Read on Twitter
Fantastic special issue on 'Current debates in human life history research', thanks to editors @wfrankenhuis1 & @danielnettle, under Deb Lieberman's leadership of Evolution & Human Behavior https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513820301203
Great to see interdisciplinary contributions, incl from the biologist who has done so much to develop life history theory, Steve Stearns, writing w @AMMRodrigues. They pull no punches while critically reviewing the 'fast-slow continuum' in evo social sci https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051382030026X
Another biological giant @kokkonutter, writing w @Wanounoos, has written on 'Adaptation & plasticity in life-history theory: How to derive predictions'. Also a piece which should help realign life history theory in evo social sciences with that in biology https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513820300763?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email#!
Elisabeth Bolund's excellent article reminds evo social scientists that trade-offs are fundamental to understanding life history in biology & suggests promising avenues for future research: quantitative genetics coupled w high-quality large-scale datasets https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513820301185
More critique of the 'fast-slow continuum' from Zietsch & Sidari follows: "Here we describe why extrapolating from inter-species to inter-individual trait covariation is not generally appropriate" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513818302848
Marco Del Giudice then argues that the 'fast-slow continuum' can be a productive heuristic for understanding individual differences, but this area of research requires considerable rethinking incl updating theory, methods & exploring new approaches https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382030060X
My own piece also critiques the psychometric approach to 'fast-slow continuum', which seems to owe more to Rushton's differential-K theory than to life history theory, while acknowledging the power of life history theory to contribute to the human sciences https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1cDXU3tz48uRUD
An important contribution from André & Rousset formally reconsiders whether extrinsic mortality accelerates the pace of life, concluding that extrinsic mortality can affect the evolution of the pace of life, thru effects on density-dependent competition https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382030043X
Young @wfrankenhuis1 &Ellis then consider use of environmental predictability in life history analysis, aiming to "provide concrete steps toward better conceptualization & measurement of unpredictability" to inform understanding of life history development https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513820301008
Finally, Wu, Guo, Gao & Kou conduct a meta-analysis which finds "small effect sizes indicating early-life stress is associated with greater risk taking, more present orientation & less prosociality", but recommend "cautious interpretation" of their results https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513820301161
Here's hoping this excellent issue will result in the field of human life history research moving forward very productively (w more formal modelling, broader range of contexts studied, greater interdisciplinarity) & a decisive move away from unproductive avenues of research
