Individual decision making. In contrast to selectionism, individual

Human Evolutionary Ecology
Crucial Components of Dawkins
• The goal of evolution, from the perspective of the
individual, is the get your genes represented in the
next generation
“ genetic determinism”: our phenotype is the vehicle.
That carries our genes. But genes are driving the
vehicle.
Consequently a lot of Human behavior is directed
toward “ reproduction”.
• Individual decision making. In contrast to
selectionism, individual decision making and how
those decision affect the trajectories of evolution are
crucial
– “METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM”: INDIVIDUAL
ACTIONS HAVE LONG TERM EVOLUTIONARY
CONSEQUENCES
HOW CAN THIS BE THE CASE--- A MAJOR ASSUMPTION
SUPPORTS METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM
• Over the long haul, humans brain and
therefore the human mind has been
shaped by selection to maximize fitness.
The human brain. This means that the
choices we make are designed to
maximize fitness and gene representation.
This assumption may be overturned in the
process of investigation. If it is, then why is
that the case
Parental Investment
Laura Betzig
Altruism
Sexual Selection
Kin
Selection
Prey Choice Model
provides a set of predictions on
which a predator (humans in our
case) should choose from an array
of potential choices.
all else being equal in terms of
prey density, encounter
rates, processing
time, a predator should go
for the
prey
with the
highest energy
return rates.
Why should this be the case?
Natural selection has shaped
predators to behave this way
Predator decision-making,
though flexible, will choose a
higher ranked resource over
a lower one.
Why take a bunny when you just as
easily take down a deer.
Virginia Butler: Resource Depression on the
Northwest Coast of North America
Questions:
1. What is Resource Depression? Why might this
concept be important in archaeology?
2. How is this concept related to Prey Choice
Models
3. What does Butler want to explain?
4. How does she estimate prey size?--- after all
she’s working with fish bone?
5. Does HEE inform this paper? How and why?
6. What parts of this paper do not fit within an
HEE framework?