Direct and Indirect Benefits
Being choosy (having a bias in the context of mating) must incur a fitness advantage in order for this behavior to evolve. Two types of fitness benefits (direct and indirect) are thought to drive the evolutionary mechanisms of mate choice.
Direct benefits are those that increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits and it is the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.
Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. Examples of indirect benefits include better genetic quality and more attractive offspring. R. A. Fisher described this less obvious model in a book called The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Fisher explained that, through indirect selection, fitter individuals inherit both the genes and the mating preference for some indicator trait. This linkage of an indicator trait and the preference for such trait results in exaggerated phenotypes and is known as Fisherian runaway selection.
Read more about this topic: Mate Choice
Famous quotes containing the words direct, indirect and/or benefits:
“The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the “disenchantment of the world.” Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life either into the transcendental realm of mystic life or into the brotherliness of direct and personal human relations. It is not accidental that our greatest art is intimate and not monumental.”
—Max Weber (1864–1920)
“An indirect quotation we can usually expect to rate only as better or worse, more or less faithful, and we cannot even hope for a strict standard of more and less; what is involved is evaluation, relative to special purposes, of an essentially dramatic act.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“Unfortunately, we cannot rely solely on employers seeing that it is in their self-interest to change the workplace. Since the benefits of family-friendly policies are long-term, they may not be immediately visible or quantifiable; companies tend to look for success in the bottom line. On a deeper level, we are asking those in power to change the rules by which they themselves succeeded and with which they identify.”
—Anne C. Weisberg (20th century)