A Life-History Model of Human Fitness Indicators

Recent adaptationist accounts of human mental and physical health have reinvigorated the debate over the evolution of human intelligence. In the tradition of strong inference the current study was developed to determine whether either Miller's (1998 Miller, G. F. 1998. “How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution”. In Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications, Edited by: Crawford, C. and Krebs, D. 87–129. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar], 2000a Miller, G. F. 2000a. Mental traits as fitness indicators: Expanding evolutionary psychology's adaptationism. Evolutionary approaches to human reproductive behavior. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 907: 62–74. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) Fitness Indicator Theory or Rushton's (1985 Rushton, J. P. 1985. Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Pers Indiv Diff, 6(4): 441–452. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 2000 Rushton, J. P. 2000. Race, evolution, and behavior: A life-history perspective, 3rd, Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. [Google Scholar]) Differential-K Theory better accounts for general intelligence (“g”) in an undergraduate university population (N = 192). Owing to the lengthy administration time of the test materials, a newly developed 18-item short form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM-18; Sefcek, Miller, and Figueredo 2007 Sefcek, J. A., Miller, G. F. and Figueredo, A. J. 2007. “Development and of an 18-item short form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM-18). (Submitted)”. [Google Scholar]) was used. A significant, positive relationship between K and F (r = .31, p < .001) emerged. Contrary to predictions, no significant relationships were found between “g” and either K or F (r = –.09, p ≥ .05 and r = .11, p ≥ .05, respectively). Though generally contrary to both hypotheses, these results may be explained in relation to antagonistic pleiotropy and a potential failure to derive correct predictions for within-species comparisons directly from the results of between-species comparisons.