This essay offers some reflections on Samir Okasha’s new monograph Agents and Goals in Evolution, his style of doing philosophy, and the broader philosophy of nature project of trying to make sense of agency and rationality as natural phenomena.

Sex ratios have widely been recognized as an important link between demographic contexts and behavior because changes in the ratio shift sex-specific bargaining power in the partner market. Implicitly, the literature considers individual partner market experiences to be a function of local sex ratios. However, empirical evidence on the correspondence between subjective partner availability and local sex ratios is lacking so far. In this paper, we analyzed how closely a set of different local sex ratio measures correlates with subjective partner (...) market experiences. Linking a longitudinal German survey to population data for different entities, we used multilevel logistic regression models to explore associations between singles’ subjective partner market experiences and various operationalizations of local sex ratios. Results suggest that local sex ratios correlated only weakly with subjective partner market experiences. Adult sex ratios based on broad age brackets, including those for lower-level entities, did not significantly predict whether individuals predominantly met individuals of their own sex. More fine-grained, age-specific sex ratios prove to be better predictors of subjective partner market experiences, in particular when age hypergamy patterns were incorporated. Nevertheless, the respective associations were only significant for selected measures. In a complementary analysis, we illustrate the validity of the subjective indicator as a predictor of relationship formation. In sum, our results suggest that subjective partner availability is not adequately represented by the broad adult sex ratio measures that are frequently used in the literature. Future research should be careful not to equate local sex ratios and conscious partner market experiences. (shrink)

This is the first of two articles in which I reflect on “generalized Darwinism” as currently discussed in evolutionary economics. I approach evolutionary economics by the roundabouts of evolutionary epistemology and the philosophy of biology, and contrast evolutionary economists’ cautious generalizations of Darwinism with “imperialistic” proposals to unify the behavioral sciences. I then discuss the continued resistance to biological ideas in the social sciences, focusing on the issues of naturalism and teleology. In the companion article (Callebaut, Biol Theory 6. doi: (...) 10.1007/s13752-013-0087-1, 2011, this issue) I assess generalized Darwinism, concentrating on the roles of theory and model building, generative replication, and the relation between selection and self-organization; and I point to advances in biology that promise to be more fruitful as sources of inspiration for evolutionary economics than the project to generalize Darwinism in its current, “hardened Modern Synthesis” form. (shrink)