This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is probably too unprofessional of a review to cite here, but [1] has this line talking about Buller's criticism of mating theory: "So that's why 45 year old strippers make so much more money than 25 year old strippers!" Tijfo098 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: joke above about strippers- One has to be incredibly mired in the current episteme to think that such an insignificant folk-psychological fact somehow shows that mating theory is right. There are many explanations available to explain why older strippers make less money than younger ones (plus we don't even know if that's true! It's just casually asserted as obvious without argument much like evolutionary psychology in general.) Most of the explanations would cite cultural phenomena,rather than a post-hoc citation of innate facts about human biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.38.73 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible article. There are many positive reviews of the book and this stub only mentions the negative. Strangely, one of the quotes offered from a negative review says that this book has been called the best challenge to evo. psych yet, but one wouldn't know that reading the article. Also, identifying this as an anthropology article is strange, as it is clearly a philosophy book. Terrible article, whoever wrote it should be embarrassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.34.79 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]