Talk:Parental investment

message: Trivers' PI theory here needs to be disambiguated from Bateman's principle Pete.Hurd 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Richard001 06:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation from Bateman's principle

message: There needs to be a short, more clear and concise summery of this article.
:That is, a lead section. Richard001 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: And where's the article for human parents "investing" in their children's education, upbringing, helping them get started in business or society, etc.? I met a socialist politician once who vehemently objected to the idea that "parents who love their children more" could provide any advantages to them! --Uncle Ed 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about evolutionary biology theory, and is a technical term often used. If you want to create something for humans, start from the parenting article and break it off into a new article if it gets large enough. Richard001 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human parental investment

message: Hence renamed it and added quite a bit to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddykra (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It is a topic within the study of biology in general, not just within EP. People study parental investment in plants...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.52.193 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Parental Investment Theory, as proposed by Robert Trivers, is a highly influential principle in evolutionary biology in general, an one of the foundational principles of comparative animal behavior. Memills (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Parental investment as a subject of evolutionary ''psychology'' '''not''' evolutionary ''biology''

message: The evolutionary changes of parental investment among species need to be discussed. Although the changes of offspring are discussed, as well as sexual selection, a specific evolutionary force, evolution should be mentioned and discussed in detail. 
Stuhlreyer.7 (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Evolution Ties In 

message: At the end of the article's second paragraph, sexual selection is discussed and explained in detail - mentioning that in humans, there is competition among the males and selection among females because of females higher parental investment and goes on to explain that a female will chose a mate with the highest fitness and good genes- but sexual selection is not mentioned by name. 
Stuhlreyer.7 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be useful to add the importance of parental investment in terms of the survival of offspring. The way in which parental investment actually determines the amount of offspring that survive, and the fact that an individual can only reproduce successfully if they either access parental investment from someone else (male accessing it from female or vice versa), or expend it themselves. It would tie in nicely with what you wrote about human parental investment starting from where the sperm fertilizes the egg. (Rmwillis5 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Selection 

message: This section discusses a lot of sex differences in parental investment but does not refer to them directly as sex differences. To change this, the title of the section could be renamed to 'sex differences in parental investment' to make it clearer what the following paragraphs are about and the sex differences can be explained using sexual selection. Hhammam (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual selection and parental investment  

message: It would be useful to reference a source that defines the phrase mutual choosiness.This will make the article more accessible to anyone who has no prior knowledge on the topic as they would then have access to a source defining this phrase helping them understand this particular section of the article better. 
EmPhillips (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutual Choosiness 

message: I just think adding Steven Pinker's quote from 'The Blank Slate' summarises things nicely: "A male can get away with a few minutes of copulation and a tablespoon of semen, but a female carries an offspring for months inside her body and nourishes it before and after it is born."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.96 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding in a reference or quote 

message: * Overall I think that your page is very detailed, and manages to go into depth on a lot of topics without making the language too complex.
* I particularly like your use of examples to explain certain topics such as Penguins as a prime example of a species that engage in parental investment 
* One suggestion is to expand a little more on Trivers theory in your introduction. You have a mini paragraph on Fisher, then just say that Trivers is another example.  
* I personally find the mini section on how brains relate to parental investment a bit random. Whilst this is an interesting finding, perhaps expand on it a little more apart from saying that small bird animals have found to invest highly. I found this section not to fit in with how detailed the rest of your article is.
* This is a very minor point but in one of your subheadings at the end you abbreviate parental investment theory to PIT. Whilst it is obvious to most people that this is an abbreviation, some younger readers may not be able to make this link as you have not used the abbreviation elsewhere in your text
* Overall this is a very good article, and you have clearly put a lot of work into it. Well done! EmmaHorton (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Isabel, thank you for your review, it was very helpful and I made some changes accordingly:
1. I have explained that when using the term "sex cells" we refer to egg and sperm cells
2. I have tried to make it clearer that females' investment greatly surpasses males' investment mainly according to Trivers' theory. 
3. I also tried to explain why investing some of the limited number of your sex cells is seen as a bigger investment for females.
4. We have explained the gestation period and linked to the appropriate wikipedia page for it
5. Taking into account your suggestion for adding a section on male's investment, I have done that although it is shorter than the investment of females simply because they do invest less! 
Overall, I think we have tried to incorporate all of you suggestions for improvement. 
Please let us know if it makes more sense now or if there is anything else we need to work on. Thank you for your time! 
Nhpopova (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEER REVIEW 2 

message: Hey guys, 
I really enjoyed reading your page and I think the adding in the section about Trivers theory was a great idea as it has really benefited it!
I think the first paragraph is a great introduction in to the theory, but there a couple of things that could be added that might make it even clearer! I think maybe mentioning earlier that by sex cells you are referring to egg and sperm cells could be helpful in allowing anyone to understand it. 
There is a sentence where you say females investment greatly surpasses the males. I understand that this is part of the theory and can often be the case, it might be worthwhile making it more clear that this is what this theory states rather than it being a general fact, just to avoid any possible offence! 
Also although this is implicit in what you have said, Emphasising that the females egg cells are limited in comparison to males which are practically infinite could explain more why they are making more of an investment. 
Additionally although it has the links to the relevant articles, explaining further what the gestation period is, and that it takes 9 months would help to emphasise why the theory states women invest so much more.
Although you've mentioned aspects of this throughout your section, adding a section/subtitle talking about males as a resource and there investment would make comparisons between the genders easier. 
I really likes that you added explanations of how this theory has lead to others- such as evolutionary explanations of rape, and also your comparison of parental investment theories to sexual strategies theories. Calling Parental investment theory in the subtitle rather PIT could make it flow more but other than that it was great!
Overall you've made some really great additions, well done guys!
 
Isabel Nelson (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Isabel, thank you for your review, it was very helpful and I made some changes accordingly:
1. I have explained that when using the term "sex cells" we refer to egg and sperm cells
2. I have tried to make it clearer that females' investment greatly surpasses males' investment mainly according to Trivers' theory. 
3. I also tried to explain why investing some of the limited number of your sex cells is seen as a bigger investment for females.
4. We have explained the gestation period and linked to the appropriate wikipedia page for it
5. Taking into account your suggestion for adding a section on male's investment, I have done that although it is shorter than the investment of females simply because they do invest less! 
Overall, I think we have tried to incorporate all of you suggestions for improvement. 
Please let us know if it makes more sense now or if there is anything else we need to work on. Thank you for your time! 
Nhpopova (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 3 

message: Firstly i think the structure and outline of your section is really good!!! The introduction and explanation of your theory is also really good and clear with adequate links to relevant pages.
However, there is no citation or research in the "women as more investing sex" section and i also believe there is a "parent-offspring conflict" wiki page that can be linked to your "women as a valuable resource for men" section.
l also love the way you added stuff from the behaviour change lecture too!!! 
i think you an make a few extra links to wiki pages such as "infidelity", "rape", and "one night stands".
i loved your contribution. Thought it was articulated fantastically and it was very clear and easy to understand QuuenChris (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: PEER REVIEW 4

message: You have made great progress! Besides a few minor copy edits, here are some comments for improvement: 
•	Each of your sub-sections are fluent and articulate; you have identified and used the appropriate sources and citations to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines. The only slight grammatical error I could identify would be your sentence reading ‘unrestricted sexuality refers to a kind of sexual strategy people adopts when they engage in more than one concurrent sexual relationship…’, under the heading ‘Sociosexuality’. 
•	You have made good use of experimental findings in support of your statements. I was particularly impressed by your use of statistics and find this adds to the credibility of your argument.
•	Your ‘Application of Trivers’ Theory in Real Life’ is perhaps a bit lengthy, but again you have made good use of available research in offering alternative explanations for Parental Investment Theory, and have provided a vigorous critique of his work. My only suggestion would be to expand on the opening commentary stating that Trivers stereotypes and simplifies women’s sexual behaviour, before jumping straight to ‘An alternative explanation…’. This is under the sub-heading ‘PIT versus sexual strategies’.
•	I would also recommend that whilst you have acknowledged disagreement among sources regarding PIT, it is perhaps too negatively focused on weaknesses of his theory. I would expand on your opening paragraph to explain why exactly his theory has been quite so influential  - e.g. role-reversed species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verity345 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 5

message: Hey guys, really great! A lot of detail added to the page and it is all relevant! it's al relevant!
Just a few things I would suggest considering:
•	I feel many readers would benefit from the date that Triver's theory was published being put in text 
•	I think that reference 18 should come at the end of the sentence, cause initially, it seemed as if you were referencing Triver's name. However, that may just be a personal preference
•	Try to do more to within the text separate/make more distinct: rearing investment and mating investment. This is more formatting but I feel bolding or italics would help here 
•	You've referenced male sperm cells production but not referenced female egg production, I think you should try to find a source for this 
•	In the section 'women as the more investing sex' there are no references to the aspects described such as women preferences to financial status, resource access, commitment etc
•	In the second sentence I think it should be "will compete" instead of "with compete"
•	It might be worth trying to add possible criticisms of Triver's theory or alternatives to it
On the whole A very solid contribution, good job!
R.E.Flanagan (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 5 

message: "In the study, females that had no father absent since the age of 0 to 5 are more likely to engage in sexual activities earlier than females who had no father absent from 6 to 13." 
That sentence should be corrected. Without an access to the sources referred I can only assume it should read "females that had father absent since the age of 0 to 5 are more likely... ..than females who had father absent from 6 to 13." Or is it vice versa?--J. Sketter (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effect of father absence