Serg897 said:
I watched the first two videos - currently downloading the rest.
One of the things I find really interesting about your talk, Johnny, is the emphasis on looking at things from an evolutionary perspective. I believe this kind of thinking opens many doors when it comes to our understanding of all sorts of biological systems - including human behavior. This is especially true as we continue to struggle to understand ourselves.
Thanks kindly - I've been working on my models of human psychology for nearly two decades.
Serg897 said:
I never accept any claims without evidence. So, when you make these assertions and say that they are a product of evolutionary mechanisms, can you cite any RESEARCH to back these things up?
Of course. In particular, the works of Geoffrey Miller (
The Mating Mind) and Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico, Matt Ridley (
The Red Queen) and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (
The Woman that Never Evolved) have been particularly useful.
Serg897 said:
Some things you are saying on this thread I find difficult to accept. This, for example:
Therefore, it's subjective in the mind of the father and the children as to whom their allegiances are set. If you think of your kids as YOURS and they think of themselves as YOURS, then they ARE YOURS.
Evolutionarily, this makes no sense. If you are a male that will raise any child, even those that aren't your own, your genes will NOT be passed down to the next generation and therefore this behavior is NOT adaptive. These kinds of males should have died out long ago - and this explains why we have jealousy built into us, no?
No.
But that's a common misconception, even amongst nominally educated scientists.
Consider the wolf-pack: Normally, the 'Alpha Male' and his 'Alpha Female(s)' are the only members of the pack to breed, which is natural and appropriate, being that all the other pack-members are the offspring of the Alpha Male, at least, and mating between siblings or half-siblings yields negative results (amongst higher mammals, anyway).
Some of the males born within that pack will have an 'ambitious' temperament, and will be unwilling to accept subjugation to the presiding Alpha (likely their sire) and, if unable to overthrow the Alpha (who would then be relegated to 'Beta' male, and would still maintain dominance over lesser males within the pack) the ambitious male would have to leave the pack, and go off 'lone wolf' - seeking females in other packs to fertilize and perhaps pair-bond.
The other males in the pack are neither compelled to overthrow the Alpha, nor leave, and therefore spend their entire lives in support of the pack. In this capacity, as hunters/providers and protectors of their siblings and their siblings' offspring, they play a critical role in the assurance that their parent's genes (which they share with their siblings, of course) are passed on.
Therefore, the notion that ALL males are obsolete/useless evolutionarily if they THEMSELVES don't breed is obviously incorrect, as demonstrated by the
very existence of the countless male wolves who serve as life-support for their family's children.
In humans, the very same traits would be obvious and seen, were it not for the cultural pressures of society which requires duplicity and surreptitious misrepresentations.
Historically, the most-powerful men had harems and prevented lesser men from breeding,
OR SO THEY THOUGHT anyway. The women would still manage to get impregnated by itinerant 'ambitious' males, unbeknownst to their owner (husband).
Previous to the invention of hormonal birth-control and ubiquitous availability of condoms, the frequency of non-paternity offspring generated through illicit encounters of married women would be staggering - possibly the majority of children conceived would be raised/supported by their 'father of record' (husband of the mother) without any connection to their genetic father.
Even today, where condoms are compulsory and birth-control standard, AT LEAST 10% of children born in the U.S. are 'non-paternity' offspring.
Reference
Serg897 said:
Then there are claims about a woman's selection of sexual partners that I find a little dubious:
The female's biological drive is to collect as many sperm from as many promising donors as are around, when she's ovulating - so long as she done what suggests she'll become pregnant, she's satisfied - and she becomes turned-off by her own 'familiar' males' scents (Familiar = of or like one's family).
Really? What happens she becomes pregnant, and nobody has any idea who the father is? What sort of poor unfortunate male is going to get stuck helping her rear the child (because it would be very difficult to do this by herself!)
Human females hide their estrus (ovulation), unlike virtually all other species known. (ie, their asses don't glow bright pink and their vulva don't swell up, etc)
This ensures that the female, once pregnant, is able seduce & pair bond with an appropriate care-giver provider/protector, to ensure that her child is supported.
Randy Thornhill, Professor of Cultural Anthropology & Evolutionary Psychology, University of New Mexico
The Functional Design and Phylogeny of Women's Dual Sexuality: Estrus and Extended Sexuality
Recent research questions the conventional wisdom about the evolution of women's sexuality. Women have two functionally distinct sexualities. At the fertile phase of the cycle, women prefer male traits that may mark superior genetic quality. At infertile cycle phases, women prefer men willing to invest resources in a mate. Women's peri–ovulatory sexuality is homologous with estrus in other vertebrates and estrus likely arose first in the species ancestral to vertebrates. Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, women have not lost estrus, and human estrus likely functions to get a sire of superior genetic quality, which is the evolved function of estrus throughout the vertebrates. Women's sexuality outside estrus is extended sexuality. It appears to function, as in other taxa with this type of sexuality, to get material benefits from males. Also contrary to conventional wisdom, men perceive and respond to women's estrus, including by increased mate guarding. Men's response is limited compared to other vertebrate males, implying co-evolutionary history of selection on females to conceal estrus from men and selection on men to detect it. Research indicates that women's concealed estrus is an adaptation to conditionally copulate with men other than the pair–bond partner. Women's sexual ornaments–the estrogen–facilitated features of face and body–appear to be honest signals of individual quality pertaining to future reproductive value.
Serg897 said:
As I mentioned above, it is NOT in the males interest to raise a child that is not his own, evolutionarily speaking.
Yes, and as I identified above, that is a common misconception. Be cautious not to mistake SOCIAL requirements for evolutionary ones - they are distinct.
Serg897 said:
In this sort of scenario, more likely than not the female will get stuck in a difficult situation of raising a child by herself!
That is an example of a social constraint, exclusively. As described above, women are evolutionarily designed to become impregnated by one sort of male, and pair bond with another sort. Q.E.D.
Serg897 said:
To me, it makes more sense for the female to be a little choosy about who she sleeps with - to make sure the male invests some resources before giving up her large, nutritious egg (her expensive gamete) to one of the males small, cheap, throwaway gametes.
This is a specious argument, although alarmingly common!
The true and obvious reason that the egg is large and nutritious, while the sperm is incredibly tiny, is that while the combination of both combine to create the zygote, the egg will both be the carrier and nutrition provider for the gestation period.
Consider a hen, with her VERY large eggs, each of which could produce a chick (if they were fertilized by a single tiny sperm!) but are the same size regardless. She doesn't need to spend any time determining which male will fertilize her, the males themselves will fight it out, and the victor will procreate.
The essential difference between chickens and humans in this analogy is that chickens' eggs gestate outside the mother's body, making the chicken available for re-fertilization immediately after an egg is laid, whereas in humans, the egg gestates inside the female for 9 months, making her incapable of being refertilized until after the zygote is ejected (born or miscarried).
In both cases, the distinction between egg size and sperm size is obvious, and the justification the same. I submit that the notion that 'gamete value' should play any role in the mate-selection process defies reason.
Serg897 said:
Its a constant battle of the sexes, and I'm not sure if your argument completely captures that.
Socially, I constantly state that there IS no 'battle of the sexes' - but evolutionarily, there CANNOT be, or else we would have died off as a species long ago. Instead, there is merely a complex cooperative effort, supported throughout the generations by BOTH GENDERS, which
relies upon the males BELIEVING that their offspring are their own, directly, and that they have not been cuckheld against their will.
I hope you found some compelling insights here - I am more than happy to continue answering question from anyone who asks! (After all, this is what I do for a living!
)
Johnny Soporno
Evolutionary Psychologist & Worthy Playboy
