On Rational Choice Theory:
(1) Personally, not a big fan. Even considering it in its bounded rationality form, I would still prefer approaching decision making from a Bayesian approach. My guess is that it could be a very useful tool to model and predict behavior IFF one is confident to be awknowldging all relevant factors, and therefore is most likely relegated to simpler scenarios with less variables. Moreover, at least in economics, it seems to me that RCT (and the whole homo economicus) has taken over as a fact, rather than useful oversimplifications.
(2) I doubt I will use it. Unless we define a “rational agent” as the unified behaviour of a conglomerate of domain-specific modules, themselves the evolutionary products of specific adaptive problems, and hence behaving “rationally” as in adaptively. But then would it not become a tautology? Would all adaptive behaviour then be “rational”? Genuinely asking, not rhetorical.
(3) Lastly, I take further issue with the idea of a rational agent from my attachment to a selfish gene point of view. Selection does not occur at the level of individuals (ok, we can debate the extent), so the way I see it behaviour is inherently reflecting the interests of gene coalitions (which might explain the bouts of human irrationality, sometimes maybe). On the other hand, one could argue our species evolutionary trajectory contained a transition period where “genes” effectively discovered that delegating executive function to the brain is more adaptive than not, turning the brain into a de facto controller of the body with a single goal: “Do whatever it takes to reproduce”. In short, I have issues with it but I know too little about the RCT to have strong opinions.
(4) About RCT in the context of the lecture, I obviously disagree with the whole optimal foraging and calorie talk example to highlight “rational” behaviour. I know it is not the main focus, but just an example, so it does not matter. But it would matter, a lot (like a lot a lot) if one wants to apply RCT as a framework to understand fossil records and make predictions on anatomically modern humans of course :)
On Nettle (2009):
(1) Article mentions SOME physiological explanandums for mortality rates, but I would argue it dismisses them too quickly. Behaviour is affected by the local environment, yes, but there are more powerful predictors to mortality than behaviour.
(2) Age of reproduction. I disagree. If the phenomena was observed in an isolated society that has been stable for thousands of years, then yes. Modern-life, big-city dwellers are facing an environment that did not exist even 100 years ago, and with it comes profound changes to “life-goals”. Of course sexual education is ineffective, but pointing the finger to reproductive success is, I think, too quick and unwarranted. E.g., take 1000 of those teens, give half of them a 5 year scholarship tuition & assured economic stability for the rest of their lives, and I doubt they will “want to be mothers” at 18 years of age. Importantly, I completely agree with the evolutionary strategies underlying reproductive speeds, I just do not think we should rely on them when dealing with the British example. It is simply not the most parsimonious explanation, and the timeline is off.
On Al-Shawaf (2018):
(1) Simple. Elegant. Exquisit. Not the first time I am exposed to “common” misconceptions about evolution by natural selection, and yet there is always one or two that I re-read and go “Ah!”. This time it was the other 3 “forces”: I had completely forgotten about them!
Unsolicited comment:
Nothing to do with RCT but, still in the lecture, there is one thing missing I think: if an adaptive feature has been discarded in one species, but retained in genetically close relative species, it is not only telling about different solution to similar adaptive problems but, importantly, it also tells you about new constraints on fitness that were not there before (given that adaptation was present, but now its not). It is a double-information layer provider. One example, if you really want to start a controversial debate: Hominids’ gut adaptation relative to apes and monkeys.