Intro. [Recording date: March 4, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: At present is March 4th, 2025, and my visitor is creator, naturalist, and scientist Matt Ridley. That is Matt’s fifth look on EconTalk. He was final right here in August of 2020 discussing innovation, which was voted the third-best episode of that 12 months by listeners.
His newest guide and our subject for at this time is Birds, Intercourse, and Magnificence.
I wish to alert these listening with younger youngsters: We might get into grownup subjects on this dialog.
Matt, welcome to EconTalk.
Matt Ridley: Thanks. My ambition is to get to second-best discuss of the 12 months.
Russ Roberts: Okay. Yeah. Transfer up.
Russ Roberts: That is fairly a rare guide. You alternate your personal in depth observations about birds, their mating habits, with an extremely thorough historical past of how we have thought of such issues since Darwin. And you’ve got a number of targets within the guide: to know the, quote, “extravagant sexual display of birds”; to rescue Darwin’s deal with sexual choice. And, equally, to convey a way of surprise concerning the pure world, specifically the somewhat extraordinary habits of the black grouse.
I wish to begin with a distinction that is on the coronary heart of the book–it runs all through it–which is the distinction between pure and sexual choice.
Matt Ridley: Nicely, pure selection–the foremost mechanism of evolution–is often known as survival of the fittest. Should you’re sturdy sufficient to deal with unhealthy climate or illnesses, or one thing, you then’re extra more likely to survive, and which means you are extra more likely to be a guardian of the following technology.
Sexual choice means seduction of the most well liked, to place it at it is most glib. What which means is that the way in which you are going to get to be a guardian of the following technology is by seducing a member of the alternative intercourse. And when that is aggressive, as it’s in lots of species, it can be that the way in which you get to seduce a member of the alternative intercourse entails decreasing your probabilities of surviving: rising a flowery tail, being very conspicuous, doing a variety of singing, a variety of dancing, exhausting your self. These form of issues are what a variety of birds do after they put together for mating. That truly hurts their probabilities of survival, however will increase their probabilities of getting a mate and due to this fact passing on genes to the following technology.
Now, the excellence between these two has been seen very often as a minor one: that one is absolutely only a model of the opposite, and it is simply that the feminine is selecting the sexiest male or vice versa, and that permits her to get one of the best genes. So it is actually simply survival of the fittest at one take away.
However Darwin did not suppose that. And I do not suppose that. I believe that it is a very totally different course of with very totally different outcomes. I name it the enjoyable model of evolution as a result of it is able to producing vibrant colours, loud songs, in depth plumage, crests, and plumes, and lengthy tails. Inventive stuff. Which does not essentially imply something. It does not essentially imply that your children are going to outlive higher. It’d simply imply that they will seduce higher. When you begin pondering like that, it turns into a kind of actually intriguing rabbit gap to go down.
Russ Roberts: Yeah, the guide is that rabbit gap. It is fairly fascinating, and we’ll discuss in a minute about your private expertise sitting at nighttime, as earlier than daybreak, watching birds put together to bounce, and flutter, and sneeze, and do all types of issues.
Russ Roberts: However, find us within the historic debate over this with Darwin and his up to date, Alfred Russel Wallace. They each get some mental credit score for locating evolution and pure choice. Darwin will get, I would say, only a titch greater than poor Alfred Russel Wallace. Then after Darwin dies, you discuss how Alfred Russel Wallace denigrated persistently Darwin’s concepts about sexual choice. And I’ve to say, once you gave that little overview of one thing about, ‘Nicely, it does not need to imply that a lot about. It may simply be the choice of–,’ it is, like: Whoa, whoa, whoa. As a result of, as an evolutionary scientist, that is harmful discuss. What do you imply it does not need to imply? Is not all of it about what number of genes get handed alongside? The concept there might be one thing enjoyable or simply stunning, which is a large focus of this guide, makes many individuals uneasy. We wish a trigger. We wish an evidence.
So, begin with Wallace and Darwin, after which discuss just a little bit about that query of magnificence.
Matt Ridley: Yeah. It is this query of whether or not or not there’s any rhyme or cause behind a number of the colours and songs of birds that we’ll get to.
However, yeah, let me begin with Darwin. Even earlier than he wrote The Origin of Species, he was saying: ‘I want to know magnificence. There’s a variety of magnificence within the pure world and I do not suppose it was put there to please us.’ Which was basically the theological model of evolution that he is up towards. ‘I believe it was there,’ he says, ‘to please the alternative intercourse.’ And that in itself is a type of evolution.
So, there is a great quote from The Descent of Man, which was his 1871 guide, the place he says,
Probably the most refined magnificence might function a sexual attraction and for no different objective.
What he is saying is that when–and he truly attracts a somewhat great parallel with a good friend of his known as Sir John Seabright, who was breeding bantams. And he says,
If a person can, in brief time, give elegant carriage and sweetness to his bantams in keeping with his customary of magnificence, I can see no cause to doubt that feminine birds, by choosing throughout hundreds of generations probably the most melodious or stunning males in keeping with their customary of magnificence, may produce a marked impact.
So, that is Darwin’s speculation. That is truly a quote from The Origin of Species, his nice guide. He then returns to the subject at nice size in The Descent of Man in 1871, and he finds that he persuades only a few individuals of this. That females selecting attractive males is a serious power of evolution, no one goes with that.
Russ Roberts: And you need to remind listeners that, within the fowl world, which is what we will deal with at this time, it is the males who’re shiny, and colourful, and glamorous, and the females are drab. So, once you discuss that, the sexiest male, that is the problem.
Matt Ridley: That is proper. I am not being sexist; I am merely mentioning that in birds, it is almost all the time the male that is brightest. Not all the time, truly. There is a small minority of species the place females are extra brightly coloured and extra energetic in courtship than males, and that is an attention-grabbing subject in itself.
However, sure. The peacock’s tail was the traditional instance. The one they ended up arguing about–Darwin and his rival Alfred Russel Wallace–was a fowl known as the Argus Pheasant, which has three-dimensional optical illusions on its wing feathers. Now, Wallace and plenty of different individuals stated, ‘Look, come on. This isn’t attempting to please the fowl. What on earth may the aim be of a feminine fowl being able to seeing three-dimensional optical illusions? Give us a break. That is one thing that we artists who’ve been to Oxford admire.’ There is a diploma of that kind of snobbery happening.
So, Darwin and Wallace had a really attention-grabbing relationship. They found evolution by pure choice independently. Darwin had been hesitating to publish for 20 years. So, when Wallace wrote to him and stated, ‘I’ve received this concept,’ and he realized it was precisely the identical thought, it was a little bit of a tough second for Darwin. They ended up saying their thought collectively on the Linnean Society in a method that gave Darwin most credit score. Wallace behaved fairly properly in accepting that he is the also-ran within the story. However, Darwin had been engaged on it for longer and thought of it extra deeply.
However when it got here to The Descent of Man, the guide about sexual choice, and within the run-up to publishing it, Darwin and Wallace had this large disagreement concerning the function of sexual choice. Darwin desires to commit an entire guide to this subject. Why magnificence? And: Are females, by choosing attractive males, driving evolution? Is it truly a directed type of evolution? And, Wallace says: ‘No, I simply do not agree.’ That they had a summit, a weekend the place they received collectively at Darwin’s home in Kent in September 1868 to hammer out their variations on this subject. And so they did not achieve this: they did not agree. They have been nonetheless at loggerheads afterwards.
And Wallace says: ‘Look, the rationale males are brightly coloured is in order that the feminine can acknowledge the species.’ Nicely, that is a bit bizarre. Brown birds appear to search out their very own species fairly properly. He says: ‘The reason being as a result of, properly, sure, she desires probably the most stunning male however that is as a result of he is the strongest, so she’s going to have sturdy children, sturdy youngsters, offspring. So it is actually simply one other type of pure choice.’
And Darwin disagrees. He says: ‘No. I believe they’re serious about magnificence for its personal sake.’ And none of his traditional defenders got here to his protection on this subject. So, Thomas Henry Huxley–Darwin’s so-called bulldog–never actually mentions sexual choice. He is clearly embarrassed by it. He thinks Darwin has gone off the reservation on this one. Herbert Spencer, likewise.
By the point Darwin dies, he has misplaced this battle. No person thinks that the rationale a peacock has a tail prefer it does is as a result of pea hens like stunning males. It is that easy, because it have been.
And by then, Wallace has fallen again on a unique clarification for issues like peacocks’ tails, which is absolutely fairly weird. He simply says: ‘Look, males have extra power, so they should develop longer feathers to waste this power.’ Nicely, the premise is simply not true. Males do not have extra power than females. It is a kind of ridiculous thought.
However, all through the twentieth Century, the Wallace model the place females are selecting brightly coloured males as a result of that method they get good genes for his or her offspring to outlive turns into the dominant principle. And there are at the least two makes an attempt to return to Darwin’s thought, which basically fail–which get ignored. And, I am kind of saying that currently–and it isn’t simply me, however individuals like Richard Prum at Yale who has written an exquisite guide known as The Evolution of Magnificence–are saying, ‘Let’s have a fourth go at persuading the organic world that Darwin was proper right here. That magnificence is one thing that birds admire for their very own sake,’ for a specific cause that I can clarify in a minute.
Russ Roberts: So, in just a little bit I wish to come again to this basic foundational distinction, as a result of I believe it truly illustrates one thing fairly attention-grabbing within the area of economics. However to get there, we will have to speak about Ronald Fisher–and we’ll get there–the statistician.
However I wish to simply summarize this for listeners listening to it for the primary time, as a result of the phrase ‘choice’ is in each these phrases, ‘pure’ and ‘sexual’ choice. I believe it is hard–it was arduous for me after I first began studying the guide, to maintain them straight. However, I learn the guide, so I believe I’ve received it.
However for many who are listening to it for the primary time, to begin with, the Darwin argument appears absurd. I am sorry. He is an excellent man, nice thinker: however the concept birds have an aesthetic sense and are prepared to sacrifice their genetic health of their offspring to supply offspring is difficult to know given the dimensions of the fowl of the mind. And there is no fowl tradition. There isn’t any magazines. Teenage peacocks aren’t studying magazines with footage of–excuse me–peahens aren’t studying magazines with footage of peacocks’ lengthy tails and getting enthusiastic about it. It is arduous to know this aesthetic factor when a fowl has a brain–and we name it a ‘fowl mind,’ that means small–the dimension of a pea or a walnut. So, I perceive the problem.
After which, this variation of Wallace’s is that: It is okay to choose gaudy males since you’ll produce gaudy offspring and females of the long run will like them. And, regardless that it’s a handicap, you can nonetheless win the genetic lottery that method.
After which there’s one different flavor–tell me if I am getting this proper; in order that’s one argument–and that is going to be extra like Ronald Fisher’s argument.
Matt Ridley: Yeah, that is actually Fisher. Wallace does not actually say the secret is to have offspring who’re good at getting mates. He says the secret is to have offspring which might be good at surviving.
Russ Roberts: Proper. There, the claim–I learn these articles 50 years in the past after I was younger and silly. I all the time thought the declare was–and you discuss it–you truly use the quote, ‘With a reputation like Smuckers, it have to be good jam,’ a line that crossed my thoughts about three paragraphs earlier than you used it. As a result of it is saying, ‘I am so match that I can have a protracted tail; and I may be brightly coloured or be conspicuous to predators, so pursue me.’
Once more, listeners who’re economists will begin excited about: ‘Ah, that is like signaling. I am offering a expensive sign to point out that I am so expert, I am so match that I may even overcome this. And due to this fact the females discover me enticing.’
That claim–is that Wallace’s declare?
Russ Roberts: Or his followers?
Matt Ridley: Type of. It is a man named Amotz Zahavi, an Israeli scientist within the Seventies, who turns Wallace’s declare into that sturdy a model when he does his so-called handicap principle. He is saying it is the actual fact that you’ve got survived regardless of having a protracted tail that proves you have received good genes. That is what the females are after, the truth that you are handicapped however nonetheless profitable in surviving.
The issue with that’s that there’s–well, why not have one eye, or one leg? Why not be fully crippled to be able to’t stay in any respect?
Russ Roberts: I am unable to fly, select me. Yeah.
Matt Ridley: Precisely. After all, the extra refined variations of the handicapped principle say that: Look, this fowl is profitable regardless of its handicap. No, that is incorrect! This fowl has managed to seduce a lot of females; it is profitable as a result of of its handicap. If you wish to name it a handicap, the tail. Do you see what I imply?
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
Matt Ridley: So, to the extent you flip this right into a signaling of your health, your capability to outlive, you are essentially–well, you’ll be able to see the dilemmas you get into right here.
Russ Roberts: Nicely, the plain different one is why would not you decide a rare achievement that really will increase your health somewhat than reduces it?
Russ Roberts: An extended claw, sharper talons, fill within the clean.
Russ Roberts: Issues which might be clearly correlated and produce extra offspring as a result of your children have these issues. It is bizarre. These are weird.
Matt Ridley: Really, when you concentrate on it, that does occur in numerous non-gaudy species equivalent to mammals, the place the largest, strongest elephant seal will get to mate with the females. And she or he says, ‘Fantastic, that is good. I’ll get large, sturdy genes for my offspring.’ However, there is no want for him to be stunning. The truth is, elephant seals are the very reverse of lovely. To our eyes, at the least.
The purpose is that these peacocks, and black grouse, and birds of paradise, they’re not being large and robust. And so they’re not even actually preventing. There may be a variety of preventing that goes on, nevertheless it’s not a conquest to the dying the place one drives out all of the others after which monopolizes the females. It is a aggressive show. They don’t seem to be essentially very large, these males. Once more, it is getting at the truth that there may be some worth in being stunning, or colourful, or tuneful, or no matter it’s that is being exaggerated. There’s some reward for exaggerating a characteristic of show.
Now, what may that be? As you hinted, I believe one of the best reply basically comes from Ronald Fisher, after which become good mathematical fashions by Russell Lande and Mark Kirkpatrick in 1980.
Fisher develops his principle in 1930. What Fisher says is that, if you concentrate on it, if the females are all utilizing the identical criterion of what is stunning, then it is important that you just as a person feminine go together with that style, as a result of in any other case you may need a son that does not get to mate. You have to have a horny son. And one of the best ways to do this is to just remember to’re utilizing the identical standards as different females. So, they will have a choice that is going to evolve in some arbitrary path, some random path. And, the choice and the trait are going to co-evolve collectively.
Fisher put it somewhat neatly, truly, in a quote, which I can discover for you. The place he says, ‘My principle is that tasteful hens,’–that is to say hens which have a criterion for what’s beautiful–
Tasteful hens do not rear extra chicks, however their sons are finer, and due to this fact get extra grandchicks.
It is this Attractive Son Speculation that provides Darwin a cause for his statement that–usually females, however actually one sex–is serious about how stunning the opposite intercourse seems to be. As a result of Darwin did not have a cause for why this may be. He was simply saying, ‘Look, it seems to be like that is what’s driving it.’ And, Fisher comes alongside and says: ‘This is why.’ As a result of, as soon as a species begins being selective in a single intercourse, then it will run away. It will be a vicious circle. It will be the extra the females are selective, the extra the males are going to evolve a flamboyant trait. The extra flamboyant the trait, the extra the females are going to be selective.
And it does not matter. The tail is not signaling something. It is not saying you are the strongest or one of the best. It is simply saying you are one of the best at seducing. So it is a fully round argument, in a method.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. And as an economist, I discover it amusing as a result of it–listeners, I problem you to possibly pause for a second and take into consideration what Fisher’s principle may remind you of in economics. There are two issues that come to thoughts.
One is Keynes’s thought of the inventory market as a magnificence contest. He says: ‘You do not actually have to select one of the best inventory. You simply have to select the inventory that everyone else thinks is one of the best inventory.’ So, in the event you’re attempting to determine whose going to win the sweetness contest, you do not have to determine who’s probably the most stunning girl. It’s important to work out who different individuals will suppose is probably the most stunning girl; and that is what stock-picking is.
And naturally, he is onto one thing. However he is lacking one thing actually essential. Which is: there comes a reckoning within the inventory market, which is: if the inventory does not have intrinsic worth regardless that everybody thinks it does, it’s extremely arduous for that to persist. And finally, fundamentals come and knock that inventory down. To the purpose the place most individuals would say: that is true in speculative frenzies and different unusual, irrational exuberance, nevertheless it’s not an excellent mannequin for the way the inventory market truly works over time, or the function it performs in a capitalist system.
And similarly–
Matt Ridley: Can I simply interject there? As a result of I really like that instance. And truly, I bear in mind 20 years in the past, I had a stockbroker good friend calling me and saying, ‘You actually can buy British Biotech. They have a treatment for most cancers.’ And I stated, ‘Actually? It does not sound very doubtless.’ What I ought to have stated was, ‘Is that what you are telling all of your purchasers?’
Russ Roberts: Yeah; at the least for some time.
Matt Ridley: Certain sufficient, British Biotech’s value went taking pictures up for some time, after which in fact it crashed.
Now what is the equal of the crash in birds?
Russ Roberts: The equal, yeah–
Matt Ridley: It is simply doable that a few of these species get to the purpose the place they actually have made themselves so loopy that it is arduous for the species to proceed to outlive within the wild.
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
Matt Ridley: The instance individuals used to make use of was the large elk, which had these huge antlers and could not match between the timber when it was being chased by hunter-gatherers. No person believes that specific model of that theory–
Russ Roberts: It is intelligent, though–
Matt Ridley: however, it isn’t inconceivable that a few of these birds of paradise and different issues usually tend to go extinct than if they’d stayed brown and skulking within the undergrowth.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. This so-called Attractive Son Concept of Fisher’s simply appears to disregard the basics in the identical method that the sweetness contest metaphor of the inventory market does. You’d suppose it could additionally matter. Once more, I might simply emphasize that–why not decide one thing that’s–why would an equilibrium emerge the place a harmful trait is what individuals suppose is sexually enticing, somewhat than a useful trait? And, Fisher was agnostic on that. He wasn’t doing the–
Russ Roberts: the Zahavi principle that it is exhibiting how sturdy you’re.
And it is also just a little bizarre that it is birds–always, principally. Proper?
Russ Roberts: Which can be a little bit of a puzzle.
However, the opposite a part of this that jogs my memory of economics is–
Matt Ridley: I am going to come again to that time, about why it may be birds. However, yeah, go on. Yeah.
Russ Roberts: The opposite factor it jogs my memory of economics, and after we end this I wish to ensure we get to the grouse. That’ll be subsequent. I am going to allow you to reply; after which I wish to get to your private experiences as a result of they’re fascinating. As a result of the grouse itself is unimaginable. I do know all our listeners are on the sting of their seat. And they need to be. You have to be, as a result of I promise you, it will be attention-grabbing.
However, the opposite economics factor it jogs my memory of is this concept that you could get caught in a foul equilibrium. There may be these fastened prices; after which earlier than you understand it, you are caught in an inefficient equilibrium. It guidelines out the opportunity of innovation overcoming the first-mover benefit: it is a unhealthy expertise. So, high quality: go spend money on the brand new, higher expertise. To argue that the inferior expertise persists as a result of these [?changeover costs? 00:26:45]–it’s doable and it’s mathematically doable. However, it doesn’t–for me, once more, I am a competitive-market-oriented guy–I discover it just a little bit analogous and just a little bit troubling that the ability of the pure choice half does not begin to actually weigh in right here and destroy these improvements which might be gaudy, harmful for the fowl due to predators, however are enticing to the feminine. You suppose you’d need females who’re interested in safer issues and that innovation would overcome–etc., and so forth. It simply jogs my memory of these theories of innovation that I believe are normally incorrect, and I believe have been confirmed incorrect.
Matt Ridley: Would an instance of that be VHS [Video Home System] versus Betamax, or no matter it was?
Russ Roberts: Precisely, precisely. Individuals stated, ‘Betamax was higher, however VHS dominated as a result of they moved first.’ After which when individuals seemed extra intently, it seems it isn’t so apparent it is higher. The identical factor with the keyboard–the so-called QWERTY keyboard–and, ‘Clearly, it was a greater keyboard, however by some means all people received caught utilizing this horrible keyboard,’ when truly, it isn’t that onerous to be taught a unique solution to sort of it is x-percent sooner. Stan Liebowitz and others wrote some good papers exhibiting that the information do not essentially help these ‘you get caught on this unhealthy equilibrium.’
Matt Ridley: Yeah. And, truly, I can consider one other couple of financial analogies, and you may inform me whether or not these are useful or not.
One is I used to be listening to Jony Ive on the radio final week, and he was being requested about how he got here up with the concept the iMac needs to be blue and barely translucent somewhat than grey.
Russ Roberts: Jony Ive, being the engineer at Apple. Crucial.
Matt Ridley: Jony Ive, being the chief designer at Apple. And, I bear in mind vividly the primary time I noticed an iMac. Possibly not the primary time, however I bear in mind the sensation of seeing an iMac for the primary time and pondering, ‘Oh! So, computer systems do not need to be grey and utilitarian. They’ll attempt to be stunning.’ And now, I am chatting with you on a MacBook Air, which is my favourite product of the trendy period when it comes to design–
Russ Roberts: Stunning.
Matt Ridley: I simply think–when I first noticed a kind of I believed, ‘This can be a stunning factor. That is properly executed.’
So the function of attractiveness is essential in economics in addition to utilitarianism.
The opposite principle, in fact, that we are able to consider right here is Thorstein Veblen’s conspicuous consumption level. That, the aim of shopping for a purple sports activities automotive for a number of hundred thousand dollars–which is a waste of cash and a price to you–is to point out that you could spend some huge cash, which is the form of handicap principle model. Or it is just because that is the way in which the style has gone.
So these are very related arguments. And there’s no doubt that human beings–we can get to this on the finish in the event you like–are a sexually chosen species in some sense. We’ve got selective mating by each sexes, by the way in which.
Russ Roberts: Certain.
Matt Ridley: And I describe how there are specific birds the place each sexes are choosing the opposite. Simply because each sexes are selective does not imply you aren’t getting sexual choice. It means you get two-way sexual choice. I personally suppose that we have underestimated the significance of mate selection as a driving power in human evolution. However, we are able to come again to that, Russ, since you needed to maneuver on to birds.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. And the very last thing I simply wish to say about this signaling factor is that the primitive types of signaling principle in training are that the aim of school is to point out that you could endure 4 years of tedious workouts; it is to not truly be taught one thing. That is a little bit of a parody of the signaling principle, nevertheless it’s near what it says.
Russ Roberts: It is: You are exhibiting your persistence, and sitzfleisch, and your grit. However, my view is why not reveal that studying one thing worthwhile on the similar time? So, I’ve just a little little bit of unease with the Fisher story.
Russ Roberts: I wish to get to the black grouse. I would like you to speak about, summarize–it’s not easy–summarize their peculiar habits in what is named the lek, L-E-Okay. A lek, which is a fowl factor. Speak about what a lek is and the way the black grouse leks. It is a verb, too.
Matt Ridley: Proper. Nicely, the phrase ‘lek’ is Swedish for ‘play.’ It is also an outdated English phrase as properly: lekan is identical root. And it is come to be the phrase that describes organic species by which a gaggle of 1 intercourse gathers in a single place, predictably, to competitively show to members of the alternative intercourse. And it is a behavior that is notably conspicuous amongst sure birds. There’s a number of dozen birds that do that lekking habits. A number of of them are within the grouse, a number of of them are in birds of paradise, the manakins; plenty of different species do that.
The black grouse, which I studied, or I watched for a number of years and nonetheless do, they stay in Northern Europe, throughout into Asia, Northern Britain. And they’re a–the feminine is brown and mottled. And, the male is black with a vibrant blue neck and vibrant purple combs on high of his head, and vibrant white spots on his wings, and a lyre-shaped tail that spreads out both aspect in a kind of bow, and an excellent large, white, feathery backside behind the tail that stands up vertically. So, he is screaming, ‘Have a look at me,’ in his plumage. [More to come, 33:11]
