There’s a new proposal out that choosiness and cooperation have evolved hand in hand. Riiiiight. This is one of the lamer just-so stories to pop up recently and that’s saying a lot. The idea goes like this: natural selection favors selfishness, so someone’s choosiness presupposes a necessary level of cooperation from their partner. If that level of cooperation isn’t met, the choosy party moves on to find one more cooperative. This leads to selection of choosiness. Um, OK. May I throw a monkey wrench in this idea though? Choosiness and cooperation are sort of diametrically opposed. To give cooperation to someone else’s needs implies a level of giving up one’s choosiness. So, if choosiness is being selected for, then cooperation is deselected, leading the choosy partners to have less cooperative partners to choose from. Oops.