Glen, Excellent observation at the end. I don't know much about the human data (is there an anthropologist in the house?), but for every non-human primate species I know of, and most other mammals, either males disperse from their childhood groups, or females disperse. To have members of both sexes routinely leaving their place of birth is very rare. Also worth noting, male dispersal is much more typical. Such dispersion tends to happen around puberty, and is surrounded by much within group conflict (any parents of teenage children reading this?).
There is quite a lot of modeling / theory / investigation as to the social and environmental factors that determine which sex will disperse. Good stuff. There is little experimentation though, so I suspect that underlying the stability is a very stable environment, rather than an extremely robust behavioral system. Either way, humans show more flexibility 'in the wild' than other primate species with regard to similar traits. With that in mind, I would bet one could identify a set of factors that determine the likelihood a given man or woman will want to move around a lot. It is likely that if one did so, that environmental factors in childhood would be better predictors of dispersal than current environmental conditions. Put another way: It is reasonable to presume that some childhood environments lead to men who want to move a lot, and different environmental factors that lead to women who want to move a lot. Eric On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 08:41 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <g...@tempusdictum.com> wrote: > John Sadd wrote circa 11-08-09 12:22 PM: >> 1. Monetary union without true mobility is not feasible (more specific >> than "just" political union). If things get bad in Nevada, >people can >> move elsewhere to look for jobs. If things get bad in Greece, it's not >> realistic to expect Greeks to move to and get jobs in Germany. > >Just thinking out loud, here: > >I've had several discussions with the "sustainability" folks here in >the >PDX area and those discussions often seem to boil down to cheap energy. > Where (and to whom) energy is cheap, all sorts of things seem to >happen >transparently (finding blueberries grown in South America at your local >Safeway, for example, when they grow quite well right here). I think >the same kernel might be hiding underneath the mobility part of the >argument. > >In a similar vein, I've often heard that people who travel a lot are >more tolerant/aware of various customs and may take a more "liberal" >view of how others choose to live their lives. Again, if energy is >expensive, then only the rich will travel a lot, perhaps implying that >those of us with fewer resources will tend to be more bigoted, >xenophobic, or (at least) ignorant. > >Finally, I've also noticed that some people (e.g. me) like to move >around a lot and live in different (albeit not that different) places, >whereas others (e.g. my S.O. and most of her family) prefer to live in >close proximity to their family or where they were born. And it seems >to be that way regardless of the resources they have available. So, I >can't help thinking there's also a biological basis for (lack of) >mobility as well as an economic one. > >-- >glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
