I hope that one day in my lifetime every single practitioner of "evolutionary psychology" finds themselves conflagrated for no apparent reason, leading to the publishing of a paper stating that clearly in their natural state, humans were meant to conflagrate for no reason.
buncha psuedo-scientific silly geese.
It's useful on some topics. I'm pretty sure that phobias have a strong evolutionary cause.
Possibly addiction, too. Maybe.
But that's a discussion we've had many times before.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I hope that one day in my lifetime every single practitioner of "evolutionary psychology" finds themselves conflagrated for no apparent reason, leading to the publishing of a paper stating that clearly in their natural state, humans were meant to conflagrate for no reason.
buncha psuedo-scientific silly geese.
I think it's more likely that, during your lifetime, evo-psych might actually become a science. It's problem now is a complete lack of good evidense.
At the rate things are going, it might very well be possible for a combination of archeology and (more importantly) genetics / neuroscience to make claims about human behavior as it relates to evolution.
Where we are right now is at the stage of "we think, maybe, that a fear of the smell of certain chemicals in rotting human flesh and of snakes may be inhereited." In 20 years it might actually be possible to test claims the like of which evo-psych wankers make today.
It's useful on some topics. I'm pretty sure that phobias have a strong evolutionary cause.
Possibly addiction, too. Maybe.
But that's a discussion we've had many times before.
The problem i have mostly stems from the fact that there's already an academic branch of inquiry into this sort of thing. it's called "cultural anthropology" and it's been around a lot longer than richard dawkins. That and Evolutionary psych has a nasty habit of using nothing but conjectural papers with no research or data to back it up. It's the same problem cultural anthropology had about 100 years ago. It got over it, evo-psych hasn't yet.
It's useful on some topics. I'm pretty sure that phobias have a strong evolutionary cause.
Possibly addiction, too. Maybe.
But that's a discussion we've had many times before.
The problem i have mostly stems from the fact that there's already an academic branch of inquiry into this sort of thing. it's called "cultural anthropology" and it's been around a lot longer than richard dawkins. That and Evolutionary psych has a nasty habit of using nothing but conjectural papers with no research or data to back it up. It's the same problem cultural anthropology had about 100 years ago. It got over it, evo-psych hasn't yet.
You're not going to find much argument from me.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Just from anecdotal experience, I think that monogamy is the norm that is promoted, but a ridiculous number of people cheat and/or do not find a monogamous lifestyle enjoyable.
I am going to defer back to what Riemann said as well, in a way.
The main problem with this article, and other works that profess an "evo psych" origin for an aspect of human behavior, or that attempt to relate contemporary human behavior to "ancestral humans" is always the same.
Namely, that the individual in question simply lacks the credentials to be making the statements they are making, either in evolutionary biology or anthropology. Additionally, the larger problem are the logical leaps from "ancestral humans did X" (not that this isn't ALSO a large leap) to "obviously we are hard-wired for this kind of behavior!" or "X behavior is better or more natural"
You have to look at the political reasons for polygamy in ancient times, too. Kings took many wives because more wives = more children. I don't think love was a big factor.
Up until fairly recently, the only people who tended to marry for love were the poor. For the wealthy classes, marriage was a political/economic alliance between the families, with the actual husband and wife having little say in the matter.
And men have almost always had more opportunities to enjoy multiple sexual partners.
Well, even the poor didn't always marry for love. Women had the pressure of getting married by a certain age, and the inability to provide for themselves. Combine the two and you have a lot of marriages that are about social and financial security.
Women still are pressured to get married by a certain age. Some of that has to do with society's expectation that everyone ought to settle down and make babies.
But the reasoning behind this is all fucked up, as I guess the consensus is. If the alleged results of becoming an agricultural society are unnatural, is it being a settled, agricultural society itself that is unnatural? Is the author promoting abandoning monogamy? Should he by extension promote abandoning the root of the problem too, and becoming a hunter-gatherer society again?
I don't necessarily disagree that monogamy is fucked up, but I think this is a weird way to come at it.
Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything. Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly universal in their so-called "fierce egalitarianism." Sharing is not just encouraged; it's mandatory.
Is not true in the case of kinship, as I seem to recall that even modern hunter gatherers had notions of marriage, and if I recall have a similar kinship pattern to Inuits; which is to say that there are distinct monogamous (or mostly monogamous) family units within the tribe.
What I think is wrong is the conception that marriage is for life. Why does it have to be? These days most everyone has their own income, their own retirement money, their own car. I think the high divorce rate is just an expression of their no longer being financial pressure to stay married. What we need to do is to take the animus out of it. Society needs to realize that relationships have courses. Sure, some people may be together forever. But some people will simply grow apart. When a relationship has reached its end it should not be artificially enforced by society.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Why can't it be "some people are not comfortable with monogamy" and as long as everybody involved is on the same page, no one gives a shit?
Why does the idea of "natural" monogamy need to be disproved and torn down?
Personally, I think (and this is not directed at anyone in this thread) that most people don't actually like a plurality of ideas and would rather everyone agreed with them and adhered to their worldview. So people come up with ideas about what humans really "should" be to promote that worldview as the ones everyone should have.
Very rarely will anyone admit, even to themselves, that they want everyone to be just like them, but their actions usually speak otherwise.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Which brings me back to my point- This guy doesn't actually know anything about hunter-gatherers today, and thus I don't think he is qualified to make predictions about, and draw inferences from, the fallacious notion of ancestral homo sapien culture.
Additionally that is another striking criticism of the science of Evo-Psych in general; the "ancestral cultural state" or "ancestral behaviors" are by and large guesswork, and largely the matter of intense scientific dispute, so attempting to use them to illustrate a point is an exercise not only in futility but also dishonest.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything. Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly universal in their so-called "fierce egalitarianism." Sharing is not just encouraged; it's mandatory.
Is not true in the case of kinship, as I seem to recall that even modern hunter gatherers had notions of marriage, and if I recall have a similar kinship pattern to Inuits; which is to say that there are distinct monogamous (or mostly monogamous) family units within the tribe.
Yeah, this varies from group to group, but the idea that hunter-gatherers are all about free love with no restrictions on sexual behavior (and other behavior, for that matter) doesn't really hold up to ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherers.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Of course the vole can't think about it's partner bond. However, I believe that the title of this thread is "is monogamy natural for our sexy species" there is research that strongly suggests yes, we have brains wired for singly partner bonding.
Whether that jives well with how our society is organized is another matter. Whether we currently single partner bond in a healthy natural way, remains to be seen.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Also the notion that modern hunter gatherer societies are models for ancestral human culture and behaviors is at least to me, academically very shaky.
I don't think they are a very accurate model, given that there are large differences in many many areas of their lives relative to the conditions and world that our "ancestors" lived in.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Of course the vole can't think about it's partner bond. However, I believe that the title of this thread is "is monogamy natural for our sexy species" there is research that strongly suggests yes, we have brains wired for singly partner bonding.
Whether that jives well with how our society is organized is another matter. Whether we currently single partner bond in a healthy natural way, remains to be seen.
Not to be a jerkbutte, but do you have citations for this?
I am very interested, especially in the part about comparative brain morphology/chemistry between humans and voles.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Of course the vole can't think about it's partner bond. However, I believe that the title of this thread is "is monogamy natural for our sexy species" there is research that strongly suggests yes, we have brains wired for singly partner bonding.
Whether that jives well with how our society is organized is another matter. Whether we currently single partner bond in a healthy natural way, remains to be seen.
Oh. Right then.
I would however, dispute that how are brains are determine what is "natural". Even 10k years ago we would have brains adapted to living in society. Society, to an extent, is natural for us. It might be more prudent to say that we are geared towards serial monogamy. I am not entirely sure that is true either though. I think we are geared towards serial emotional attachments and not necessarily monogamous sexual relationships.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
The main problem with this article, and other works that profess an "evo psych" origin for an aspect of human behavior, or that attempt to relate contemporary human behavior to "ancestral humans" is always the same.
Namely, that the individual in question simply lacks the credentials to be making the statements they are making, either in evolutionary biology or anthropology.
That is not a problem. You don't need credentials to study something or understand something.
There exist a class of people who can be considered self-educated experts. There are autodidacts. The problem is going to exist in someone's argument or data, not in their credentials. Lack of credentials in this context is a non-problem. This is a variant of the argument from authority fallacy.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Of course the vole can't think about it's partner bond. However, I believe that the title of this thread is "is monogamy natural for our sexy species" there is research that strongly suggests yes, we have brains wired for singly partner bonding.
Whether that jives well with how our society is organized is another matter. Whether we currently single partner bond in a healthy natural way, remains to be seen.
Not to be a jerkbutte, but do you have citations for this?
I am very interested, especially in the part about comparative brain morphology/chemistry between humans and voles.
As for the morphology, I don't have any links to anything on that. That is information I got from a talk that Patricia Churchland gave at a conference I went to back in January. If I'm reading my notes correctly, the similarities are in proportional size. Both types of voles have the particular brain structures, but one has them much larger than the other, as humans seem to have proportionally sized receptors to the monogamous voles it doesn't seem too far out on a limb to suspect something's up there. It seems like this trend in research started based on something done in 1975, so I imagine that there will be more along these lines in the future.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding.
...
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Right. The oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine responses we see in response to mate or partner-oriented stimuli (like a photo or a voice recording) peak early in the relationship and taper off significantly after 6-12 months of dating. If we're neurologically monogamists, we're neurologically serial monogamists.
Open relationship folks talk a lot about NRE - "new relationship energy" - and this is what they're talking about. There are social and emotional benefits to having a long-term partner, but there's also the chemical high you get from dating somebody new. A really common motivation behind open relationships is to enjoy the benefits of both.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
BTW, the dopamine response you refer to with addiction, that we also see with mating and sex, also occurs with food. It stimulates motor activity in response to some cue in the environment that we're close to a reward. So it's probably not so much that addiction is a misfire of mating circuits, but more that addiction is a misfire of motivational circuits (that also happen to be used for mating, foraging, and other evolved behaviors).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Honestly, I'm not even going to touch the matter of the author and his own direct claims, I think the rest of you can handle that :P.
I do, however, have an interest in discussing monogamy, because I think it's interesting to discuss what actual benefits we derive from it.
A thing to point out is that even species that mate for life, there is a significant amount of "cheating". This leads me to believe that infidelity is, even among species that have evolved the tendency for monogamy, a reproductive strategy that gets selected for.
Neurochemistry suggests that yes, we are naturally monogamous. Though monogamous I believe in that context is only one partner at a time, not one partner for the rest of your life.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding.
...
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Right. The oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine responses we see in response to mate or partner-oriented stimuli (like a photo or a voice recording) peak early in the relationship and taper off significantly after 6-12 months of dating. If we're neurologically monogamists, we're neurologically serial monogamists.
Open relationship folks talk a lot about NRE - "new relationship energy" - and this is what they're talking about. There are social and emotional benefits to having a long-term partner, but there's also the chemical high you get from dating somebody new. A really common motivation behind open relationships is to enjoy the benefits of both.
I didn't know about the tapering off. You have citations for that? I think the whole thing is fascinating.
I'm a die hard monogamist, but I don't hate on the polyamory. I just can't for the life of me understand living in that kind of situation. It just wouldn't work for me. I'm loathe to call anything that anyone does that is fulfilling and nurtures what I believe is the natural human instinct to form intimate relationships with another person "un-natural" (or wrong for that matter). Whether they form one intimate relationship or many at a time is their business.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well, what people often don't realize that evolution could select for two seemingly mutually conflicting behaviors, and for conflict itself.
For instance, if evolution selected for sexual promiscuity it could, and likely even most likely would also selected for jealousy or similar such behavior designed to limit the sexual promiscuity of your partner. There's no reason why you can't develop hypocritical behaviors. It may be beneficial to be in a monogamous relationship but also to sleep around when you get the chance, but still demand that your partner be monogamous.
I don't think that we're equipped to comment all that much at the moment, but it seems like more often than not humans make long-term partnerships rather than group relationships. Except when they don't.
I would say that whether or not it's natural isn't really going to matter much, though.
I'd say any answer would be more likely a reflection of the belief system of the person answering than the actual state of affairs.
Well, what people often don't realize that evolution could select for two seemingly mutually conflicting behaviors, and for conflict itself.
For instance, if evolution selected for sexual promiscuity it could, and likely even most likely would also selected for jealousy or similar such behavior designed to limit the sexual promiscuity of your partner. There's no reason why you can't develop hypocritical behaviors. It may be beneficial to be in a monogamous relationship but also to sleep around when you get the chance, but still demand that your partner be monogamous.
Mainly because one of your your primary drives as a biological entity is to spread your genes around as much as possible. Since nature usually treats sexual reproduction as a competitive, zero-sum game, developing behavior that spreads your genes around but limits the spread of competitors' genes is a given. This more or less would explain both sexual desire for other people and jealousy towards people showing interest in your partner.
On the other hand, emotional/romantic attachment to a single person makes sense because it simplifies the emotional bonds that would keep a family unit together. It ideally satisfies the drive for sexual reproduction and minimizes potential sexual competition.
Well, what people often don't realize that evolution could select for two seemingly mutually conflicting behaviors, and for conflict itself.
For instance, if evolution selected for sexual promiscuity it could, and likely even most likely would also selected for jealousy or similar such behavior designed to limit the sexual promiscuity of your partner. There's no reason why you can't develop hypocritical behaviors. It may be beneficial to be in a monogamous relationship but also to sleep around when you get the chance, but still demand that your partner be monogamous.
Mainly because one of your your primary drives as a biological entity is to spread your genes around as much as possible. Since nature usually treats sexual reproduction as a competitive, zero-sum game, developing behavior that spreads your genes around but limits the spread of competitors' genes is a given. This more or less would explain both sexual desire for other people and jealousy towards people showing interest in your partner.
On the other hand, emotional/romantic attachment to a single person makes sense because it simplifies the emotional bonds that would keep a family unit together. It ideally satisfies the drive for sexual reproduction and minimizes potential sexual competition.
Well, it's interesting when you really do begin to investigate the benefits of pair-bonding and where it develops.
I think something like pair bonding is mostly seen in species where there is a significant investment of resources that is required to raise offspring. For instance birds that have to look after eggs or animals who have young with long adolescences. But a strong social environment usually supersedes the need to pair-bond. If you look at societies of pack mammals and apes they don't generally have monogamy, but rather a long-term relationship between an alpha male and/or alpha female and the entire rest of the pack. The entire social group bands together to raise young, so the investment doesn't have to fall on the parents. The truth is that we're most closely related to those animals than any others on Earth.
I tend to think that asking "Is X natural?" are mostly bizzare. Either everything is natural, or nothing is natural. Striving to articulate which exact qualities differentiate a "natural" thing from a "non-natural" thing is mostly entirely impossible.
Then there is the problem of trying to equate "natural" and "good".
It is probably more sensible to articulate the question as "Is monogamy or polygamy more productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc.?" Then we need to construct a universal rubric for assessing each of those, argue for a long time, fail to resolve anything, and move on to more interesting discussions.
I tend to think that asking "Is X natural?" are mostly bizzare. Either everything is natural, or nothing is natural. Striving to articulate which exact qualities differentiate a "natural" thing from a "non-natural" thing is mostly entirely impossible.
Then there is the problem of trying to equate "natural" and "good".
It is probably more sensible to articulate the question as "Is monogamy or polygamy more productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc.?" Then we need to construct a universal rubric for assessing each of those, argue for a long time, fail to resolve anything, and move on to more interesting discussions.
_J_, I actually 100% absolutely agree with you here. Natural, I think, is a word that, outside of convenience, should not even exist.
Though I would say the original question would be re-framed not as "Is monogamy or polygamy more productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc.?" but rather as "Does monogamy or polygamy more conflict with our genetic/cultural evolution up to this point, and does that have an impact on how productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc. it is?", though I could see this interpretation as bleeding over into a lot of arguments about evolutionary psychology.
"Does monogamy or polygamy more conflict with our genetic/cultural evolution up to this point, and does that have an impact on how productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc. it is?"
I think we can ignore the first part of that question "genetic/cultural evolution" if we are at all concerned with the second part "productive / useful / efficient / beneficial".
Said another way: Is it necessary to incorporate information regarding how X has come to be in order to assess the productivity / usefulness / efficiency / benefits of X?
"Does monogamy or polygamy more conflict with our genetic/cultural evolution up to this point, and does that have an impact on how productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc. it is?"
I think we can ignore the first part of that question "genetic/cultural evolution" if we are at all concerned with the second part "productive / useful / efficient / beneficial".
Said another way: Is it necessary to incorporate information regarding how X has come to be in order to assess the productivity / usefulness / efficiency / benefits of X?
It certainly can have an effect, particularly because of the way evolution works. Ideally it is producing a most stable environment. If a (relatively) short-term change goes against old genes or memes, you produce a conflict. It's not impossible that our culture could've changed towards monogamy that conflicts with historical values that still exist in society or biological predispositions towards certain behavior.
Of course, in a long term sense, you'd have to suppose that either monogamy is going to die out or the genes/old memes that oppose it are going to die out. But in the short term it can produce explanations for why monogamy sometimes doesn't work.
It certainly can have an effect, particularly because of the way evolution works. Ideally it is producing a most stable environment. If a (relatively) short-term change goes against old genes or memes, you produce a conflict. It's not impossible that our culture could've changed towards monogamy that conflicts with historical values that still exist in society or biological predispositions towards certain behavior.
Of course, in a long term sense, you'd have to suppose that either monogamy is going to die out or the genes/old memes that oppose it are going to die out. But in the short term it can produce explanations for why monogamy sometimes doesn't work.
That makes sense if we assume we are causally determined, or somehow controlled or influenced by, the past. Which seems like a sensible assumption. Articulating how / why that is the case, though, could be problematic.
It certainly can have an effect, particularly because of the way evolution works. Ideally it is producing a most stable environment. If a (relatively) short-term change goes against old genes or memes, you produce a conflict. It's not impossible that our culture could've changed towards monogamy that conflicts with historical values that still exist in society or biological predispositions towards certain behavior.
Of course, in a long term sense, you'd have to suppose that either monogamy is going to die out or the genes/old memes that oppose it are going to die out. But in the short term it can produce explanations for why monogamy sometimes doesn't work.
That makes sense if we assume we are causally determined, or somehow controlled or influenced by, the past. Which seems like a sensible assumption. Articulating how / why that is the case, though, could be problematic.
This is not a free will thread. :P
For what it's worth, empirical evidence highly suggests we have a large (if not complete) causal component to our behavior.
But I thought you were a rationalist so I can guess how you feel about empirical evidence.
Posts
Evo-Psych thread in disguise, meet your mantra for the rest of time. (Riemann, I reworded it a bit to make it more applicable)
It's useful on some topics. I'm pretty sure that phobias have a strong evolutionary cause.
Possibly addiction, too. Maybe.
But that's a discussion we've had many times before.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think it's more likely that, during your lifetime, evo-psych might actually become a science. It's problem now is a complete lack of good evidense.
At the rate things are going, it might very well be possible for a combination of archeology and (more importantly) genetics / neuroscience to make claims about human behavior as it relates to evolution.
Where we are right now is at the stage of "we think, maybe, that a fear of the smell of certain chemicals in rotting human flesh and of snakes may be inhereited." In 20 years it might actually be possible to test claims the like of which evo-psych wankers make today.
The problem i have mostly stems from the fact that there's already an academic branch of inquiry into this sort of thing. it's called "cultural anthropology" and it's been around a lot longer than richard dawkins. That and Evolutionary psych has a nasty habit of using nothing but conjectural papers with no research or data to back it up. It's the same problem cultural anthropology had about 100 years ago. It got over it, evo-psych hasn't yet.
You're not going to find much argument from me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The main problem with this article, and other works that profess an "evo psych" origin for an aspect of human behavior, or that attempt to relate contemporary human behavior to "ancestral humans" is always the same.
Namely, that the individual in question simply lacks the credentials to be making the statements they are making, either in evolutionary biology or anthropology. Additionally, the larger problem are the logical leaps from "ancestral humans did X" (not that this isn't ALSO a large leap) to "obviously we are hard-wired for this kind of behavior!" or "X behavior is better or more natural"
Why can't it be "some people are not comfortable with monogamy" and as long as everybody involved is on the same page, no one gives a shit?
Why does the idea of "natural" monogamy need to be disproved and torn down?
Women still are pressured to get married by a certain age. Some of that has to do with society's expectation that everyone ought to settle down and make babies.
But the reasoning behind this is all fucked up, as I guess the consensus is. If the alleged results of becoming an agricultural society are unnatural, is it being a settled, agricultural society itself that is unnatural? Is the author promoting abandoning monogamy? Should he by extension promote abandoning the root of the problem too, and becoming a hunter-gatherer society again?
I don't necessarily disagree that monogamy is fucked up, but I think this is a weird way to come at it.
Is not true in the case of kinship, as I seem to recall that even modern hunter gatherers had notions of marriage, and if I recall have a similar kinship pattern to Inuits; which is to say that there are distinct monogamous (or mostly monogamous) family units within the tribe.
but they're listening to every word I say
Very rarely will anyone admit, even to themselves, that they want everyone to be just like them, but their actions usually speak otherwise.
Oxytocin and Vasopressin are both neurochemicals involved in long term partner bonding. The neurological structure of human brains is similar to a particular species of prairie vole who has reliably formed deep monogamous bonds. Montane voles, on the other hand, seem to have a differing structure, and consequently are a polygamous species.
In addition, and something that's kind of neat. The reaction that most people have to seeing pictures of their mate is similar to the effect of cocaine or heroin in the brain, seemingly suggesting that drug addition might have something to do with a hiccup in the natural process of partner bonding.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.amazon.com/Commitment-Love-Sex-Marriage-Family/dp/0525949070
but they're listening to every word I say
Additionally that is another striking criticism of the science of Evo-Psych in general; the "ancestral cultural state" or "ancestral behaviors" are by and large guesswork, and largely the matter of intense scientific dispute, so attempting to use them to illustrate a point is an exercise not only in futility but also dishonest.
That, while interesting, is hardly compelling. How long does a vole live? Does it ever get dissatisfied with the other vole's role in the relationship?
Things are far more complex for us than a vole. I doubt the vole would even ever have the thought to reconsider its pair bond. It is acting on instinct.
but they're listening to every word I say
Yeah, this varies from group to group, but the idea that hunter-gatherers are all about free love with no restrictions on sexual behavior (and other behavior, for that matter) doesn't really hold up to ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherers.
Indeed, which is why I stipulated that monogamy is one partner at a time, not one partner forever and ever locked in holy matrimony.
Of course the vole can't think about it's partner bond. However, I believe that the title of this thread is "is monogamy natural for our sexy species" there is research that strongly suggests yes, we have brains wired for singly partner bonding.
Whether that jives well with how our society is organized is another matter. Whether we currently single partner bond in a healthy natural way, remains to be seen.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't think they are a very accurate model, given that there are large differences in many many areas of their lives relative to the conditions and world that our "ancestors" lived in.
Not to be a jerkbutte, but do you have citations for this?
I am very interested, especially in the part about comparative brain morphology/chemistry between humans and voles.
Oh. Right then.
I would however, dispute that how are brains are determine what is "natural". Even 10k years ago we would have brains adapted to living in society. Society, to an extent, is natural for us. It might be more prudent to say that we are geared towards serial monogamy. I am not entirely sure that is true either though. I think we are geared towards serial emotional attachments and not necessarily monogamous sexual relationships.
but they're listening to every word I say
"LoL naturalistic fallacy"
That is not a problem. You don't need credentials to study something or understand something.
This guy has a degree in philosophy, and yet his opinions on economics are valued by this guy often above those who actually have relevant credentials.
There exist a class of people who can be considered self-educated experts. There are autodidacts. The problem is going to exist in someone's argument or data, not in their credentials. Lack of credentials in this context is a non-problem. This is a variant of the argument from authority fallacy.
This talks about pair bonding in prairie voles.
As does this. This also gives your some brain slides.
As for the morphology, I don't have any links to anything on that. That is information I got from a talk that Patricia Churchland gave at a conference I went to back in January. If I'm reading my notes correctly, the similarities are in proportional size. Both types of voles have the particular brain structures, but one has them much larger than the other, as humans seem to have proportionally sized receptors to the monogamous voles it doesn't seem too far out on a limb to suspect something's up there. It seems like this trend in research started based on something done in 1975, so I imagine that there will be more along these lines in the future.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Right. The oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine responses we see in response to mate or partner-oriented stimuli (like a photo or a voice recording) peak early in the relationship and taper off significantly after 6-12 months of dating. If we're neurologically monogamists, we're neurologically serial monogamists.
Open relationship folks talk a lot about NRE - "new relationship energy" - and this is what they're talking about. There are social and emotional benefits to having a long-term partner, but there's also the chemical high you get from dating somebody new. A really common motivation behind open relationships is to enjoy the benefits of both.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I do, however, have an interest in discussing monogamy, because I think it's interesting to discuss what actual benefits we derive from it.
A thing to point out is that even species that mate for life, there is a significant amount of "cheating". This leads me to believe that infidelity is, even among species that have evolved the tendency for monogamy, a reproductive strategy that gets selected for.
I didn't know about the tapering off. You have citations for that? I think the whole thing is fascinating.
I'm a die hard monogamist, but I don't hate on the polyamory. I just can't for the life of me understand living in that kind of situation. It just wouldn't work for me. I'm loathe to call anything that anyone does that is fulfilling and nurtures what I believe is the natural human instinct to form intimate relationships with another person "un-natural" (or wrong for that matter). Whether they form one intimate relationship or many at a time is their business.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
For instance, if evolution selected for sexual promiscuity it could, and likely even most likely would also selected for jealousy or similar such behavior designed to limit the sexual promiscuity of your partner. There's no reason why you can't develop hypocritical behaviors. It may be beneficial to be in a monogamous relationship but also to sleep around when you get the chance, but still demand that your partner be monogamous.
I would say that whether or not it's natural isn't really going to matter much, though.
I'd say any answer would be more likely a reflection of the belief system of the person answering than the actual state of affairs.
I'll get back to you when I manage to find two or more at the same time.
Mainly because one of your your primary drives as a biological entity is to spread your genes around as much as possible. Since nature usually treats sexual reproduction as a competitive, zero-sum game, developing behavior that spreads your genes around but limits the spread of competitors' genes is a given. This more or less would explain both sexual desire for other people and jealousy towards people showing interest in your partner.
On the other hand, emotional/romantic attachment to a single person makes sense because it simplifies the emotional bonds that would keep a family unit together. It ideally satisfies the drive for sexual reproduction and minimizes potential sexual competition.
if someone really want to have sex with a lot of different people, just do it before you get married.
Well, it's interesting when you really do begin to investigate the benefits of pair-bonding and where it develops.
I think something like pair bonding is mostly seen in species where there is a significant investment of resources that is required to raise offspring. For instance birds that have to look after eggs or animals who have young with long adolescences. But a strong social environment usually supersedes the need to pair-bond. If you look at societies of pack mammals and apes they don't generally have monogamy, but rather a long-term relationship between an alpha male and/or alpha female and the entire rest of the pack. The entire social group bands together to raise young, so the investment doesn't have to fall on the parents. The truth is that we're most closely related to those animals than any others on Earth.
I tend to think that asking "Is X natural?" are mostly bizzare. Either everything is natural, or nothing is natural. Striving to articulate which exact qualities differentiate a "natural" thing from a "non-natural" thing is mostly entirely impossible.
Then there is the problem of trying to equate "natural" and "good".
It is probably more sensible to articulate the question as "Is monogamy or polygamy more productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc.?" Then we need to construct a universal rubric for assessing each of those, argue for a long time, fail to resolve anything, and move on to more interesting discussions.
_J_, I actually 100% absolutely agree with you here. Natural, I think, is a word that, outside of convenience, should not even exist.
Though I would say the original question would be re-framed not as "Is monogamy or polygamy more productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc.?" but rather as "Does monogamy or polygamy more conflict with our genetic/cultural evolution up to this point, and does that have an impact on how productive / useful / efficient / beneficial / etc. it is?", though I could see this interpretation as bleeding over into a lot of arguments about evolutionary psychology.
I think we can ignore the first part of that question "genetic/cultural evolution" if we are at all concerned with the second part "productive / useful / efficient / beneficial".
Said another way: Is it necessary to incorporate information regarding how X has come to be in order to assess the productivity / usefulness / efficiency / benefits of X?
It certainly can have an effect, particularly because of the way evolution works. Ideally it is producing a most stable environment. If a (relatively) short-term change goes against old genes or memes, you produce a conflict. It's not impossible that our culture could've changed towards monogamy that conflicts with historical values that still exist in society or biological predispositions towards certain behavior.
Of course, in a long term sense, you'd have to suppose that either monogamy is going to die out or the genes/old memes that oppose it are going to die out. But in the short term it can produce explanations for why monogamy sometimes doesn't work.
That makes sense if we assume we are causally determined, or somehow controlled or influenced by, the past. Which seems like a sensible assumption. Articulating how / why that is the case, though, could be problematic.
This is not a free will thread. :P
For what it's worth, empirical evidence highly suggests we have a large (if not complete) causal component to our behavior.
But I thought you were a rationalist so I can guess how you feel about empirical evidence.