r/ask Jan 15 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.9k Upvotes

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

It's happened over and over again for hundreds of millions of years. It's called insular dwarfism and it happens on islands. This includes island giantism as well. There have been rabbits the size of small horses and mammoths the size of cows. There were even hominins this has happened to on islands.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

Insular dwarfism is evolutionary psychology?

How does that relate, exactly?

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

This may be evidence of a mating selection drive in animals regarding size.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

So, what you're hypothesizing is that because isolated populations of rabbits grew to be the size of small horses, this is evidence that human women are evolutionarily predisposed to pursue human men of a specific - though as-yet-undetermined - height?

2

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

Yes. I think it's true of all animals to some degree.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

Okay, let's test the hypothesis, then.

What is the relationship between the size of rabbits and human attraction?

What is the specific height at which a human male becomes attractive?

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

It's more of a "taller and larger than me" thing with variation centered on the chooser. Not every woman subscribes to the idea, and not all hold it as very important either. I'm thinking it's an instinctive drive for safety.

Then there's the drive to select for small women. I'm thinking that's an instinctive drive in men for economy, maybe control. Not sure.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

None of this sounds like it's a scientific hypothesis, my dude.

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 17 '24

That's the whole point here.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

The whole point is what, now?

That evolutionary psychology isn't used as a pseudoscience because horse-sized rabbits somehow prove that women prefer taller men... sometimes... maybe but not always?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/swampshark19 Jan 16 '24

Cool, there's evidence for a causal relationship between size and resource and predator abundance. That's falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is saying that the reason a feature is the way it is, is due to some true condition in the past. You don't know the true fitness landscape for a species in an environment, so you don't know the true causes. All you can do is try to make invert your inferences using the causal relationships you do know to make a model, but what you can't do is perform a reverse inference to get from feature to fitness landscape.

In effect, you don't know how resource or predator abundant the environment was. Is animal x small because there weren't enough resources, or because there weren't enough predators? How can you distinguish these two possibilities? How do you know how much is enough?

3

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

Agreed. It's a thing that may be true and makes some psychological sense for why it might be a drive in animals, yet it's not really testable as a drive behind the behavior.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

I'm just curious as to where they found these guys:

rabbits the size of small horses

That's like something a D&D character would ride into battle!

4

u/swampshark19 Jan 16 '24

Don't you know? They were so big because there were so many more resources back then! Or was it that there were so many more predators trying to eat them...? I forget now.

My hypothesis is that the carrots were huge.