Abstract
The use of intentional language in biology is controversial. It has been commonly applied by researchers in behavioral ecology, who have not shied away from employing agential thinking or even anthropomorphisms, but has been rarer among researchers from more mechanistic corners of the discipline, such as population genetics. One research area where these traditions come into contact—and occasionally clash—is the study of genetic conflicts, and its history offers a good window to the debate over the use of intentional language in biology. We review this debate, paying particular attention to how this interaction has played out in work on genomic imprinting and sex chromosomes. In light of this, we advocate for a synthesis of the two approaches, a form of licensed anthropomorphizing. Here, agential thinking’s creative potential and its ability to identify the fulcrum of evolutionary pressure are combined with the rigidity of formal mathematical modeling.