS began as a regional sister organization of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). Started by my mentor Glenn Geher, NEEPS grew past its intended geographic boundaries and now includes scholars from all across the country (such as Georgia and Michigan) and even the world, with this year’s meeting consisting of visitors flying all the way from England, Chile, Brazil, Russia, Japan and South Africa.

But how did a little regional conference become the phenomenon it is today? Well, it wasn’t done by one person alone. The reason as to why NEEPS has grown so much is the same as to why our species has gone from foraging the African savannahs to sending men into space: cooperation that transcends kin. Humans are, after all, social animals, and as such we have mechanisms to choose social partners that will allow us to reap future benefits from cooperation. Furthermore, research suggests that cooperation is not limited to blood relatives (Trivers, 1971). Because we are born into a particular kin group with its own preexisting alliances and political structures, our personal history greatly constrains our choices for social interactions, but because social life, particularly in today’s technological world, is complex, opportunities arise for us to restructure any affiliations and thus choose our own social partners (Kurzban & Neuberg, 2005). More importantly, our decisions to do so are not random but are rather contingent on the likelihood that the individuals selected can provide benefits such as skills, access to resources, and social networks.

Because we tend to form groups with distantly related others, we should have evolved psychological mechanisms that allow us to carefully select members that possess traits that make them good partners. By asking students to contemplate different groups (e.g. basketball teams, fraternities, work project teams, etc.) and asking them to rate the importance of members of the group possessing certain traits, Cottrell, Neuberg, and Li (2005) found that trustworthiness and cooperativeness were rated as highly important, regardless of the nature of the group. Additionally, research has shown that the probability of future interactions increases the success of reciprocal strategies and the chances of ongoing cooperation (Axelrod, 1984).

So how does all this map into NEEPS? Well, for starters, as mentioned earlier, NEEPS was not built overnight by a single person. Glenn joined forces with trustworthy and cooperative individuals such as Maryanne Fisher, Daniel Kruger, T. Joel Wade, Killian Garvey, Daniel Glass, and many more (the list is endless). Assembling a conference is no easy task, and as part of the program committee, I can say first hand that simply creating the program required great amounts of coordination. Had Glenn not found individuals willing to cooperate, founding NEEPS would have probably been a lot harder. Additionally, NEEPS board members have constant interactions throughout the year, and thus this increases cooperation. Even non board members meet at least once a year during the conference. These meetings provide great benefits; a friend of mine discussed factor analysis techniques with another member who knew more on the topic (the benefit acquired being skill) and I was able to discuss my thesis and discuss possible collaborations with other members (the benefit being increased social networks). Such collaboration is essential in academia, and everyone can benefit from exchanging knowledge.

A second factor that makes NEEPS a success is its broad interdisciplinarity. Evolutionary psychology borrows knowledge from more areas than traditional psychology. In fact, a study analyzing 1000 journal articles across ten leading peer-reviewed psychology journals found that journals that were more evolutionary-based had more first-authors from disciplines outside of psychology (Garcia, Geher, Crosier, Saad, Gambacorta, Johnsen & Pranckitas, 2011). For instance, Evolution and Behavior contained first-authors whose disciplines included medicine, anthropology, economics, epidemiology, public policy, biology, sociology, musicology, and law. Such interdisciplinarity was observed at NEEPS, with talks and posters addressing female roles in romantic novels such as Pride and Prejudice and Sex in the City, consumer seating preference at restaurants, use of 311 systems to maintain the urban commons, predispositions to form non-arbitrary associations between heard sounds and visual input, and more. These four examples alone have great implications in areas such as literature, business, urban planning and psycholinguistics. Such is the power of the interdisciplinarity of evolutionary studies that it can unify different disciplines under its wings.

Overall, NEEPS is and will continue being a success due to the collaboration between members, who after ten years even refer to NEEPS as a small family and rightly so given the friendliness all members provide, and its ability to include disciplines that go beyond the scope of traditional psychology.


Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Basic Books.

Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. (2005). What do people want in a group member? A      sociofunctional analysis of valued and devalued characteristics. Journal of Personality        and Social Psychology.

Garcia, J. R., Geher, G., Crosier, B., Saad, G., Gambacorta, D., Johnsen, L., & Pranckitas,          E. (2011). The interdisciplinarity of evolutionary approaches to human behavior: a key        to survival in the ivory archipelago. Futures, 43(8), 749-761.

Kurzban, R., Neuberg, S. (2005). Managing Ingroup and Outgroup Relationships. In D. M.      Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (653-675). Hoboken, NJ: John        Wiley and Sons.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NEEPS X: On Cooperation and Interdisciplinarity

Sticker Shock in Alabama-An Op-Ed in Defense of Science Education

I wanted to share with everyone a recent op-ed letter that I submitted to local and state-wide news media in Alabama following the continued approval of anti-evolution textbook disclaimers in Alabama textbooks. This year marks a decade since the last textbook adoption year in the state of Alabama, and as teachers around the state are surveying the books they feel best fit their 21st Century students, the Alabama State Board of Education has voted to maintain their position that evolution is a dangerous subject that requires a warning that is both scientifically inaccurate and unnecessary.

Textbook evolution sticker hurts children’s understanding of science but also their faith, by Dr. Amanda Glaze, (Birmingham News/Huntsville Times/Mobile Press Register), March 31, 2016

I am Alabama proud. I was educated in Alabama and I teach science in Alabama schools. I love my home state and I am proud of many things that we are doing right in our science education, including the adoption of the new Alabama Course of Study for Science. But I am not proud of a recent decision by the state board of education. I am heartbroken.

Evolution is a fundamental and unifying principle of the life sciences. There is no controversy about evolution within the scientific community. As the National Academy of Sciences observes, “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” Every year, thousands of publications appear in the scientific research literature that apply, refine, and extend evolution.

The new Alabama Course of Study for Science reflects the scientific consensus on evolution, describing it correctly as “substantiated with much direct and indirect evidence.” But the board recently chose to flout the consensus and the standards, instead retaining the scientifically inaccurate and pedagogically inappropriate disclaimer about evolution stuck into the state’s textbooks since 2001.

The disclaimer describes evolution by natural selection as scientifically controversial and it suggests that doubt about the importance of natural selection in evolution is scientifically justified. These are simply mistakes. Just as problematic, however, is the implicit message—that evolution is something so horrible that it is necessary to warn students about it.

As a science teacher and as a science education researcher in Alabama, I can definitely say that the disclaimer’s effect is uniformly negative. The mere presence of the disclaimer often discourages biology teachers from presenting evolution forthrightly or at all—even though, as a famous scientist once observed, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

It is Alabama’s students who are the victims here. Students who have little chance to attain a proper understanding of evolution are at risk of not attaining a basic level of scientific literacy. And because understanding evolution is practically important, in such fields as medicine, biotechnology, and agriculture, they are also at risk in their future careers.

But it’s even worse than that. Although the disclaimer is evidently intended to protect the faith of students and teachers alike, I am convinced that its effect is both negative and detrimental to both science and religion. By encouraging the idea that faith and science are at loggerheads, the disclaimer forces students to make a choice between the two. There is no need to do so.

Francis Collins, the co-leader of the Human Genome Project and the director of the National Institutes of Health, once said, “The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.”

In short, the disclaimer is a failure from the scientific point of view, a failure from the educational point of view, and—on the testimony of a distinguished biologist with a deep Christian faith—a failure from the religious point of view. And the state board of education’s decision to retain the disclaimer was a failure to serve the education of the students in Alabama’s public schools.

If we in Alabama could come together to insist that our students deserve to be taught science, including evolution, properly, as the scientific community understands it and as our state’s science standards now present it, free from censorship, ideology, and disclaimers, then it would be easier for those of us who care about science education here to say—as we would like to say—that we are as Alabama proud as ever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sticker Shock in Alabama-An Op-Ed in Defense of Science Education

Evolution, antibiotics, and public health

There are many fears about antibiotics.  People are petrified about antibiotics being in the meats that they eat, but on the other hand, they outright demand antibiotics for a minor viral sinus infection.

First of all, I must say.  Antibiotics are good.  Overusing or improperly using antibiotics is bad.  Let me clarify a few myths.

There are expiration dates for a reason.  Some antibiotics change chemically.  Yes, people commonly think they get weaker, so when they get the sniffles, they reach for an expired antibiotic in their medicine cabinet because it, “still has a little bit.”  Wrong!  Some antibiotics change chemically and can actually harm patients if they are taken when they are too old.  Those antibiotics with a little bit left might be weak at killing the bacteria, and in comes evolution – the bacteria become resistant.

Antibiotics treat certain infections, not all of them.  Some are broad spectrum, some treat only gram positive or gram negative, some treat only specific species of bacterial infections, and none treat viral infections.  Taking amoxicillin for a simple viral sinus infection will not make you well sooner, but it will add to the weighted sum of people improperly using antibiotics – accelerating evolution along the way.

Antibiotics are good for farm animals…when they are sick with a bacterial infection!  Sure, it is probably better to eat a healthy cow than a sick cow, but are we all exiled for life for coming down with pneumonia once?  No, but regularly dumping antibiotics into feed, however, is evolutionarily dangerous.

Tuberculosis is becoming more and more resistant to the level that a vaccine is in order.  People are now dying from gonorrhea in developed countries.  Superbugs are developing in infants in India.  We need an evolutionary perspective in public health more now than ever.

None of the above should be construed as medical advice.  Rather, we should remember that evolution is incredibly important in health and sanitation.

Posted in Evolutionary Medicine | Comments Off on Evolution, antibiotics, and public health

Never forget that we are mammals

What makes us mammals?  The fact that we are warm blooded vertebrates?  Live birth?  Fur or hair?  Well…yes, but the defining factor is mammary glands, the glands that make breast milk, which is one of the evolutionary wonders of the mammal world.

It is commonly said that breast is best, and an overwhelming body of scientific evidence confirms that breastfeeding is indeed superior to formula.  Does not breastfeeding mean that someone is a neglectful parent?  Absolutely not!  There are valid reasons for not breastfeeding.  Sometimes babies might have a vitamin deficiency that requires formula, or a mother might need to use formula in order to balance a work schedule that is beneficial to both mother and baby, which are both completely understandable reasons not to breastfeed.

There are some grey areas as well.  When the mother is ill, especially from an active infectious disease, it is usually in the best interest for the infant to have formula.  Nonetheless, even with mothers in Sub-Saharan Africa who are HIV positive, so long as their infection is adequately controlled by antiretroviral medication and that the risk of mother-to-child transmission is virtually nonexistent, breastfeeding can provide better nutrition than formula and it also reduces the risk of endemic parasites contaminating the water used to mix formula.  None of the above should be accepted as medical advice, but there are some situations where breast might not be best.

But…breast is usually best because it benefits both the mother and the baby.  Immunity to bacteria and viruses are passed from the mother to the child through breastmilk, and even some chronic diseases such as asthma and obesity have been shown to be lower in breastfed babies.  Babies who are breastfed are even argued to have higher IQs.  For the mother, pregnancy weight and uterine size are likely to return to normal faster should she breastfeed.  These are just a small list of some of the many benefits of the evolutionary method to feed infants.

Remember, we are mammals because of our mammary glands, and no matter how good our lab sciences may get, our evolutionary engineered breastmilk is best.

Posted in Evolutionary Medicine | Comments Off on Never forget that we are mammals

Signaling and Coronary Candidacy

Recently, Dr. Tom Nolen of the Biology Department at SUNY New Paltz gave an EvoS seminar talk on the communication, aggression, and behavior of crickets. Whilst this talk may have little implications to human health on the surface, one recurring theme in his talk was how crickets communicate via signals, notably, honest and deceitful signals.  Something that comes to mind is how people can send “signals” regarding the mortality and morbidity of their diseases.

A discussion of the social sciences in medicine would be incomplete without including the topic of coronary candidacy.  Coronary candidacy is an example of lay epidemiology, a concept coined by Blaxter in the ’70’s and 80’s.  Lay epidemiology seeks to explain the causes of disease as the “laity” understand them as opposed to how the medical model would explain the cause of a disease.  At the heart of coronary candidacy is something called the “prevention paradox,” that is, one’s apparent ability to prevent heart disease through beliefs about what makes one a candidate for heart disease.

I am sure that you heard someone say, s/he is the “last person” they would expect to have a heart attack.  This formulation of a “candidate” for a heart attack is an example of a layperson describing “signals” or “cues” for someone who would or would not have a heart attack.  Another prevailing theme in coronary candidacy is the justification of behaviors.  For example, if someone has a family history of heart disease, but good eating habits, but does little exercise, but has good cholesterol medicine, but has moderate stress, etc., that person is evaluating their disease risk not by using a scientifically validated medical risk assessment, but rather formulating a “candidacy” for heart disease based on a cohort of lay beliefs.  The point here is that people send signals to others regarding their coronary candidacy, even if these signals are unintentional cues.

The handicap principle, although not without its problems, applies here too.  If someone were to be at high risk of a heart attack due to excessive weight, if s/he were to suddenly lose weight, s/he may send the signal that s/he is healthy, but this dishonest signal comes at an enormous cost of sudden weight loss, which is a severe trauma on the body.  It is clear that we send enormous amounts of information about our health through signals and cues, regardless of the honesty of the signal.

Posted in Evolutionary Medicine | Comments Off on Signaling and Coronary Candidacy

Why You Should Tip Your Bartender from an Evolutionary Perspective: How Reciprocal Altruism Can Get You Tipsy.

I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” We all know this mantra.  Actually, when executed properly, it’s the most efficient way to get things done.

Let’s take a moment to think about our ancestors.  It wouldn’t make sense for someone to share all of the berries they found or the meat they hunted with someone else.  Why bother?  It’s going to help ME survive if I save it all for myself.  Right?  The problem is that evolution is not about survival – it’s about reproduction.  The name of the game is passing on your genes.  Because of the inherent nature of evolutionary processes, cooperating is actually beneficial.  Sharing my berries with my child will increase reproductive success.  My genes are passed on, and my offspring get to grow and be healthy and continue the pattern.  This is known as kin-selected altruism – helping out and cooperating with family members.  Cooperation among kin increases overall reproductive success (Hamilton, 1964).  Ants all equally benefit from a reproductive standpoint when they each work for the queen.  Humans do reproductively better when we cooperate with our kin as well.  Studies have found that we share food more with our own kin than with non-relatives (Ziker & Schnegg, 2005).  It’s probably no surprise that we tend to leave our will with a close relative compared to friends or strangers (Cartwright, 2000).  Okay, so helping out the family makes sense.  What about non-relatives?

Research has pointed out that helping out non-relatives may be selected for as well (Trivers, 1971).  Reciprocal altruism is a type of social interaction in which one individual pays some cost or sacrifice to another with the expectation (however unconscious) that the same sacrifice will be made for that individual.  Paying a cost to a non-related recipient (buying my friend a gift) may benefit me if/when that individual pays me back someday (she buys me a gift).  Scratching someone else’s back today might benefit you someday when you’ve got an itch and need to call in a favor from that same person.  But what if that person never comes back to scratch your back?  What if that person receives the benefit, but never returns the cost?  We would call this person a cheater, but let’s face it – they’re winning here.  They got their back scratched, AND they didn’t have to do anything for it!  The problem with cheaters is that ultimately, all their bridges get burned.  Think back to our ancestors – suppose one day a lion comes up Grog the Caveman’s cave, and he has a weapon to take care of the issue and save his friend, Thak.  If Thak was a cheater, you think Grog would save him?  Thak has been eating Grog’s meat, borrowing Grog’s tools, and hogging Grog’s fireplace for a long time, all without ever helping out Grog in return.  Lot of I.O.U.’s, that Thak… He does not have Grog’s back when he needs him.  Paying any cost to Thak will never benefit Grog.  It makes more sense to consider giving Thak over to the lion for dinner…

So, what’s a more modern and fast-paced example of reciprocal altruism?  Hanging out at the bar, of course!  I can’t think of a quicker way to display this in action.  Patrons do not HAVE to pay their bartender a tip.  It’s encouraged and expected, but not enforced.  Someone could order a Long Island Iced Tea, watch me make it, pay for the drink in exact change, and then walk away.  And many people often do.  Here’s the problem… After about 3 Long Islands, I no longer feel like making these for you for free…. You’re out of luck.  The nature of being a bartender, or any waitstaff, is that tips are what pay the bills.  And that’s fine, until someone cheats the system.  Let’s use Joe as an example.  Joe could be the cheater, and it would work out for him for a while.  He would get his buzz cheaper than other tipping patrons.  Ultimately, this runs out though.  After Joe has established himself at every watering hole in town as the non-tipper, no bartender is going to serve him.  On a lighter note, those who tip are likely to get unexpected benefits often.  I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that, as the bartender, I often buy a round for my regular tipping customers.  It’s nice to do.  I don’t do it in hopes that they’ll scratch my back later, but quite often this is what happens.  It ends up in a nicer tip at the end of the night.  At the very least, tipping your bartender will keep him/her happy and eager to serve you throughout the night.  Reciprocal altruism can get you tipsy.  Now, I’m not saying that the only reason people do nice things is because we’re selfishly all hoping and expecting nice things to come our way afterwards.  I’m merely pointing out how this type of altruism has been selected for through evolution.  It can be adaptive.

The bottom line here is that you should tip your bartender.  It keeps them happy, and that keeps your drink stiff.


Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and human behavior: Darwinian perspectives on human nature. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The evolution of social behavior. Journal Theoretical Biology, 7(1–16).

Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(35–57).

Ziker, J., & Schnegg, M. (2005). Food sharing at meals: kinship, reciprocity, and clustering in the Taimyr Autonomous Okrug, Northern Russia. Human Nature16(2), 178-211.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why You Should Tip Your Bartender from an Evolutionary Perspective: How Reciprocal Altruism Can Get You Tipsy.

How I Scared the S*** Out of Guys in Only 15 Minutes…. And Now You Can, Too!

Recently, I had the opportunity to present my work at an evolutionary psychology independent conference (EPIC).  It was truly an amazing opportunity and a wonderful experience for presenters and audience members alike.  Both alumni and current members of the New Paltz Evolutionary Psychology lab presented their own research at this conference within a standard 15 minute time slot.  The conference was open to the public, and audience members included several faculty members, various interested college students from near and far, and even local high school students interested in psychology and evolutionary studies.  I was privy to hear about the evolutionary psychology behind music and emotional intelligence, how evolutionary psychology is truly interdisciplinary, and even the evolutionary psychology behind ostracizing people, among other topics.

My current thesis work evaluates the existence of what I call partner insurance.  This is what I presented at EPIC, and it was a blast (Watch the full video here).  Partner insurance is like other types of insurance, but for your love life.  In case of flood, fire, breakup, divorce…. an individual may have a Mr./Ms. Plan B.  My research only studies this phenomenon in heterosexual women, so my data reveal frequencies of Mr. Plan B’s and which characteristics in women are predictors of having a Mr. Plan B.

Previous research has demonstrated that college women, on average, have 3.78 Mr. Plan B’s (Dibble & Drouin, 2015), and that roughly 2/3rds of all college students who are in a committed relationship will openly admit to having at least one Mr./Ms. Plan B (Dibble, Drouin, Aune, & Boller, 2015).  YEAH.  When I mentioned this, the whole audience had the same reaction you’re probably having now – silence and immediate nail-biting.  Well, fear not.  According to my preliminary analyses, this is something women grow out of.  Women who report having a Mr. Plan B are significantly younger than those who do not.  I argue that this phenomenon may be a bit more localized to just college students or young adults, in general.

That being said, I still scared the shit out of many of the guys in the room (whoops – sorry about that).  Overall, my data reveal that roughly 20% of women in committed relationships will report having a Mr. Plan B, and there are other predictors of this besides age.  As it turns out, women who are more narcissistic, women who tend to lack remorse for their actions, and women who are generally a little more detached from morals are the ones who report having a Mr. Plan B.  Not a great picture, I know. The silver lining is that if and when this work is published, it should add to the body of literature on human mating strategies.

And here’s where Darwin comes in – keeping evolutionary theory in mind might help to explain partner insurance in this case.  Intrasexual competition is one of various mating strategies.  This occurs when members of the same sex compete for a mate.  We might see this in animals when male elk compete with other male elk using their antlers.  In humans, a simple example would be Sally telling Janice that her hair looked great, when really, Janice desperately needed a hairbrush.  Research has demonstrated that women who are more narcissistic and follow the other same characteristics listed above are generally more competitive for mates (Carter, Montanaro, Linney, & Campbell, 2015).  Partner insurance – having a Mr. Plan B – could simply be another mating strategy in the form of intrasexual competition.  By holding onto a Mr. Plan B, a woman arguably keeps a potential mate inaccessible to other competing females.

So, is having a Mr. Plan B smart?  Having car insurance is certainly a wise move, but partner insurance?  On the one hand, we could argue that having a backup boyfriend might be adaptive.  A woman who organizes her life in such a way that she is in and out of frequent relationships might be someone who would benefit from having partner insurance.  However, we could also make a very strong case that partner insurance would serve as a serious threat to an existing and otherwise healthy relationship.

My intent at EPIC was never to scare the s*** out of the men in the room, nor is that the intent of this blog.  I’m hoping this work will be recognized soon, and we can continue to gain understanding about how humans interact in the world through a Darwinian lens.  Meanwhile, I’m going to go help Janice.


Carter, G. L., Montanaro, Z., Linney, C., & Campbell, A. C. (2015, February). Women’s               sexual competition and the Dark Triad.Personality and Individual Differences74,               275-279.

Dibble, J. L., & Drouin, M. (2014, May). Using modern technology to keep in touch with           back burners: an investment model analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 96-           100.

Dibble, J. L., Drouin, M., Aune, K. S., & Boller, R. R. (2015, June 11). Simmering on the             back burner: communication with and disclosure of relationship alternatives.                         Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 329-344. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1039719


Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on How I Scared the S*** Out of Guys in Only 15 Minutes…. And Now You Can, Too!

How Evolutionary Psychology Can Help You on a First Date


“Are we doomed?” & “Oh, you must be using me as your case study!”


These are the two comments I get the most at work.  Did I mention I’m a bartender?  By day, I study evolutionary psychology.  But by night, I put on a cape and bartend.  Okay, I don’t wear a cape… usually.  Often, customers will ask me what I’m studying and what I do when I’m not tending bar.  Once I mention the words ‘evolution’ and/or ‘psychology’ I typically get asked if we’re all doomed as a species (whatever that means), and whether or not I’m using the bar scene as my laboratory.  Probably not and no, respectively.  My limited knowledge in evolutionary psychology can’t really answer that first question (can anyone?), and I’m certainly not secretly taking notes on people’s drinking habits, behavior, or emotional issues they dish to me.  What I do typically study in the actual laboratory is mating strategies from an evolutionary perspective.  This is definitely something seen at the bar.  I’ve witnessed many a first date crash and burn after a couple martinis, and I’ve also seen many a happily wedded couple enjoy a nightcap on their date.  I’m sure we all have, and most of us probably have our own dating story to tell.  Based on research in human mating strategies, and on my experience actually witnessing mating strategies in action from behind the bar, here’s my take on what to know when you’re dating.

First, it’s important to know the difference between a Type I error and a Type II error.  Or as Glenn Geher puts it (Darwin’s Subterranean World), the more aptly named “Found Fool’s Gold” Error and the “Failed to Find Something that’s Actually Real” Error.  A Type I error occurs when someone reports an effect that is not actually present – a false positive.  A simple example would be if a company announced that their new anti-depression medication helps fight depression, when really, it does not.  The “Found Fool’s Gold” Error – the treatment didn’t really work, but now everyone thinks it does.  This is obviously a huge problem.  A Type II error occurs when an effect really IS present, but is missed or goes unnoticed – a false negative.  An example of this would be if the same new anti-depression medication was tested, and the researchers declared that the treatment is useless because it had no effect on depression.  It could be that the new treatment actually decreased anxiety, but this benefit went unnoticed and unreported because the researchers were only looking at depression.  The “Failed to Find Something that’s Actually Real” Error – the new medication actually worked for something, but the effect was missed.  Both cases are errors, but one (Type I) is generally much worse than the other (Type II).

Now, let’s relate this to mating strategies.  When it comes to women seeking men, The Type II error would be to assume that men are not willing or ready to commit to a relationship long-term.  This error is safer in a way – the cost of making this error is significantly less than the cost of making the Type I error.  The Type I error would be to lack any sense of skepticism and assume all men are ready and willing to commit to a long-term relationship.  The cost of making this error is far greater than the cost of the Type II error when dating.  The cost of unexpectedly having to bear children without resources and support from a would-be father or husband is greater than the cost of missing a potential dating opportunity.  For men seeking women, the Type II error would be to assume that all women definitely want to sleep with you.  The cost of this error might be a slap or a drink thrown in your face.  However, the cost of the Type I error – assuming no women want to sleep with you – would be a serious loss of reproductive success.

Indeed, research has shown that we tend to stick to the Type II errors when it comes to mating strategies.  Haselton and colleagues found that women tend to assume that men are unwilling to commit, and men tend to over-perceive a woman’s sexual intent (2000).  It is the less risky route to take in terms of increasing one’s reproductive success.  True enough, I see this a lot when I’m working at the bar.  Often, women on a date will later confess to me or ask if I think the guy they’re on a date with is a “player” or unwilling to commit and be exclusive.  Similarly, I hear men making comments once in a while like “dude, she totally wants to sleep with me.”  (Cue eye-roll)

So, what?  What’s the take-away?  Here’s my advice when it comes to dating today – have fun and relax a little.  Ladies and gentlemen, it’s actually in our biology to feel these things – for women to be skeptical of a man’s level of commitment and for men to over-perceive a woman’s sexual intent.  When weighing the costs, there’s clear evidence and there are clear signs that one error may cost a lot more than the other.  This has shown to be adaptive for our reproductive success.  However, knowing why we think and feel this way when we date can also be adaptive.  Being aware of these mechanisms may alleviate any initial negative or judgmental thoughts about a person’s dating perspective.  Guys, let’s avoid calling her “baby-crazy” or “needy” if a gal mentions interest in the long game.  Ladies, maybe just throw the water in his face instead of the red wine when he wrongly assumes you’re ready to go home with him already.


Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: a new perspective on           biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78(1),       81-91.

Geher, G. (2015, October 21). Renaming Type I and Type II error [Web blog post].                      Retrieved from                  world/201510/renaming-type-i-and-type-ii-error

Posted in Evolution and Psychology, Mating and Sexuality, Nicole Wedberg, Uncategorized | Comments Off on How Evolutionary Psychology Can Help You on a First Date

Darwin’s Big Idea: Evolution as a Cross-Cutting Construct

So recently Aron Wiegand, webmaster for, posted the following question to us EvoS bloggers:

“From the selective breeding of plants to animal husbandry, conservation, and drug development, what do you consider to be the most prominent example of the practical application of evolutionary knowledge in human society?”

Aron, this is a hard question to answer! When the world celebrated Darwin’s would-have-been 200th Birthday on 2/12/2009, such major media outlets as Time, the Atlantic, and Newsweek underscored the fact that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were actually born on the same day – and much discussion ensued about which historical figure had a stronger influence on the modern world. Being compared with Abraham Lincoln in terms of influence?!?! Not too shabby. Darwin’s influence has been simply enormous on modern thought.

My money goes to the field of education itself. The ideas of evolution have the capacity to serve as an intellectual infrastructure for connecting ideas across all areas of academia. This basic idea, which we refer to as the EvoS (Evolutionary Studies) model of education (thanks to David Sloan Wilson for spearheading this movement!), allows students to (a) learn about the basic principles of evolution and then (b) see how these principles are applicable to such seemingly diverse areas as genetics in fruit flies, Neanderthal social structures, the nature of art, reactions to infidelity in modern humans, the nature of human religion, and more. Way more.

What is particularly special about the EvoS model of evolution education is that it provides a new way to think about interdisciplinary education. Interdisciplinary education pertains to any form of education that draws on content across multiple traditional academic areas (e.g., biology and geology). Most interdisciplinary programs at colleges and universities, such as programs in gender studies, focus on a shared content area (in this case, gender, for example). Such a program would include courses in such fields as history, sociology, and political science all as they relate to the content are of gender. Such a curriculum is connected by content.

EvoS is different – and it provides a novel way to think about interdisciplinary education. Instead of connecting classes based on shared content, EvoS connects classes based on the shared set of principles of evolution. Thus, our EvoS curriculum at New Paltz includes a course in historical geology, which focuses on the fossil record and how evolution helps us make sense of the fossil record, and it also includes a course in social psychology, as this course will typically include some content related to how human social behavior can be understood as the product of evolutionary forces. And that’s not all – students in our EvoS program at New Paltz (and in similar programs at other schools around the country) take courses from a bunch of different departments – courses that vary considerably on terms of content, but that share the common pedagogical tool of evolutionary principles.

For a great introduction to the EvoS concept, check out the many free-and-streaming videos of the past speakers in our annual EvoS Seminar Series.

Darwin’s Influence on Education as Only Partly Realized

So in answer to your question, Aron, I think that Darwin’s influence in the field of education is huge. But get this – I also think that the potential that Darwin’s ideas have to inform how we educate people has only be partly realized. EvoS programs such as our program at New Paltz are still only found at a handful of colleges and universities. As a result, it’s still the case that most colleges and universities offer evolution education only in compartmentalized areas – such as biology and geology departments. This is a shame, as Darwin’s ideas have the capacity to improve our understanding of such issues as:

  • Human Physical Health
  • Human Mental Health
  • Education
  • Politics
  • Conservation of the Environment
  • … and more!

We neglect Darwin’s ideas within academic circles to our detriment. In the future, based partly on the efforts of the EvoS Consortium that hosts this blog, I see a time when Darwin’s ideas are fully implemented across academic areas – and a unified and coherent educational framework connected with evolution helps turn on the light for generations of students in years to come. Hey, a guy can dream, right?



Posted in Education, Glenn Geher | Comments Off on Darwin’s Big Idea: Evolution as a Cross-Cutting Construct