[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 13 20:42:42 EST 2022
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 <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
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.
>
>
>
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:21 PM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> 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 <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/
>>>
>>
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>> 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/20220113/fc51f7b7/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list