Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (3-4):289 (2009)

At the heart of the debate between social role theorists and evolutionary psychologists is whether natural selection has designed the minds of the sexes differently to some interesting extent. In this commentary I describe the standards of evidence for both the positive and negative claims. In my opinion, Archer has met the standard for designed sex differences in intrasexual conflict
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X09990276
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Differences, Games, and Pluralism.Roger A. McCain - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):688-689.
Wittgenstein and Realism.Michael Scott - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):170-190.
Gender Differences in Double Standards.Iris Vermeir & Patrick Van Kenhove - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 81 (2):281 - 295.
Sex, Sex Differences, and the New Polygyny.John Marshall Townsend - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):295-296.
Contextualism and the Problem of the External World.Ram Neta - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):1–31.
A Sorry Tail: Ability, Pedagogy and Educational Reform.Susan Hart - 1998 - British Journal of Educational Studies 46 (2):153 - 168.


Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #166,942 of 2,498,559 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,409 of 2,498,559 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes