[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 12 22:21:09 EST 2022
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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You’re probably right.
>
>
>
> Perhaps bonobo sexuality is the primitive state.
>
>
>
> “Bub”
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:33 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 12:04 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *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 <gepropella at 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
>
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220112/9e1c8125/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list