mgamache

14% is a lower bound. I suspect if you include studies that can't be replicated it's well over 50%. And yes with that much garbage the public should dismiss all new published scientific findings. Modern scientific publishing has been gamed it's nearly useless for learning anything directly because you can't trust it. Some fields more than others of course, but it's all bad. Yes this includes tier 1 journals.

That might work for a few years, but if all institutions did that it would collapse the whole system. A university degree is for jobs why would you think otherwise?

Not a science journal, see: Proximal Origins

I need peer reviewed data to suggest that women want to seek the best mate possible? In the modern context 'the best' doesn't include as much weight on providing food and shelter.

My hypothesis is supported by dating and sex data. And no it doesn't work at scale or for very long, but it is a driver of mate selection.

This is exactly why a marriage norm exists. You can't have large societies with a Signiant number of men not invested in it's future. They tend to find destructive ways to use their energy.

There are a couple of things to consider.

1) Women don't need men in modern society. They would likely stay married longer and be more picky about the type of man to bread with if they were stuck with him forever. The benefit is that women don't get stuck in abusive relationships.

2) Modern dating is turning us into polygamists. Women will pursue the top 10% (or so) of men and those men have little incentive to get married. There is a financial penalty to having children, but much less than getting married and having children. Of course this leads to single mothers with, at best, part time fathers.

Sure women survive more extreme conditions better than men. This includes dehydration.

Sure women probably hunted, but claiming there is no evidence for a "sex-based division of labor" is hogwash. Some hunted the same game as men, some probably other prey. Some probably gathered food depending on their child status and physical capabilities. The article focuses much on the advantages women are provided due to estrogen. Sure for some activities (like child rearing) and general health the female hormones make sense. But, I have yet to see any athlete in any sport (including ultra marathon) taking estrogen for an advantage. Willing to be proven wrong.

They measure performance in microseconds.

can't figure out how to enter a year...