But why would this "evolutionary explanation for X" be any more bizarre than any other question?
That's what's interesting to me. I don't see people claiming that asking about, say, a new virus variant is a
bizarre question to ask. Why does the subject of homosexuality evoke accusations of "dumb" or
"bizarre"?
My guess is it's yet another manifestation of how sensitive the topic is.
On 1/12/22 13:36, David Eric Smith wrote:
The framing that this question has has always felt so bizarre to me, but I have
struggled to explain why, and what would not be bizarre. It feels like a bunch
of set-theoreticians sitting in armchairs arguing about what “awareness” “must
be like” so that they can predict it from their habitual formulations in
mathematical logic.
Why do male mammals have nipples? Because mammals have nipples. Why isn’t
that odd, that a strict suppression of all the developmental machinery that
creates nipples might not be “encoded” in some wildly fancy collection of genes
all localized within a Y chromosome? Because who the hell would bother with
all that, when one can just form them and not use them in half the members, and
not think about it further.
Correspondingly, what the hell is “attraction to men” or “attraction to women”
(in real, nuts and bolts operational terms?). Do we know? Does “evolution
know?” If nobody knows what it is, how could there ever be some maniacal
effort to localize it onto a sex chromosome? And even more, what to do when
sex determination isn’t alternation of chromosomes, but something bizarre and
asymmetric like XX/XY systems?
But if “nobody” knows what it is, and much of whatever “it is” is drawing from
lots of stuff across autosomes, then:
Why are some men attracted to men? Because lots of women are attracted to men.
Why are some women attracted to women? Because lots of men are attracted to
women.
How is the argument any different from any of D’arcy Thompson’s arguments?
If fish can determine sex facultatively according to environment, then the
overall project of getting two mating types (as the genders are referred to in
yeast) out of what is broadly “one genome” (+/- Y and +/- mitochondria) is a
pretty complicated, plastic, and signalable capacity. It seems like just the
kind of thing that wouldn’t repay the cost of hammering it down into some
strict program like nematode cell division or the lobster stomatogastric
complex’s operations.
The whole bizarreness in this seems to me like it comes somehow from what
people assign as “traits” and then insist there must be “explanations for”. It
would be as bad as taking a word (like “emergence”) and then going on and on
arguing about what it “really means”. Oh, sorry… that was a different hobby
horse.
Eric
On Jan 12, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Re potential evolutionary explanations for homosexuality: They really don't
have to be very convoluted at all.
I prepared a worksheet for a class 15 or so years ago, after a bunch of students starting
trying use homosexuality as proof that evolution couldn't explain (any) behavior. I'd rather
just link to the blog... but to make things easier for other's, I'll also copy-paste below:
Fixing Psychology: Evolution and Homosexuality
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffixingpsychology.blogspot.com%2f2012%2f03%2fevolution-and-homosexuality.html&c=E,1,fjB6y7zacZOW2c99wRxey5Lby--zc7qrZ3QNS4epbVLVKj_YkeEkujyM9uAGrhOPS5wAlhjLdkWXrmPWxwBRI48IRm6U1Birh_yrq8AhxQB74qgzHQzsT2TH_mpF&typo=1>
====================
Evolution and Homosexuality
Evolutionary theorists could potentially explain homosexuality using three
distinct methods. The first two take the modern notion of homosexuality at face
value, the third questions it.
1. Explain homosexuality as a benefit in and of itself.
The most straightforward way to explain the presence of any trait using
evolutionary logic is to tell a story about how individuals with that trait
reproduce their genes better than those without the trait. In the case of
exclusive homosexuality, that is difficult, because homosexuals do not
reproduce. However, it is still possible.
For example, a costly traits may be so helpful to your relatives (i.e., your
kin) that it more than makes up for the cost you pay. This is called “kin
selection”. Your children will share 50% of your genes, so we can give them a
value of .5 in terms of your reproduction. A full sibling’s children share 25%
of your genes, so we can give them a value of .25. That means that if you
posses a trait that makes you have one less child on average (-.5), but you get
three more nephews or nieces in exchange (+.75), natural selection will favor
that trait (= .25). On average, the next generation will have more of your
genes by virtue of your possessing a trait that makes you have fewer children.
This explanation could be even more powerful when applied your own parents,
i.e., helping raise your brothers and sisters, with whom you share as many
genes as your own children (both .5).
If that was the explanation for human homosexuality, what might you also expect
to be true of homosexuality?
2. Explain homosexuality as a byproduct of other adaptive mechanisms.
There are many types of explanations compatible with evolutionary theory, but
that do not explain the traits under questions as adaptations in and of
themselves. In one way or another, these explanations explain traits as the
byproduct of some other adaptive process. The trait in question could be a
necessary byproduct of two evolutionarily sound items; for example, an armpit
appears when you combine a torso with an arm, but no animal was ever selected
specifically for having armpits! Alternatively, the trait in question could be
the result of an adaptive mechanism placed in an unusual context; for example,
evolution favored humans that desired sweet and fatty food in an environment
where such things were rare; now that we are in an environment where such
things are plentiful, this desire can cause serious health problems.
Homosexuality could be explainable in terms of biological or psychological
mechanisms acting appropriately in odd circumstances, or as a byproduct of
selection for other beneficial traits.
If that explanation were correct, what types of traits might humans have been
selected for that could result in homosexuality when pushed to the extreme or
placed in unusual circumstances?
3. Reject the notion of homosexuality as it is currently conceived and offer
new categories.
Evolutionary thinking often necessitates a rejection of old categories and the
creation of new ones. The current systems of dividing the world may not be
relevant to answering evolutionary questions. The labels “Homosexual” and
“Heterosexual” may be good examples. The modern notions of strict homo vs.
hetero-sexuality arose relatively recently. It has never been bizarrely
uncommon for women or men to live together or to set up long term relationships
with members of the same sex. What is relatively new is the notion that this
can divide people into types, some who exclusively do one thing and some who
exclusively do another. A so-called homosexual man need only have sex with a
woman once to have a baby, and visa versa. While this is now the stuff of
comedic amusement, it may be a much more natural context for homosexuality.
There may be no reason to think that so-called homosexuals of the past got
pregnant, or impregnated others, less often than so-called hetersexuals.
If this is the case, would there necessarily be any selection for or against
preferring the relatively exclusive company of same-sex others? What possible
benefits could there be to raising children in a “homosexual” environment? (Hey
now, don’t bring moral judgment into this, it is only a question of surviving
and thriving.)
<mailto:echar...@american.edu>
============================
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM ⛧ glen <geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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
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/
