ABSOLUTE FITNESS, RELATIVE FITNESS, AND UTILITY
- 1 December 2007
- Vol. 61 (12) , 2997-3000
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00237.x
Abstract
It is well known that (1) natural selection typically favors an allele with both a large mean fitness and a small variance in fitness; and (2) investors typically prefer a portfolio with both a large mean return and a small variance in returns. In the case of investors, this mean-variance trade-off reflects risk aversion; in the case of evolution, the mathematics is straightforward but the result is harder to intuit. In particular, it is harder to understand where, in the mathematics of natural selection, risk aversion arises. Here I present a result that suggests a simple answer to this question. Although my answer is essentially identical to one offered previously, my path to it differs somewhat from previous approaches. Some may find this new approach easier to intuit.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- A First Formal Link between the Price Equation and an Optimization ProgramJournal of Theoretical Biology, 2002
- Formal Darwinism, the individual–as–maximizing–agent analogy and bet–hedgingProceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 1999
- God's Utility FunctionScientific American, 1995
- Life History Evolution in Stochastic Environments: A Graphical Mean‐Variance ApproachEcology, 1992
- Evolution in a Variable EnvironmentThe American Naturalist, 1990
- Multiple forms of sarc gene proteins from Rous sarcoma virus RNA.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1978
- Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Numbers: A New Evolutionary PrincipleThe American Naturalist, 1977
- Natural selection with varying selection coefficients – a haploid modelGenetics Research, 1973
- Polymorphism due to selection of varying directionJournal of Genetics, 1963
- MAINTENANCE OF GENETIC HETEROGENEITYCold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 1955