quote:

---

Evolution is the changing over time of genetic codes to enhance an organisms posibility of success in their environment. I really don't see how the argument that men can't control their sexual urges has anything to do with evolution - except in their own minds. But I will start a new thread on this.

---

quote:

---

Why some people & not others develop an addiction to sex is poorly understood. Possibly some biochemical abnormality or other brain changes increase risk. The fact that antidepressants & other psychotropic medications have proven effective in treating some people with sex addiction suggests that this might be the case.

---

What causes sexual addiction

Coming from a site, though, that calls itself "open-minded", I'm not sure how much weight to put in this.

I've heard stories from psychologists that the sexual urges are so powerful in some men that some will actually drive around in a van with a matress in the back for whenever the urge hits.

Of course, this presupposes that the original quote is talking about sexual addiction and not some blanket statement that all guys cannot control themselves.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

I think the most fundamental case is paternity certainty and the evolutionary interest that many males have in that IF AND ONLY IF males are also involved in the species' family life, as they tend to be with humans (and not, say, deer). Then paternity certainty is a significant part of reproductive success. The evolution of patriarchy follows directly from this.

quote:

---

Marriages (are) the main guarantor of certainty,

---

Wow. What Disney world are you living in? Since when has marriage guaranteed anything, including paternity? Maybe it's the illusion of a guarantee that gets men on the road to commitment and responsibility, but I don't see that as biologicaly competitive.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

Remember that we are trying to investigate the social and genetic evolutionary origins of patriarchal institutions by understanding things in terms of mathematical games. Naturally, there is a tradeoff here: what women get out of monogamy is basically getting the male half of the population to invest in the next generation in more ways than sperm. This tends not to happen in animals without that behaviour, whether socially or genetically derived.

To put this all together, we need ways that make sure that in the aggregate of social interactions, we readjust this equation so that men are not so easily able to take advantage of women. Now, there is the question of sacrificing the attempt at paternity certainty--if we were to eliminate that wish, then many of these institions would disappear.

Alas, wishful thinking. Even before it has been seriously attempted, there is already a backlash against it. I think this is a relatively clear-cut case of evolutionary psychology at work.

So this leaves us at a remaining option: since we no longer wish to use certain types of social coercion on women to attempt to insure paternity certainty, we must somehow raise the costs on men for trying to cheat the system. This results in many of the things we are already trying: social welfare for women, so that men are less inclined to think that they don't have to hold up their end of the childcare bargain. Costs for the prolific fathering of children--we are also already doing that as well. I'm sure there are other ways.

For wolves, mating is for life (she chooses; he leads), thus isolating and insuring the favoured genetic material. Only the best specimens of each generation, in each clan, get to reproduce.

For humans, marriage has generally been for life, as well, whatever the details of the contract may have been. Fidelity in marriage was strictly enforced by religion, law and social stigma. Only, in the case of humans, the partners have usually been chosen, not for genetic superiority, but for the conservation of property.

With the erosion of religious belief and the replacement of tribal law by national law, the institution no longer serves that purpose as it was originally intended. What we have now is not so much a stage in social evolution as a state of flux between stages.

(By the way, anyone who suggests that men cannot control their sexual urges has to ignore 4000 years of monasticism, among other things.)

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

How to bring up the problem - if it is a problem - of sex as a commodity? Mostly, women sell (or women are sold) and men buy. Not only in prostitution, where the transaction is brief and straightforward: sex for cash. What this does for gene-pool is to diversify it. But also in marriage, where it's long-term and complicated: a constant, assured supply of sex for security. What this does for the gene-pool is standardise it. In a culture where marriage is based on something other than love, both kinds of transaction go on all the time. Therefore, the net effect on gene-pool is nil. The net effect on social mores is significant.

---

quote:

---

No human institution is foolproof

---

The Latverian government is a notable exeption.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Victor Von MediaBoy ]

quote:

---

I'm not sure than on an evolutionary time scale, the net effect of marriage and commodified sex is nil. How does monogamy/polygyny standardize the gene pool? The only way I can see that it does that is if initial mating choices are highly constrained.

---

The initial mating choiches usually are highly constrained.
In the first instance, this kind of marriage is generally restricted to the propertied classes, leaving the poor to reproduce at random. Also, because the husband is impregnating both his wife and prostitutes (maids, slaves, etc.) so his genes are all over the class spectrum.

For the second part, the standardization occurs, not so much in the gene-pool, as in a particualr gene-puddle. Since husband and wife are from the same propertied class, and the wife is not allowed to bear children by any other men, it restricts the genetic material of the propertied class, sometimes to the point where the ruling elite looks markedly different from the peasantry. This is, of course, self-defeating: the ruling class becomes physically weak and prone to hereditary illness, in only six or seven generations. At which time, it begins to lose control and is eventually replaced.

Then, the middle class, which always imitates the ruling class, takes up the practise. Only, there is a wider choice of partners. And so on, down the economic scale. The more people in a class, the more blurring at the upper and lower limits of classes, the bigger the potential gene-pool. So the overall population is hardly affected.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I suggest that we choose partners on the basis of how related we are to them. (This may be why interracial marraige is such a stigma.)

quote:

---

Can it be shown that the liberation of women doesn't necessarily lead to the general cuckolding of men and their general alienation from family life?

---

The Darwinian beliefs of evolution - essentially the basic purpose of life is to reproduce and that reproductive selection is premised on the basis of "survival of the fittest" are all ASSUMPTIONS. There is very little evidence in scientific literature to support those hypotheses. They certainly have never been proven.

The reason Darwin's theory has been clung to so resolutely is because it was maleable enough to create a credible excuse for any kind of social or behavioral injustice.

There are plenty of theories of evolution. There are plenty of theories that suggest evolution doesn't exist. We don't learn about any of them because they don't fit the "bill" quite so satisfactorly as Darwin does.

Common evolutionary psychology is relevant to the feminist movement because it is used against feminism relentlessly. So let's look a bit further. Let's make an effort to imagine something different - outside our comfort zones.

quote:

---

Common evolutionary psychology is relevant to the feminist movement because it is used against feminism relentlessly. So let's look a bit further. Let's make an effort to imagine something different - outside our comfort zones.

---

I don't know how much I buy this. As far as I see it, Evolutionary Psychology can (and is) used against both men and women. The "field" itself is largely benign. How it's used by unscrupulous individuals is not, on either side.

Take that "Alpha Male" show for example. Depending on one's point of view, that show could have been putting "alpha males" up on a pedestal or cutting them down to size. It's all in how it's presented.

quote:

---

In nature animals have no way of guaranteeing paternity. They simply protect the children of the group, no matter what. (Unless they are weak, or obviously unlike the rest of the group.)

---

Which animals?
The lion's way - none of us likes the lion's way! - is pretty efficient. The wolf's way is simple: one male and one female mate; nobody else is allowed to. The caribou's way is to fight for and win as many females as he can and impregnate them as fast as he can.
Most herding animals cut the weaker males out of the loop, before the females even come into heat.
But none of that is about handing over your hard-earned millions to some other guy's progeny. No other animal has that concern.

quote:

---

There are no other animals that have such a huge investment in their offspring.

---

Ahem. Pardon me for mentioning the elephant's almost two-year gestation and ten+ years of childhood, with a lifespan slighly shorter than a human's. If hamsters have an easier time with childbirth, consider that they also don't expect to last more two years. It's all relative. Every species has a large investment in its progeny.

quote:

---

There are plenty of theories of evolution. There are plenty of theories that suggest evolution doesn't exist. We don't learn about any of them because they don't fit the "bill" quite so satisfactorly as Darwin does.

---

Name two and give the references.

I actually don't believe that interracial marriages carry the stigma that they do for evolutionary reasons, as an aside. At least not in the same direct way that the suppression of women can be explained.

Your idea about marriage-as-child-care-arrangement would be correct if there were no such thing as patriarchy. Unfortunately, your explanation only shows what the female gets out of it. Now you may argue that in helping the female, the male manages to increase his own reproductive advantage. But one thing is missing. The male faces another danger: that his effort may be wasted, in an evolutionary sense, on children that are not his. Strictly from an evolutionary point of view, being unknowingly cuckolded and raising the offspring is worse than death: humans can and do choose to do it, but note that by and large they do not, both males and females. A female is almost guaranteed not to lose the investment; social controls are instituted that ensure that males also do not. As nonesuch pointed out, even animals display both "social" and "physical" characteristics to manage this tradeoff. Humans, having a social dimension that most other animals do not (at least, not in that magnitude),
display this tradeoff as well! How to explain it? How to explain the ubiquity of patriarchy in time and space? My claim is that the answer lies at least partly in paternity, and probably mostly.

You ask how men can fear the loss of certainty under gender equality--ie, does it have a rational basis? A good way to find out is to examine the rates of children born through cuckolding under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Probably hard to get. But intuitively I suggest that it would be low.

This doesn't get us any closer to gender equality. Actually, the Spartans (seriously macho types!) had a pretty fair system, while the 'enlightened' 19th century British had a badly skewed one.
It's easy to look at something from an entrenched ideological perspective and see the flaws in it. It's a little harder to take a step back and see more of it.

In all the social expirements that humans have tried, they had a purpose. Other animals don't have a conscious, deliberate purpose: they do what they do, bceause that's what they do. People think and decide. Each time they make a collective or royal decision, they have a goal in mind. The goal isn't necessarily the same for Aaron, Jacques and Harry; it isn't necessarily the same for Estarte, Hildegarde and Jane.

Each human goal isn't necessarily the same one nature would have recommended. Where the human agenda is in conflict with nature - all of it in general and/or ours in particular - humans get their way in the short term, but nature wins in the end. We ignore her at our peril.

Now, back to men and babies. Who says human males need to be tricked or cajoled or bribed into raising kids? Who says the paternal instinct isn't just as valid and compelling as the maternal? Most people prefer to make and raise their own (the genetic imperative), but lots of people of both sexes are happy to parent any old kids (they go half-way around the world to adopt a baby that doesn't looks anything like them!) who says men don't crave the comfort of a permanent home or the love of a family?

We've started from the perspective of a dysfunctional society and generalized too many theories from too little data.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

At first, I thought that I had little to say about your post. But as it turns out, I do.

Firstly, microevolution can be demonstrated in your own backyard, if you have the patience. It's an easily repeatable experiment, given a decade or so. Macroevolution is more tricky and more controversial, but I think that it's very difficult to argue that it doesn't take place--the only question is how. Demonstrate to us your theory: are you are closet 6-literal-day-creationist?

I understand that evolutionary psychology is used against feminism in certain ways in popular culture. But this is not necessarily the fault of the theory itself. Rather, one of the problems I have noticed in the relationship between feminism and science is that feminism usually engages the natural sciences critically, but almost never involves itself in science. This is a malaise that afflicts the left in general, but especially the feminist movement. I understand some of the reasons why this may be the case; others I adamantly refuse to sympathize with, particularly ones which attempt to legitimize multiple epistemologies. Nevertheless, because the entire playing field of evolution has been totally abandoned by feminism (with the exception of people like Sarah Hrdy, The Woman Who Never Evolved), is it so surprising that theories seemingly hostile to feminism seem to emanate from evolutionary theory?

Part of the problem lies in the fact that feminism, in general, seeks to reconstruct gender relations on new lines. Since evolutionary psychology appears to claim that there are overall limitations on this, it is understandable that feminists may be uncomfortable with it. But it boils down to one question: so what? If it's true, then what can you do? Your response doesn't provide the answer: the answer is to demonstrate alternative interpretations of the science, not to reject it because it is inconvenient. I believe that EP can be used against many of the current right-wing projects at work in the world as well; but since the left in general has a wary relationship with the natural sciences, these arguments are not explored. What we need to do is to accept that there is an overall human nature that is quite compatible with self-understanding and free will, but still expresses itself in overall human interactions; then we might have some understanding of how to change the parameters so that this
human nature responds differently.

Where can our behaviours exist if it were not for the body? And is it not clear that the body is constructed through interactions between genes and the environment? Not that I am not claiming at all that the mind reduces directly to the neural medium of the brain, or that every human characteristic can be traced to a gene. I believe the opposite--that ontogenesis/development matters and can exist independently of evolutionary function. This puts me at odds with many if not most of the mainstream EP practitioners.

But we have at least demonstrated that there must be some relationship (transitive, of course) between human behaviour and genes, since the former would not exist without the latter. The next thing we need to do is to demonstrate how important genes really are, or at least the ways in which that may be so.

If genes were to have no significant relationship to the mind except preparing the medium, then we would have to assume that the medium is homogenous--in other words, that the brain allows for learning by being a General Purpose Problem Solver. The cognitive and neurocognitive evidence, however, overwhelmingly points to exactly the opposite--that the brain has areas of specialization. Even the most radical connectionist must concede at least that. So now we have found a way in which behaviour can connect to neurobiology: some parts of the system are already specified in the brain before learning begins. While these things do not specify the mind itself, they do constrain the way in which a human may acquire many aspects of its psyche.

Now we have one remaining question: are these specialized brain structures a result of ontogenesis (ie, during the stages of early development), or are they a result of genes? I claim "both." That is, I claim that there are three possible levels at which the systems that manage human behaviours (not the behaviours themselves--this is an important distinction!)--genetically, at ontogenesis, and through the environment. What EP is trying to investigate is how evolution may affect the genetic layer, and how the interactions of these individual beings with "guided" free will may create predictable large-scale social structures. It does not attempt to directly connect the genes to specific, individual human behaviours--this is the province of behavioural genetics and a very problematic endeavour. But one that many EP folk dabble in, and sometimes are seen as engaging in due to bad or "pop" writing.

quote:

---

Acknowledging that something exists, describing it and giving it a name is NOT the same as using it as an excuse for bad behaviour.
Conversely, denying, however loudly, that something exists is NOT the same as nullifying its effects.
If it exists, find a way to deal with it.
If it doesn't exist, where did the problem come from?

---

'It' can be any theory, statement or situation.
If there is a problem, that problem has an origin, a reason for existing, an evolution. It may also have a solution. But the solution will NOT come from denying the genesis of the problem, or from designating a scapegoat. The solution - if there is one - will come from understanding what happened, why, when, and how.

My personal - non-scientific - theory is that all living things want to be happy. For a social creature to be happy, it must have food, clean water, shelter from the nastier elements, a degree of physical security and the company of its own kind. Highly evolved animals also need a bit of fun, sympathy, an audience and affection. Very highly evolved animals prefer to have all of these needs met in one place by one constant group of similar individuals. Family is a fairly reliable source of emotional nourishment. Therefore, highly evolved animals tend to form families. The environment and the larger specific organization may put stresses on the family, yet it endures - probably because no other social structure has been invented that meets as many of our needs as well.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Primates can be found in several types of groups. Some provide more opportunities for social interaction than others:

-multimale & multifemale group: Several adult members of both sexes and may grow to be quite large with some groups having 150 or more individuals.
-polyandrous group: One mating adult female and more than one mating adult male.
-harem group: One adult male and several adult females and offspring
-monogamous pair: A single adult male and adult female and their offspring.
-solitary: An adult female and her young. Adult males and females only interact to mate.

---

from this page.

Just to point out that there is more than one way animals mate and raise children. The polyandrous form is what I was refering to in my last posts, although it is more common in birds than in primates.

quote:

---

Your idea about marriage-as-child-care-arrangement would be correct if there were no such thing as patriarchy. Unfortunately, your explanation only shows what the female gets out of it.

---

Actually, both parents get to raise successful offspring which, according to evolutionary psychologists, is their goal.

quote:

---

Who says human males need to be tricked or cajoled or bribed into raising kids? Who says the paternal instinct isn't just as valid and compelling as the maternal?

---

I agree whole-heartedly.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

Wanting to father and raise your own children is both older and more durable. That can be done in any system which encourages - and supports! -happy, lasting and faithful unions. The only way to do that is for society to allow a degree of self-definition and expression to both sexes, a reasonable choice of mates, and the material wherewithal for people to maintain a family without committing too many crimes.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

I don't know how much I buy this. As far as I see it, Evolutionary Psychology can (and is) used against both men and women. The "field" itself is largely benign. How it's used by unscrupulous individuals is not, on either side.

---

Just to clarify - I said that evolutionary biology is used to defeat feminism, not women. I don't see the feminist movement as including only women and excluding men at all.

EP can be and is used against men and women, but largely to perpetuate patriarchy by giving it a scientific explanation, thereby validating it...

And if I was a man, I'd be raging mad about the ridiculous stereotypes the media is allowed to present without quibble.

My professor in first year biology presented it to us as a way of getting us to THINK about what we believed in rather than accepting it whole heartedly...

Boiled down, the "scat" theory says that all life has evolved as a means to create and transport shit. Shit is the one thing ALL life creates in some form, and it could be argued that it runs the planet.

I'll try and find some references for you on some valid alternatives. I always liked the one that says life arrived on this planet from outerspace.

Then there's punctuated equilibrium.

And I'm shocked that anyone reacted to my post so vehemently. Ask the question, at least. The theory of evolution is just that - a THEORY. And it's a theory with a lot of holes in it at that. The fact that it is taken for gospel allows it to be used to suit the powers that be all the more.

Mostly, though, one wonders how and why 'the powers that be' came to be powers. This is the question which seeks answers in history, prehistory and biology.

In many pre-historical cultures, the geneological line was followed through the mother. A practical means of ensuring lineage, as it is the only way to be positive of a person's parentage.

The image of the cave man bopping woman over the head with a club and dragging her back to his cave to become his own is strictly a modern construct. It's a common image of pre-historical cultures borne of modern patriarchal superimposition over our views of everything...

And it is appearing to be completely false.

As for the scat theory - I don't necessarily subscribe to it... However certainly something does not require consciousness to exert will. The end result is all that is necessary to come up with a theory - as evidenced by the Darwinian theories of evolution.

Certainly, if evolution were a fact it would seem to make sense that behaviours exist to promote it. But the assumption we make that evolution exists - particularly in the way it is commonly described - is a huge flaw in our human society today. Just like we needed religion to explain the unexplainable, we cling to the evolutionary theories and use them to explain what would otherwise be ridiculous or without basis in fact.

Our human minds NEED reason and sense. It's just that we don't question the authority that offers us explanation for the most inhuman aspects of humanity...

quote:

---

Name two and give the references.

---

Special creationism, the view that species are created "specially" in each case Examples: the last biologist to be a special creationist was Louis Agassis (d. 1873)

Orthogenesis linear evolution, aka Great Chain of Being thinking, the view that evolution proceeds in direct lines to goals. Examples: Lamarck, Eimer, Osborn, Severtsov, Teilhard.

Neo-Lamarckism aka Instructionism, the view that the environment instructs the genome, and/or the view that changes occur to anticipate the needs of the organism. Examples: Darwin, Haeckel, ED Cope, S Butler, Kropotkin, GBS Shaw, Kammerer, Koestler, Steele, Goldschmidt

Process Structuralism aka Formalism, deriving from Goethe and Oken - the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms.

Saltationism also called "Mutationism" or "Mutation Theory", the view that changes between forms occur all-at-once or not at all Examples: Galton, TH Huxley, De Vries, TH Morgan, Johannsen, Goldschmidt

Some of the more credible disputes to the survival of the fittest. But there are lots more.

By accepting Darwinian theories you are accepting a lot of sweeping assumptions about life that are completely unprovable, and applying these theories to society distorts their validity even more.

Actually, i prefer the Sumerian gods and godesses, sitting around, tipsy on beer, one-upping each other: "I can make a donkey"; "So what, i can make a man"; "Big deal, i can breathe life into them". Thus were the black-headed people made to serve the gods... next step, Gilgamesh.

Thing is, none of this matters. We have what we have, and much of it sucks. It helps a little to trace where it came from, and it helps a lot to understand how the other half of us feel, and why they feel that way. And - maybe - how to convince them that they don't need to feel that way, so then - maybe - we don't need to feel this way anymore.

For damn sure, you're not going to get cooperation by calling people names or pissing them off. Doesn't matter whether your/their ancestors dragged their/your ancestors around by the hair or not. You just have to say: nobody drags me around by the hair and lives to brag about it. And one of them will say: Cool; i don't go for that stuff. Then you get to live happily ever after, except for the times you fight and hate each other and get bored with each other and cheat on each other.

quote:

---

By accepting Darwinian theories you are accepting a lot of sweeping assumptions about life that are completely unprovable, and applying these theories to society distorts their validity even more. Some of these social theories have been used to excuse men from some basic social responsibilities. It pisses me off.

---