That makes sense to me, Eric. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:02 PM Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > Frank, > Sexual orientation being associated with hormonal concentrations during > pregnancy would be a mark in favor of the spandrel arguement: There are > important, dynamic, developmental processes that lead to sexual-attraction > biases. Those processes are perturbed by various environmental factors, but > have a strong degree of equifinality regarding various parts of the > process. Those perterbations, plus the corrective mechanisms, sometimes > leads to homosexuality, bisexuality, and all sorts of other things. Even > though that sometimes happens, so far the selective forces have found it > better to sometimes do that than to try to mess with the developmental > processes enough to avoid ever having such outcomes. So, it's a thing that > happens sometimes, and it doesn't really affect selection as much as one > might think. It is a pretty neutral outcome that sometimes happens at the > intersection of some really important processes. > > > > <[email protected]> > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:21 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What about the evidence that sexual orientation may be associated with >> testosterone or estrogen concentrations in the womb during pregnancy. >> These may interact with unspecified genetic factors. >> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/ >> >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You’re probably right. >>> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps bonobo sexuality is the primitive state. >>> >>> >>> >>> “Bub” >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:33 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> No, no, no... you have the pedagogical point backwards... They are >>> starting with some weird view that homosexuals are people who are >>> absolutely exclusively sleeping with members of the same sex. You can't >>> start from that and be like "Yeah, but once you're in the harem, there you >>> are! Am I right!" Forget that fact that a huge number of gay men you and I >>> know were at one point married and have kids, that's no the student's >>> starting point (or at least it wasn't 20 years ago). If you start with the >>> harems, then they will knee jerk "That's not real homosexuality, that's not >>> what I'm talking about." To avoid that knee-jerk, you need to start by >>> pointing out that even if their naive take on the phenomenon is correct, it >>> still might not be that hard to explain evolutionarily. >>> >>> >>> >>> Once they are reminded that it's pretty easy math to have >>> helpful-for-kin traits selected for, then you can offer the intermediary >>> spandrel/exaptation option which gets them thinking that maybe there might >>> be more to the discussion than they originally thought, and THEN you can >>> point out that their initial premises might also just be complete garbage. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, re Marcus's take: I think that would be a variation of the >>> spandrel/exaptation explanation..... Look, bub, it's pretty important to >>> get natural selection going that people want to have sex. So you need a >>> very reliable method of creating attraction, and you generally want it to >>> be men attracted to women and women attracted to men. But the first part, >>> the "attracted to someone" part is probably far more important than the >>> "exactly who are you attracted to" part. As such, it's really not all that >>> surprising to find men attracted to men and women attracted to women, and >>> it's not clear that any special explanation beyond that is needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:32 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Eric, >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this an excellent capper to an excellent discussion. I wish >>> somebody would scrape it, perhaps edit to make it more readable, and file >>> it somewhere amongst Friam’s Greatest Hits. Somewhere, somebody should >>> have reminded us that GenesFur X are really just genes that, in some >>> devious say or other, make X more likely. Is a genefur grooming a gene >>> for maintaining group resistance to parasites, a gene for, building social >>> relationships or both. If you asked the gene, it would say, “I really >>> don’t care.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Still, I might divide things up a bit differently. >>> >>> >>> >>> *1.** Homosexuality benefits the homosexual.* By hanging around >>> the harem, ostensibly interested only in sex with the haremmor, he has >>> unfettered access to the haremmees. Given the high reproductive rate of >>> haremmees, he only has to “slip up” a couple of times to be in good shape, >>> reproductively. This assumes that the haremmers have pretty much locked up >>> the females in the group. Game theorists call this the sneaky fucker >>> strategy. >>> >>> *2.** Group Selection Arguments: *Group level adaptations could >>> be triggered facultatively when infant and juvenile individuals receive >>> cues that their particular individual future reproductive environment is >>> bleak. >>> >>> 1. *Homosexuality benefits the Parents of the homosexual. *This is >>> the kinselection argument laid out by Eric, with its group selection >>> element made explicate. Homosexuals assist in the reproduction of >>> their >>> siblings. Here the group is the relatively efficient offspring- >>> group of >>> gene-bearing parents. >>> 2. *Homosexuality benefits the small group of which the >>> homosexual’s family is part. *Groups with one or more strongly >>> bonded males are more productive of offspring than groups without. >>> Think >>> Slime molds. >>> >>> I wasn’t sure that erics #3 isn’t so much an alternative as the cultural >>> level description of the consequences of the others. >>> >>> >>> >>> N >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 12:04 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >>> >>> >>> >>> 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://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolution-and-homosexuality.html> >>> >>> >>> >>> ==================== >>> >>> >>> 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.) >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM ⛧ glen <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> But, were group selection and/or cultural evolution a thing, then my >>> friend would be more right. Anyone here have a strong opinion? >>> >>> -- >>> glen ⛧ >>> >>> >>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - >>> . >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - >>> . >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - >>> . >>> 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/ >>> >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> 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/ >> > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > 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/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
