Right. I hope that's the case, not merely that some of us are more plastic, but
that perhaps any of us could even practice being more plastic. But that's just
hope ... hope can be debilitating.
On 1/10/22 07:50, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I meant that some people are genetically set up to be more plastic and dynamic
than others, and one way this manifests itself is in sexual preference. If one
finds a genetic signature for homosexuality, it could just be the deeper thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen
<geprope...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
One of the themes I've seen talks about a slight correlation between the
presence of homosexuality in a family with female fecundity (counter intuitive
to those who talk about homosexuals having children). Another theme is that
it's largely epigenetic; I suppose a slightly deeper in mechanism than Jochen's
hormonal proposition.
Both of those appeal to my sense that evolution doesn't separate lineage from ontogeny.
There's no crisp line between organism and family, no crisp line between families,
species, generations, or anything else, which approaches SteveS' third point. The
selection is as "fractal" as the crinkly space in which it arises.
I wish I were as libertarian as Marcus in this context, where we're all ideally
plastic and dynamic. But my sense is not only that historicity and accumulation
outstrip any plasticity, at least by our mid 30s or so, but also that there's
no place for will or intention in most feelings of orientation. It seems people
often feel fated or even trapped by their orientation. If it's plastic at all,
its trajectory is at least chaotic, not amenable to reverse engineering. But,
as Jochen points out, we're much less likely to engage in every speculation we
could because it's such a sensitive topic.
Thanks for all the ideas.
On 1/9/22 08:30, Steve Smith wrote:
A couple of things as yet not obviously (to me) introduced into this discussion:
1) Survival of the Fittest might better be Legacy Survival of the Fittest. Evolution depends
on successful *reproduction* and in fact, a string of successful reproductions. I have a number of
childless friends who came from parents with large families... but who only had 2 or fewer siblings
themselves and have few if any nieces and nephews. Their grandparent's "fecundity" has
officially petered out. I'm not saying this is a good nor a bad thing, just a break in the
"survival of the fittest" and an illustration that simply being good at spawning lots of
children isn't enough... they have to survive and then reproduce themselves, rinse, repeat.
2) Heredity/Evolotion 101 in college made the point that the "selfish"
gene for men suggests that one's nieces and nephews by a maternal sister are (closer to)
guaranteed to share 1/4 of his genes than the (best case) 1/2 for his own (presumed)
children (worst case 0%). The same (almost) logic applies to women who are childless
(for whatever reason)... their sister's children are a genetic legacy for them.
Entirely anecdotally, many of the (childless) gay men and women I know are pretty good
aunts and uncles... (though this can be explained many ways).
3) And of course, the object of heredity has shifted from the Gene to something much
larger, more fuzzy, and perhaps (much) more interesting? What *cultural* traits might
be positively correlated with being homosexual or more aptly ambi/bi/pan/poly sexual?
It is no longer exclusively the case that being gay deals you out of being a parent
(raising adopted children, en-vivo, en-vitro fertilization, etc), so one's contribution
can be to a continued *cultural* or *memetic* legacy of a "way of being" which
is very Lamarckian.
On 1/9/22 3:15 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
This topic is a minefield, because it is related like the controversial "race"
term to the personal identify. Black people for instance score higher in 100m or 200m
runs than white people as the data clearly shows, which means their genes somehow must
give them more power for this particular competition. Still all people belong to the
same race. As you know this topic is very controversial and precarious. For sex it is
similar.
There are genes for the two major sex hormones, estrogen for women and
testosterone for men. Males have one X and Y chromosome, females have two X
chromosomes. Therefore there are clearly genetic differences between men and
women.
Just how girls who are subject to estrogen develop an affection for boys is unclear. The
same for boys who are subject to testosterone in their development. My hypothesis is that
the mechanism works like "develop an affection for those who look the same but
different" during the time the sex hormones start to work. Once they have a
preference, addiction mechanisms kick in which tell the individuals to do more of that
which they like. Something like that where the target of affection is path dependent and
not completely hardwired.
In general I would say that homosexuality is a byproduct of the mating process.
This would explain why homosexuality continues to exist in evolutionary systems
although these individuals have less or no offspring. Like coal power plants
which produce CO2 and nuclear power plants which produce nuclear waste, the
mating process produces losers who lost for whatever reason in the competition
for mates and have no offspring. Among those some may pick a mate of the same
sex, because the sex drive is hard to ignore and not completely hardwired.
This is just my rough idea how it could work in principle. It can be wrong and
it is a delicate topic. There are many books about the sociologal and
psychological aspects of it. In the library I usually ignore them because it is
not a topic I am especially interested in. Therefore my knowledge is
incomplete in this area, and someone else here can probably explain it better.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: thompnicks...@gmail.com
Date: 1/9/22 01:39 (GMT+01:00)
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Well, first things first. Is there any evidence for a genetic basis for
homosexuality. You can, of course, have a trait that it is chromosomally
determined (if not genetically so) and still not heritable. Sex, for instance.
Sex is not heritable.
My assumption has always been that homosexuality might be influence by innate
factors, but not be heritable.
I haven’t read up on that subject for 2 decades.
Anybody know any facts?
n
Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
<https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>>
*From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
*Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:57 PM
*To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
It seems like such a dumb question to ask. Why should any preference have a
genetic basis? How about look for a gene that encodes a preference for plush
carpeting or a preference for Flamenco music? And what about those men that
like short women?! Maybe a man is kind of like a tall woman, on average?
And why would anyone expect that it would be bimodal? If it were what would
that tell us? One could imagine homosexuality is just one manifestation of
cognitive or emotional flexibility. That by itself would explain why it is
enduring, because those properties would give a person an advantage over less
flexible people. Some fraction of the people with that property have
heterosexual or bisexual relationships, and they reproduce and raise children
that thrive. The rigid (heterosexual) types in comparison are prone to making
the same kind of mistakes over and over and their children suffer for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ⛧glen
<geprope...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:13 PM
*To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
I'm in an ongoing argument with a gay friend about how tortured Darwinian arguments
are in accounting for homosexuality. He claims they're VERY torturous. I'm inclined
toward the first mentioned here: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
<https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486>
But, were group selection and/or cultural evolution a thing, then my friend
would be more right. Anyone here have a strong opinion?
--
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
<https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
<http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
--
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
