Talk:Parental investment

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): Lnlesko.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joy-t-g, KKO0123, Dawgz2020. Peer reviewers: Nichag16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Summary
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)

Human parental investment
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)
 * 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)

Parental investment as a subject of evolutionary psychology not evolutionary biology
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

How Evolution Ties In
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)

Sexual Selection
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)
 * 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))

Sexual selection and parental investment
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)

Mutual Choosiness
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)

Adding in a reference or quote
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)

Peer Review
Hi!

Here are my comments for the peer-review section of “Trivers's parental investment theory”

This article is very detailed and covers a broad range of topics such as increased maternal investment and sociosexuality and so I think this breadth this is a strong point of the article.

I particularly like the broad overview as to what parental investment is in the introductory paragraph. It is very easy to read and readers are not bombarded with irrelevant information.

For the subtitle “Women are the more investing sex”, perhaps consider phrasing this differently as it can come across as having a tone of value judgement. Perhaps “Women AS the more investing sex?” I understand that this may seem like a minor difference but I’m just bearing in mind Wiki’s guidelines on judgement in articles. Whilst the information in this section is interesting, perhaps consider adding more information? The other sections have far more in comparison and it appears unbalanced. This entire section also lacks a citation.

I like the “women as a valuable resource” subsection as it provides a wealth of information and relevant references. However maybe in the subheading be clearer that it is as a resource for men? So perhaps consider adding “for men” at the end of the subheading?

I found the section on Sociosexuality to be a particular strength of your additions. I believe this was a beneficial addition to the article as it a different perspective to parental investment and brings in an account that many might not at first think is related to parental investment. I also believe the scientific references and the links to other pages were done properly and professionally. If I needed or wanted to know more about this I would know exactly where to look based on your references. Thus, It was not only easy and pleasurable to read this section, it was also highly informative.

The only real criticism I would have of this article is the “Commentary” section. Is this a commentary of Triver’s theory overall or is it a commentary of what you have written so far under this section in Wikipedia? I do not understand why it is called as such and it makes the subsequent information difficult to process as I am not sure what I am reading about. Maybe consider another subheading? The information included is very interesting, relevant and backed up great citations of scientific literature, it just doesn’t seem to fit in terms of organisation.

Overall, I like the structure of an introductory paragraph with various related subheadings. I found your additions highlight informative and I think it has added to the overall quality on the page for parental investment. Triver’s theory provides a comprehensive account on parental investment so I feel as though a section like this was needed - well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselisa.allison (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your feedback, I'll make sure to make the changes you suggested. Regarding the commentary section, I have changed the subheading and related it directly to Trivers's theory, do you think that's enough? Or some further, in-depth changes to the content itself are required? Maybe more links to previous paragraphs? Let me know what you think, I really appreciate you taking the time to give us feedback!


 * Dear Ayselisa, thank you for your valuable feedback. As Joanna mentioned we have now changed the subheadings according to your recommendation. I have also tried to expand and added some additional information to the section "women as the more investing sex". I have added citations where there weren't any and aimed to balance the paragraphs lengthwise. Thank you again for your time.

Nhpopova (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW 2

 * 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)

Peer Review 3
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)

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)

PEER REVIEW 4
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)

Peer Review 5
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)

Hi, thank you for your feedback! We have corrected some grammatical errors, thank you for pointing them out! And other suggestions you made on PIT and acknowledged disagreement among sources regarding PIT are very relevant, we made some changes according to that. Thank you for helping improve this page! Kkatieeee (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 5
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)

Peer Review 6

Hi,

I think this is a really good article, I really enjoyed reading it!

Introduction:
 * good use of links to other pages
 * very well written
 * good use of images
 * could make it more clear that it is Trivers' theory that's going to be discussed
 * I also think Trivers' looks better than Trivers's and I feel like the first way is more correct but I could be wrong

Parental Care:
 * good use of images
 * I found the paragraph about penguins very interesting!
 * could include some examples of the benefits and costs in the second paragraph
 * could include some specific human examples
 * could define some of the concepts briefly as people won't want to keep clicking on links just to find out what it means, e.g. 'hymenoptera' and 'haplodiploid'

Sexual Selection:
 * really well explained
 * good use of links
 * very clear and well written
 * could include some images
 * could explain 'ornamented' a bit more

Trivers' Parental Investment Theory:
 * very well explained
 * really well written
 * clear and concise
 * gives definitions which is good and they're very clear
 * I really like the application paragraph - it's very relevant and relatable!
 * I feel like you need to re-word the last sentence in the 'women as a valuable resource for men' paragraph, e.g. could say 'conflict arises if the parent continues to invest in the offspring even to the critical point where the cost begins to outweigh the benefits

Overall I think it's really good, well done! Jessica Owen (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback! We have changed Trivers's into Trivers', I feel like it sounds a lot better as well! And other suggestions you made are very relevant, we made some changes according to that. Thank you for helping improve this page! Kkatieeee (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The effect of father absence
"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)


 * Would also be beneficial if the article provided some information about the effects on the offspring if the mother was absent and the father was the only parent in the household, and thus the only one providing parental investment. (DLE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilBoPeep3 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)