|
Actually, Dawkins dives more into the subject than I had written, but I didn't include it since that would be really diving into the evolutionary discussion. In fact, in the book, Dawkins states that a stable population is reached when something like 11/12 females and 3/5 males are monogamous (those may not be the exact numbers since I don't remember them perfectly). What you bring up is actually very interesting. I've seen the study you're referring to, and if you really think about it, a lot of it makes sense (maybe that's why the "good looking" guys are always cheating on their partners). It'd be very interesting if such behavior were also to be witnessed in other animals.
This theory might break down, however, if the animal we're talking about has the visual accuracy and conceptual understanding of identity to distinguish between itself and others in the populations (take early man, for example). An interesting side affect of sharing our genes with our offspring is that they will always look at least 1/2 like us. If 'Jim Bob' notices that his offspring look nothing like him, then in beast-like fashion, he would likely rid himself of that offspring. In such a case, in attractive males, polygamy would not be a favorable trait. This could also be an explanation why we are so good at catching very subtle differences in others' faces. Dawkins goes into it a lot more, but I can't remember more of the points he made for polygamy/monogamy/cheating/etc...
|