Author scratch Posted July 1, 2005 Author Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by SoleMate As several posters have implied, human culture, behavior, intelligence, reasoning, and emotions are PART of the forces of evolution, every bit as much as DNA. It's not just about crotch sniffing. I don't see big heavy males clubbing others on the street corner to eat their flesh. Yesterday's club is today's computer, and yesterday's flesh is today's money. It still holds. The main disconnect I see between my theory and the objectors is that they don't agree with me that intellectual prowess provides the eqivalent signal that physical strength did in the past. Originally posted by SoleMate If the male is not able to stay close to and on copulating terms with the female for that period of time, he will not be able to reproduce. Sure, he could have violent sexual encounters, but he will put his own survival at risk, each individual act has a low chance of passing on his genes, and any offspring of those violent acts will have a lower survival rate. This is quite correct (and an excellent overall post, in my opinion). But the fact that each individual sex act is low-return cuts in favor of the male attempting to engage in as many independent acts as possible. The relationship need not necessarily be one-and-done sex, but the objective of the male was to have as many high-quality, i.e. healthy female, sexual encounters as possible.
millefiori Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale You are reinventing the wheel SCRATHC. There is nothing new here. Hundreds of studies have supported this for decades. Sorry, I said this first. Wasn't it Helen Fisher who came up with similar idea? I remember reading a book about this topic and I think the author was her.
laRubiaBonita Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by scratch But the fact that each individual sex act is low-return cuts in favor of the male attempting to engage in as many independent acts as possible. The relationship need not necessarily be one-and-done sex, but the objective of the male was to have as many high-quality, i.e. healthy female, sexual encounters as possible. i am confused now....what is your exact stance on the topic? also, i am concerned because you seem to only be explaning why you think men ,=make the choices they do.... what about the other vital half....women?
lindya Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 I guess the "woman's worth is in her waist:hip ratio" line is one of the less controversial arguments to cherry-pick from evolutionist theory.
Author scratch Posted July 1, 2005 Author Posted July 1, 2005 Bigbelm: Theres a number of available options, humans are omnivorous in terms of sexual strategy. Omnnivorous implies multiple means of "consumption," if you will. It does not imply that one chooses either or, it implies that one tries to consume whatever one can, to the extent it will be "nutritions," i.e. helpful. Originally posted by laRubiaBonita i am confused now....what is your exact stance on the topic? also, i am concerned because you seem to only be explaning why you think men ,=make the choices they do.... what about the other vital half....women? My exact stance is that men want optimal sex. This is a trickier thread than some of the advice ones, so the points may be more nuanced. I outlined my thoughts (well, my regurgitated thoughts) about women in the first post, but nobody really addressed them. Hence, thus far the focus has been on male incentives and behavior.
d'Arthez Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 "Men want optimal sex." It is a tautology. Ever met a man who is more excited about the prospect of non-optimal sex compared to optimal sex? The question is of course, what makes for optimal sex. And if we are indeed programmed to engage in what you consider optimal sex. I reject that claim. Even if we have genes for this or that behavior, it needs triggers in the real world to come to express itself. You might be lactose intolerant, but if you live in a society were dairy products are no part of your diet, you won't suffer from a thing. You will be unaware of your condition. Only if the genetics can come to expression (you drink milk) you will suffer from the disease, as your body is unable to process the milk well. Something more complex holds true for the more complex behaviors - and that is leaving out the psychological factor which is at least as big as the genetic factor.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Hmmm, I'm coming a bit late to the party, but wanted to throw in at least one of my two pennies. I agree with the main lines of Scratch's reasoning, but I think that human beings are principally monogamous. Solemate is spot on in her reasoning. I would add a comparison with other primates: in monogamous species, the female is only a little smaller than the male. A male strategy of choosing one rather than mating with as many as possible favours bigger females. For this choice though, I completely agree that we guys are programmed to look for signs of physical health - the ability to carry a baby to term being a key point here. And that girls are programmed to look for signs of being a good provider (social status, resources, intelligence, etc as well as health). But follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion - future generations. Guys want sons that will also have high status (including intelligence, etc). For this is reason - if for no other - we would be programmed to favour clever females with higher social status, etc. Similarly, women would want a man who will help them bear physically attractive daughters. All this leads to a certain blurring of the lines between what men and women would look for in a simple bi-generational model. Plus, monogamy means that factors which oil the wheels of co-operation - like humour and character - would also be favoured. I have another penny to contribute if this is still an interesting topic...
millefiori Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo I agree with the main lines of Scratch's reasoning, but I think that human beings are principally monogamous. Solemate is spot on in her reasoning. I would add a comparison with other primates: in monogamous species, the female is only a little smaller than the male. A male strategy of choosing one rather than mating with as many as possible favours bigger females. Could you explain your theory a bit more? I also don't understand your last two sentences. In the human race the females are usually a lot smaller than the males, so according to your theory this would mean human beings are not monogamous, contradictory what you said in the beginning.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori In the human race the females are usually a lot smaller than the males, so according to your theory this would mean human beings are not monogamous, contradictory what you said in the beginning. OK honey, it's your maths that's the problem. Male and female size and weight in humans is actually quite similar when you start thinking logarithmically. For example: male human and male orang-utang. Typical weight is very similar at around 75-80 kg. Female orang-utangs weigh in at around half that - averaging around 40 kg (so 88lb). As a gentleman, I won't provide typical weights for female humans, but I'm sure you get the point The other point I was making was that the clear distinction - men want healthy bodies, women want resources and social status - is clearest in the simplified 2-generation model outlined at the beginning of this thread. In real life, with a longer term, both genders survive by giving rise to competitive descendents, both male and female. This means that both men and women will look for someone with genes for both physical beauty and resource/status magnetism. Although I agree that even a long term model will have men looking more at the bodies. The distinction isn't so clear as the shorter term model suggests, that's all.
Author scratch Posted July 5, 2005 Author Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo I think that human beings are principally monogamous. Could you flesh out a bit more how males are incentivized to be monogomous, and how it is more advantageous for a male to try to impregnate one woman repeatedly versus trying to impregnante many women repeatedly?
laRubiaBonita Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Evolutionary speaking: all the fat-arsses, diseased, cleft-lipped, retarded, or otherwise less than perfect humans will soon be exstint anyways.........Assuming no one procreates with them. so If evolution Had/ has as much affect on the human race as it did/ does other creatures...... the race should be perfect very shortly!
d'Arthez Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by laRubiaBonita Evolutionary speaking: all the fat-arsses, diseased, cleft-lipped, retarded, or otherwise less than perfect humans will soon be exstint anyways.........Assuming no one procreates with them. so If evolution Had/ has as much affect on the human race as it did/ does other creatures...... the race should be perfect very shortly! But survival of the fittest does not apply to humans (as individuals of a species) anymore. So the whole explanation falls asunder, by the reality of just that.
Author scratch Posted July 5, 2005 Author Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez But survival of the fittest does not apply to humans (as individuals of a species) anymore. Could social responsibility be a temporary (evolutionarily speaking) trend?
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Could you flesh out a bit more how males are incentivized to be monogomous, and how it is more advantageous for a male to try to impregnate one woman repeatedly versus trying to impregnante many women repeatedly? Sure. I was arguing from empirics rather than thinking incentives, but let's give it a go... One factor has got to be childcare. Tying yourself to one woman has the disadvantage that you don't get to fertilise all over the place, but the advantage that you can protect and feed the children. Some animals do it one way, some the other. Humans seem to need paternal input - single mothers and their children in primitive societies tend to go hungry. Even when food is plentiful, the giant experiment being conducted in America's inner cities suggests that emotional and pedagogical needs require more than one parent.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Could social responsibility be a temporary (evolutionarily speaking) trend? The evolution of co-operation is a whole new thread Suffice it to say that we're both - we co-operate as well as competing with each other. Much of the drama in human relationships (and the raw material for LS) comes from this simple fact.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by laRubiaBonita Evolutionary speaking: all the fat-arsses, diseased, cleft-lipped, retarded, or otherwise less than perfect humans will soon be exstint anyways.........Assuming no one procreates with them. I won't if you agree not to so If evolution Had/ has as much affect on the human race as it did/ does other creatures...... the race should be perfect very shortly! Yes, because all the other animals are perfect... I was discussing this with my cats only the other day as we played chess and prepared for our weekly book night. I must go home to check on their piano practice - their paws are so dextrous - and discuss their choices for new wallpaper. Provided they have overcome their colourblindness
Author scratch Posted July 5, 2005 Author Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo Sure. I was arguing from empirics rather than thinking incentives, but let's give it a go... One factor has got to be childcare. Tying yourself to one woman has the disadvantage that you don't get to fertilise all over the place, but the advantage that you can protect and feed the children. Some animals do it one way, some the other. Humans seem to need paternal input - single mothers and their children in primitive societies tend to go hungry. Even when food is plentiful, the giant experiment being conducted in America's inner cities suggests that emotional and pedagogical needs require more than one parent. This actually is in conflict with my original thesis that child rearing is not a male drive. A man's best reproductive strategy, historically, has been to make as many babies as possible and hope that one is strong enough to successfully continue his lineage. Perhaps this is currently not a socially responsible strategy to pursue, but I don't think its effectiveness (without regard to spillover costs) is in doubt. I think your empirics are also off because you're factoring in costs and benefits other than those borne by the actor. ETA: RR, this thread may have more life if some arguments are passed over. I think you understand where I'm coming from.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by scratch I think your empirics are also off because you're factoring in costs and benefits other than those borne by the actor. But born by his descendents. Its genes, not actors, that count. ETA: RR, this thread may have more life if some arguments are passed over. I think you understand where I'm coming from. I think I must be a bit slow today
Author scratch Posted July 5, 2005 Author Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo But born by his descendents. Its genes, not actors, that count. I think I must be a bit slow today. As to the second point, I really can't elaborate in the forum. As to the first, I think you're misunderstanding me. When you say that men abandoning their children doesn't seem to be a successful strategy, you're looking at it not from the perspective of the father, but from the people who have to deal with the abandoned kid - teacher, crime victim, taxpayer, etc. Those are costs to society, but not costs to the father. Therefore, when choosing his best reproductive strategy, the father should not take those costs into account. Example: I knock up 100 women and disappear after each one. 99 end up in jail, but one of the kids ends up being Shaquille O'Neal. My genes will pass more successfully than if I have one kid who ends up being a bus driver or schoolteacher with no criminal record.
lindya Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Example: I knock up 100 women and disappear after each one. 99 end up in jail, but one of the kids ends up being Shaquille O'Neal. My genes will pass more successfully than if I have one kid who ends up being a bus driver or schoolteacher with no criminal record. Your genes wouldn't pass on too successfully if the "Shaquille O'Neal" son ended up unwittingly impregnating 40 of your daughters.
laRubiaBonita Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by lindya Your genes wouldn't pass on too successfully if the "Shaquille O'Neal" son ended up unwittingly impregnating 40 of your daughters. unforseen Incest.....interesting.
Author scratch Posted July 5, 2005 Author Posted July 5, 2005 Originally posted by lindya Your genes wouldn't pass on too successfully if the "Shaquille O'Neal" son ended up unwittingly impregnating 40 of your daughters. Sure they would, so long as he also made it to 60 unrelated women. In terms of evolution, the outcome is judged on the single best offspring, not the best average (mean) offspring.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 Originally posted by scratch When you say that men abandoning their children doesn't seem to be a successful strategy, you're looking at it not from the perspective of the father, but from the people who have to deal with the abandoned kid - teacher, crime victim, taxpayer, etc. Those are costs to society, but not costs to the father. Therefore, when choosing his best reproductive strategy, the father should not take those costs into account. ??? Ummmm, I'm beginning to see the problem... OK, back to basics. Evolution is measured in 1000s of years. At the least. Modern humans have been around for 30-50,000 years, so most of the evolving happened before then. The social security system which allows the externalities in your argument is rather recent. An abandoned child c. 5000 BC (or 50,000 BC) dies of hunger. Or grows up weak and small. Or is enslaved. Or becomes a human sacrifice. They're not a burden on society. The druids don't worry that they're not learning at school. Taxpayers don't worry that they're not taking their fair share of the burden of constructing Stonehenge. Dad's genes pay the price of dad's absence. Correspondingly, in most of human history, fathers are not absent. The strategy of random fertilisation is relatively rare, although I agree that we are equipped to try this strategy under certain circumstances...
d'Arthez Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 "Slavery" is approximately 6,000 years old. At least, that is as far as there is written evidence for that. It is interesting to note that the word for female slave seems to have existed longer than the word for male slave. This of course points to differences in characteristics for which males and females were valued at that time. The family unit as we know it nowadays in the Western world, did not exist in 7,000 years ago. To build an evolutionary theory based on the modern concept of family is building a castle on quicksand.
Recommended Posts