The fighting hypothesis in combat: how well does the fighting hypothesis explain human left-handed minorities?
The fighting hypothesis in combat: how well does the fighting hypothesis explain human left-handed minorities?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/nyas.12164
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Geuze, Reint H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Groothuis, Ton G. G.;McManus, I. C.;Geuze, Reint H.
人类偏好右手的强烈群体偏见似乎是一个典型的人类特征。一个优雅的进化假说解释了这一特征，即所谓的战斗假说，该假说假设左撇子是在频率依赖选择下。战斗假说假设左撇子，由于健康问题而处于少数，仍然在人口中保持，因为他们在战斗中获胜的机会比右撇子更大，因为意外效应。这篇评论批判性地评估了这一假设的假设和证据，并得出结论，一些证据，虽然与战斗假设一致，但并不直接支持它，也可能被不同的解释。其他支持性数据是模糊的，或者在统计和理论上都是开放的。我们的结论是，目前，支持战斗假说的证据并不是特别强有力，但也没有什么证据可以否定它。因此，这一假设仍然是对人群中持久的左撇子偏好的直观合理解释。我们提出了替代解释和几种方法来获得更关键的数据来测试这个经常被引用的假设。
The strong population bias in hand preference in favor of right-handedness seems to be a typical human trait. An elegant evolutionary hypothesis explaining this trait is the so-called fighting hypothesis that postulates that left-handedness is under frequency-dependent selection. The fighting hypothesis assumes that left-handers, being in the minority because of health issues, are still maintained in the population since they would have a greater chance of winning in fights than right-handers due to a surprise effect. This review critically evaluates the assumptions and evidence for this hypothesis and concludes that some evidence, although consistent with the fighting hypothesis, does not directly support it and may also be interpreted differently. Other supportive data are ambiguous or open for both statistical and theoretical criticism. We conclude that, presently, evidence for the fighting hypothesis is not particularly strong, but that there is little evidence to reject it either. The hypothesis thus remains an intuitively plausible explanation for the persistent left-hand preference in the population. We suggest alternative explanations and several ways forward for obtaining more crucial data for testing this frequently cited hypothesis.