( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.10.20.23NZT)
[Martin Lewitt Oct 11, 2010 23:54 MDT]
The males are controlling the perception of the
females.
Isn’t this what men
have been trying to do for eons.
[Martin Taylor 2010.10.12.10.12]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.12.10.20.23NZT)
[Martin Lewitt Oct 11, 2010 23:54 MDT]
The males arecontrolling the perception of the
females.
Isn’t this what menhave been trying to do for eons.
Yes, males and females of all species. That was the point of my
comment in my original posting. The bower bird example is a
particularly clear instance of a controlled perceptual variable
that is clearly connected with mating advantage, as opposed to the
peacock’s tail feathers, about which the male peacock can do nothing
except display or not display the fan. In most species that control
perceptual variables to enhance their possibilities of good mating,
the relationship is too complex to consider coherently.
At the core of PCT is that perceptual control exists in order to
control intrinsic variables. We may not know just what intrinsic
variables are influenced by any particular perceptual control, but
in the case of the bower bird it seems unlikely that there are any
except those related to mating. As opposed to the perception of,
say, “hunger”, which is fairly closely related to presumed intrinsic
variables such as blood sugar level, there is no obvious connection
between the gradient of object sizes outside the bird’s bower and
the hormonal levels of the male bird, let alone those of the female
who is supposed to be attracted.
As Rick said, none of this is demonstrated by the experiment. But it
does seem to me to be a worthwhile spur to thought.
Martin