<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Understanding Male Investment In Children</title>
	<atom:link href="http://popsych.org/understanding-male-investment-in-children/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://popsych.org/understanding-male-investment-in-children/</link>
	<description>The Internet&#039;s Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris</title>
		<link>http://popsych.org/understanding-male-investment-in-children/#comment-1000</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://popsych.org/?p=3493#comment-1000</guid>
		<description>The utility of evolutionary psychology, in my mind atleast, is that the principles that are derived from it can be tested and observed not just cross-culturally, but cross-species as well.

So if the proposition is, atleast part of men&#039;s investment in biological children is dependent on the man&#039;s commitment to the woman,

has such a proposition been tested amongst other (socially)monogamous species, such as birds for instance.

For instance, maybe, have a monogamous mating pair of birds, they mate and have young and both start caring for them, measure the level of investment, and then remove the female and see if the level of investment by the male in the chicks changes. Does the level of investment by the male in the chicks change? If not, why not? If so, why so?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The utility of evolutionary psychology, in my mind atleast, is that the principles that are derived from it can be tested and observed not just cross-culturally, but cross-species as well.</p>
<p>So if the proposition is, atleast part of men&#8217;s investment in biological children is dependent on the man&#8217;s commitment to the woman,</p>
<p>has such a proposition been tested amongst other (socially)monogamous species, such as birds for instance.</p>
<p>For instance, maybe, have a monogamous mating pair of birds, they mate and have young and both start caring for them, measure the level of investment, and then remove the female and see if the level of investment by the male in the chicks changes. Does the level of investment by the male in the chicks change? If not, why not? If so, why so?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: He&#8217;s Got Your Eyes&#8230;Right? &#124; Pop Psychology</title>
		<link>http://popsych.org/understanding-male-investment-in-children/#comment-999</link>
		<dc:creator>He&#8217;s Got Your Eyes&#8230;Right? &#124; Pop Psychology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://popsych.org/?p=3493#comment-999</guid>
		<description>[...] Post navigation &#8592; Previous [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Post navigation &larr; Previous [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
