Talk:Strategic pluralism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mfkamowski. Peer reviewers: Mcrobertson, Natewasylk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobshanks10. Peer reviewers: Ecorona1998, Jllobos, Cami.fisher, Sbeaver1016, Smaulsmall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology?

I'm pretty sure this should be considered an evolutionary psychology theory. All of the relevant studies cited are filed under/tagged as "evolutionary psychology" and all the people who discuss it do so under the evopsych lens. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:853B:C16F:C34B:DDB1 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Too narrow

Strategic pluralism in evolutionary biology refers to much more than human mating strategies. It refers to the benefits of having variation in various traits in a population. In fact, "Strategic pluralism is the idea that multiple - even contradictory - behavioural strategies might be adaptive in certain environments and would therefore be maintained through natural selection."

What is presented here is just the incel take on the term. This page should rather be named "Dual mating strategy".

Vote to merge/remove

I agree with you completely on both points. This page is highly biased and uncritical as well as not aptly named. In fact, there exists a page called Ovulatory shift hypothesis which is in fact what is presented in this page. Additionally, it is written much better, backed up by numerous sources and evaluates this hypothesis (rather than theory) critically.

I vote to either merge this stub into the main page or remove this one altogether. --Fato39 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also support a merge, because this article contains the same kind of dubious claims we removed from ovulatory shift hypothesis and sexual attraction based on older studies whose results have not been replicated recently. The theory that women wish to commit adultery when ovulating is dubious at best, and should not be mentioned in Wikipedia's voice. Samboy (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)