<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><
I wish I were as libertarian as Marcus in this context, where we're all ideally plastic and dynamic. But my sense is not only that historicity and accumulation outstrip any plasticity, at least by our mid 30s or so, but also that there's no place for will
or intention in most feelings of orientation. It seems people often feel fated or even trapped by their orientation. If it's plastic at all, its trajectory is at least chaotic, not amenable to reverse engineering. But, as Jochen points out, we're much less
likely to engage in every speculation we could because it's such a sensitive topic. ></span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><font color="#201f1e"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">I meant that some people are genetically set up to be more plastic and dynamic than others, and one way this manifests itself is in sexual preference. If one finds a genetic signature
for homosexuality, it could just be the deeper thing. </span></font></div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">One of the themes I've seen talks about a slight correlation between the presence of homosexuality in a family with female fecundity (counter intuitive to those who talk about homosexuals having children). Another theme is that it's largely
epigenetic; I suppose a slightly deeper in mechanism than Jochen's hormonal proposition.<br>
<br>
Both of those appeal to my sense that evolution doesn't separate lineage from ontogeny. There's no crisp line between organism and family, no crisp line between families, species, generations, or anything else, which approaches SteveS' third point. The selection
is as "fractal" as the crinkly space in which it arises.<br>
<br>
I wish I were as libertarian as Marcus in this context, where we're all ideally plastic and dynamic. But my sense is not only that historicity and accumulation outstrip any plasticity, at least by our mid 30s or so, but also that there's no place for will or
intention in most feelings of orientation. It seems people often feel fated or even trapped by their orientation. If it's plastic at all, its trajectory is at least chaotic, not amenable to reverse engineering. But, as Jochen points out, we're much less likely
to engage in every speculation we could because it's such a sensitive topic.<br>
<br>
Thanks for all the ideas.<br>
<br>
On 1/9/22 08:30, Steve Smith wrote:<br>
> A couple of things as yet not obviously (to me) introduced into this discussion:<br>
> <br>
> 1) Survival of the Fittest might better be Legacy Survival of the Fittest. Evolution depends on successful *reproduction* and in fact, a string of successful reproductions. I have a number of childless friends who came from parents with large families...
but who only had 2 or fewer siblings themselves and have few if any nieces and nephews. Their grandparent's "fecundity" has officially petered out. I'm not saying this is a good nor a bad thing, just a break in the "survival of the fittest" and an illustration
that simply being good at spawning lots of children isn't enough... they have to survive and then reproduce themselves, rinse, repeat.<br>
> <br>
> 2) Heredity/Evolotion 101 in college made the point that the "selfish" gene for men suggests that one's nieces and nephews by a maternal sister are (closer to) guaranteed to share 1/4 of his genes than the (best case) 1/2 for his own (presumed) children
(worst case 0%). The same (almost) logic applies to women who are childless (for whatever reason)... their sister's children are a genetic legacy for them. Entirely anecdotally, many of the (childless) gay men and women I know are pretty good aunts and
uncles... (though this can be explained many ways).<br>
> <br>
> 3) And of course, the object of heredity has shifted from the Gene to something much larger, more fuzzy, and perhaps (much) more interesting? What *cultural* traits might be positively correlated with being homosexual or more aptly ambi/bi/pan/poly
sexual? It is no longer exclusively the case that being gay deals you out of being a parent (raising adopted children, en-vivo, en-vitro fertilization, etc), so one's contribution can be to a continued *cultural* or *memetic* legacy of a "way of being" which
is very Lamarckian.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On 1/9/22 3:15 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:<br>
>> This topic is a minefield, because it is related like the controversial "race" term to the personal identify. Black people for instance score higher in 100m or 200m runs than white people as the data clearly shows, which means their genes somehow must give
them more power for this particular competition. Still all people belong to the same race. As you know this topic is very controversial and precarious. For sex it is similar.<br>
>><br>
>> There are genes for the two major sex hormones, estrogen for women and testosterone for men. Males have one X and Y chromosome, females have two X chromosomes. Therefore there are clearly genetic differences between men and women.<br>
>><br>
>> Just how girls who are subject to estrogen develop an affection for boys is unclear. The same for boys who are subject to testosterone in their development. My hypothesis is that the mechanism works like "develop an affection for those who look the same
but different" during the time the sex hormones start to work. Once they have a preference, addiction mechanisms kick in which tell the individuals to do more of that which they like. Something like that where the target of affection is path dependent and
not completely hardwired.<br>
>><br>
>> In general I would say that homosexuality is a byproduct of the mating process. This would explain why homosexuality continues to exist in evolutionary systems although these individuals have less or no offspring. Like coal power plants which produce CO2
and nuclear power plants which produce nuclear waste, the mating process produces losers who lost for whatever reason in the competition for mates and have no offspring. Among those some may pick a mate of the same sex, because the sex drive is hard to ignore
and not completely hardwired.<br>
>><br>
>> This is just my rough idea how it could work in principle. It can be wrong and it is a delicate topic. There are many books about the sociologal and psychological aspects of it. In the library I usually ignore them because it is not a topic I am especially
interested in. Therefore my knowledge is incomplete in this area, and someone else here can probably explain it better.<br>
>><br>
>> -J.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original message --------<br>
>> From: thompnickson2@gmail.com<br>
>> Date: 1/9/22 01:39 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com><br>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality<br>
>><br>
>> Well, first things first. Is there any evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality. You can, of course, have a trait that it is chromosomally determined (if not genetically so) and still not heritable. Sex, for instance. Sex is not heritable.<br>
>><br>
>> My assumption has always been that homosexuality might be influence by innate factors, but not be heritable.<br>
>><br>
>> I haven’t read up on that subject for 2 decades.<br>
>><br>
>> Anybody know any facts?<br>
>><br>
>> n<br>
>><br>
>> Nick Thompson<br>
>><br>
>> ThompNickSon2@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a> <<a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a>><br>
>><br>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels<br>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:57 PM<br>
>> *To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com><br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality<br>
>><br>
>> It seems like such a dumb question to ask. Why should any preference have a genetic basis? How about look for a gene that encodes a preference for plush carpeting or a preference for Flamenco music? And what about those men that like short women?!
Maybe a man is kind of like a tall woman, on average? And why would anyone expect that it would be bimodal? If it were what would that tell us? One could imagine homosexuality is just one manifestation of cognitive or emotional flexibility. That by
itself would explain why it is enduring, because those properties would give a person an advantage over less flexible people. Some fraction of the people with that property have heterosexual or bisexual relationships, and they reproduce and raise children
that thrive. The rigid (heterosexual) types in comparison are prone to making the same kind of mistakes over and over and their children suffer for it.<br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of ⛧glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:13 PM<br>
>> *To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com><br>
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality<br>
>><br>
>> 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:
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486">https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486</a><br>
>><br>
>> But, were group selection and/or cultural evolution a thing, then my friend would be more right. Anyone here have a strong opinion?<br>
>><br>
<br>
-- <br>
glen<br>
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.<br>
<br>
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives:<br>
5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>