Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 01:58:04 pm
-
Fascinating. You'll often see arguments that women are biologically hardwired to seek out single stable mates, because they need loyal resource providers to keep them protected and fed while they raise kids. Men, conversely, are hardwired to try to spread their seed around but to jealously guard their own mates, to guarantee paternity. These evolutionary arguments are used to advance the notion that single-man-single-woman marriage is 'natural', part of our biological predisposition, and that women desire single powerful men while men desire many attractive women.
The cultures of the ancient Amazon defy these claims. (http://io9.com/5687207/in-the-ancient-amazon-children-had-many-fathers-+-and-women-many-lovers) Polyandry was the norm, with each wife having multiple husbands and the children being raised collectively. Each child, of course, still only had one male and female parent, but the society didn't think so; they believed in partible paternity, where the child developed from the accretion of multiple fathers' sperm.
Even on the biological level this setup is viable - sperm competition will produce healthier offspring (one of the main drivers behind female promiscuity in most species.)
This social setup seemed to work well with their harsh warrior culture. Women and men alike benefited: women had replacements to step up if a given husband died, and the men built solidarity and friendships over shared wives. Children had a whole network of dads to support them into adulthood. The sex was also probably pretty wild.
Alien to us, but illuminating (to me) as an SF writer - it shows how cultures might develop differently.
-
seems like polyandry would be really inefficient for keep population numbers up
-
Sperm competition is only a valid point if copulation is immediately sequential. I don't know if that's what they did, but it seems a little odd to me.
seems like polyandry would be really inefficient for keep population numbers up
Not true in this case, since people of either gender were shared around. As long as you've maxed out the number of gestating females, your rate of reproduction cannot get higher, and it doesn't seem like the Amazonian way would have a lower frequency of pregnancies. Actually, limited/unlimited pairings and all that have no direct effect as long as you max out your capacities, but might have some indirect ones that take some thought to discover.
-
Ohhh.. I was thinking polyandry as, like, a group of males were all exclusive to one female. Which would leave some females without partners. I didn't actually read the article. :P
-
women are pylons, if you want to raise the pop cap you must construct additional
-
There are many ways to justify monogamy. That it's what were "supposed" to do biologically doesn't have to be one of them.
And in this case, biology does matter - but sometimes culture matters more.
-
There are many ways to justify monogamy. That it's what were "supposed" to do biologically doesn't have to be one of them.
And in this case, biology does matter - but sometimes culture matters more.
This isn't an argument against monogamy. I like monogamy. I don't think I could handle a non-monogamous relationship. But it helps me write non-monogamous societies with confidence.
-
I know I know. My point was only that the explanation for the existence of non-monogamous societies doesn't have to disprove the idea that the natural biological inclination of humans is toward monogamy, because that train of logic greatly underestimates the power of culture to change behavior.
-
I question the notion of any strongly determinate natural biological inclination. I would be more open to biological factors shaping the probability distribution of emerging social mating patterns in combination with other factors (environment, chance, whatnot.)
-
anthropology: the only science where they go 2% of the population does not act a particular way, therefore the whole must not have a disposition to act that way.
-
anthropology: the only science where they go 2% of the population does not act a particular way, therefore the whole must not have a disposition to act that way.
40-70% of the population actually practiced multiple paternity. With no significant genetic skew this cannot be due to a biological gap.
QED'd'd'd'd'd'd
-
you mean 40-70% of the sample.
-
you mean 40-70% of the sample.
No. A sample is selected from a population. The statistics here are about the Amazon population as a whole.
Without genetic difference from other populations the causative factor must be cultural.
-
cultural factors can override biological ones, this does not mean that biological factors do not exist.
-
cultural factors can override biological ones, this does not mean that biological factors do not exist.
No one has argued that they do.
-
cultural factors can override biological ones, this does not mean that biological factors do not exist.
No one has argued that they do.
I hate you all.
-
cultural factors can override biological ones, this does not mean that biological factors do not exist.
No one has argued that they do.
I hate you all.
No one has argued that biological factors don't exist, is what I was going for.
-
ok, so the next step of this would be; just because cultural influences in a region caused a particular behavior does not mean that there are not biological influences that are in opposition to that behavior.
-
ok, so the next step of this would be; just because cultural influences in a region caused a particular behavior does not mean that there are not biological influences that are in opposition to that behavior.
Sure. Not in conflict with any points made here.
-
so, therefore, just because ancient amazon tribes have a practice of polyandry does not disprove (or even strongly indicate away from) a biological disposition toward polygyny or monogamy.
-
so, therefore, just because ancient amazon tribes have a practice of polyandry does not disprove (or even strongly indicate away from) a biological disposition toward polygyny or monogamy.
Logically consistent, and expressed very clearly!
-
so, therefore, just because ancient amazon tribes have a practice of polyandry does not disprove
Of course not; no one claimed it did.
It does, however, provide evidence that monogamy with male-control/female-security mating structures is not strongly biologically determined, and thoroughly (re)disproves the notion that monogamy is a strongly selected stable state - though the fact that it's a rarity in human history probably took care of that already.
I don't know why you'd bring up polygyny; this society was polyandrous and polygnous.
(or even strongly indicate away from) a biological disposition toward polygyny or monogamy.
Monogamy is strongly contraindicated, but that's very old news (centuries old!)
so, therefore, just because ancient amazon tribes have a practice of polyandry does not disprove (or even strongly indicate away from) a biological disposition toward polygyny or monogamy.
Logically consistent, and expressed very clearly!
And, I'd hazard, completely missing the point; but that's par for the course in charged debates.
-
Composing this already since I figure people are going to get confused.
Arguments for strong biological determinism in mating structures rely on the belief that male mate control and mate diversity, paired with female single-mating and social security, supply a fitness advantage to both males and females which outmatches that available in a promiscuous female/promiscuous male structure. In these formulations the fitness advantage provided by this structure force other structures out of the population.
The key step here is the notion that these structures then became biologically enshrined. If so, it takes only a single counterexample to destroy the entire argument, because:
1) Like most evopsych arguments, biological factor explanations for mating structures rely on the fact that the structures are common;
2) The fact that the structures are common is taken as evidence that they spring from a universal biological source;
3) Any universal biological source would predate arrival in the Amazon (or any given location) by an enormous timespan, due to the timescales of allele spread;
4) If the Amazon mating systems were a product of social pressure overriding biological predisposition, and the biological factors were already present, then they cannot be strongly determinate of mating systems, only weakly determinate. Or, alternatively, the biological factors do not exist.
-
"You'll often see arguments that women are biologically hardwired to seek out single stable mates, because they need loyal resource providers to keep them protected and fed while they raise kids. Men, conversely, are hardwired to try to spread their seed around but to jealously guard their own mates, to guarantee paternity. These evolutionary arguments are used to advance the notion that single-man-single-woman marriage is 'natural', part of our biological predisposition, and that women desire single powerful men while men desire many attractive women.
The cultures of the ancient Amazon defy these claims."
it seemed like this was a refutation of the concept that women focus on quality while men focus on quantity.
-
"You'll often see arguments that women are biologically hardwired to seek out single stable mates, because they need loyal resource providers to keep them protected and fed while they raise kids. Men, conversely, are hardwired to try to spread their seed around but to jealously guard their own mates, to guarantee paternity. These evolutionary arguments are used to advance the notion that single-man-single-woman marriage is 'natural', part of our biological predisposition, and that women desire single powerful men while men desire many attractive women.
The cultures of the ancient Amazon defy these claims."
it seemed like this was a refutation of the concept that women focus on quality while men focus on quantity.
Indeed it is, and this is precisely what this example supplies. You have not yet in this thread raised an objection to the refutation.
The concept is DOA, of course; population biologists have known for decades now that female promiscuity is one of the driving forces in evolution. It is part of the reason for organisms like the Cape Ground Squirrel:
(http://ajgentile.typepad.com/ajs_piece_o_the_w/images/squirrel.jpg)
In general in any species the size of the male's testes as a proportion of body mass will vary with the number of sexual partners the females have on average.
-
4) If the Amazon mating systems were a product of social pressure overriding biological predisposition, and the biological factors were already present, then they cannot be strongly determinate of mating systems, only weakly determinate. Or, alternatively, the biological factors do not exist.
or that the cultural factors were atypically strong for this particular behavior in the Amazon.
a single counterexample only disproves the notion that it is universally irresistible, I don't think any biologically derived behavior meets that.
-
4) If the Amazon mating systems were a product of social pressure overriding biological predisposition, and the biological factors were already present, then they cannot be strongly determinate of mating systems, only weakly determinate. Or, alternatively, the biological factors do not exist.
or that the cultural factors were atypically strong for this particular behavior in the Amazon.
a single counterexample only disproves the notion that it is universally irresistible, I don't think any biologically derived behavior meets that.
What you've just done is define the difference between 'strongly determinate' and 'weakly determinate'.
You're not disagreeing with anything I've said. In fact you're agreeing with the last thing I said in the topic right before you entered.
What the Amazon proves, and proves crushingly, is that cultural change alone can produce a society that does not obey what we view as the traditional mating structure, and ergo the traditional mating structure and accompanying quality vs. quantity theory is not strongly biologically determined, not inevitable, and not universal. It means that any given group of humans could go that way.
-
so... are we arguing then?
-
Probably not.
-
Maybe Brave New World had it right........
-
In general in any species the size of the male's testes as a proportion of body mass will vary with the number of sexual partners the females have on average.
Funny you mention that, as a recent study in crickets has shown that the traditional generalized interpretation we've held for so many years is quite possibly completely wrong. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-species-largest-testicles-big-secret.html
Dr Gilbert said: "Traditionally it has been pretty safe to assume that when females are promiscuous, males use monstrously-sized testicles to deliver huge numbers of sperm to swamp the competition - even in primates. Our study shows that we have to rethink this assumption. It looks as though the testes may be that big simply to allow males to mate repeatedly without their sperm reserves being exhausted."
Dr Vahed said: "This strongly suggests that extra large testes in bushcrickets allow males to transfer relatively small ejaculates to a greater number of females. Males don't put all their eggs (or rather sperm!) in one basket."
Traditionally, the assumption is that larger testes produce more sperm per ejaculate and thereby provide males with an advantage in sperm competition (when males are vying for the fertilisation of the female's eggs).
Sperm competition is most intense when the female of the species mates with many males; the male that has produced the most sperm is often assumed to be at an advantage, hence the development of larger testes in such species.
But more promiscuous females also increase the number of mating opportunities available for the male. It is therefore possible that larger testes have evolved in more polyandrous species because they allow an increased rate of ejaculate production, enabling the male to engage in a greater number of successive matings, as indicated by this latest study.
-
Fascinating. You'll often see arguments that women are biologically hardwired to seek out single stable mates, because they need loyal resource providers to keep them protected and fed while they raise kids. Men, conversely, are hardwired to try to spread their seed around but to jealously guard their own mates, to guarantee paternity. These evolutionary arguments are used to advance the notion that single-man-single-woman marriage is 'natural', part of our biological predisposition, and that women desire single powerful men while men desire many attractive women.
The cultures of the ancient Amazon defy these claims. (http://io9.com/5687207/in-the-ancient-amazon-children-had-many-fathers-+-and-women-many-lovers) Polyandry was the norm, with each wife having multiple husbands and the children being raised collectively. Each child, of course, still only had one male and female parent, but the society didn't think so; they believed in partible paternity, where the child developed from the accretion of multiple fathers' sperm.
Even on the biological level this setup is viable - sperm competition will produce healthier offspring (one of the main drivers behind female promiscuity in most species.)
This social setup seemed to work well with their harsh warrior culture. Women and men alike benefited: women had replacements to step up if a given husband died, and the men built solidarity and friendships over shared wives. Children had a whole network of dads to support them into adulthood. The sex was also probably pretty wild.
Alien to us, but illuminating (to me) as an SF writer - it shows how cultures might develop differently.
Uhm, what's new here?
-
Interesting. Seems to open the route for multiple causes of giant testicularity, rather than closing off any particular explanation.
Fascinating. You'll often see arguments that women are biologically hardwired to seek out single stable mates, because they need loyal resource providers to keep them protected and fed while they raise kids. Men, conversely, are hardwired to try to spread their seed around but to jealously guard their own mates, to guarantee paternity. These evolutionary arguments are used to advance the notion that single-man-single-woman marriage is 'natural', part of our biological predisposition, and that women desire single powerful men while men desire many attractive women.
The cultures of the ancient Amazon defy these claims. (http://io9.com/5687207/in-the-ancient-amazon-children-had-many-fathers-+-and-women-many-lovers) Polyandry was the norm, with each wife having multiple husbands and the children being raised collectively. Each child, of course, still only had one male and female parent, but the society didn't think so; they believed in partible paternity, where the child developed from the accretion of multiple fathers' sperm.
Even on the biological level this setup is viable - sperm competition will produce healthier offspring (one of the main drivers behind female promiscuity in most species.)
This social setup seemed to work well with their harsh warrior culture. Women and men alike benefited: women had replacements to step up if a given husband died, and the men built solidarity and friendships over shared wives. Children had a whole network of dads to support them into adulthood. The sex was also probably pretty wild.
Alien to us, but illuminating (to me) as an SF writer - it shows how cultures might develop differently.
Uhm, what's new here?
Excellent documentation of a mating structure very different from the one which has primacy in modern culture.
-
But this isn't news. On a side note, that link about ancient Amazon culture is interesting.
-
But this isn't news. On a side note, that link about ancient Amazon culture is interesting.
The link is what the post is about. The post is a summary of the content of the link. There are multiple posts in this thread explaining that this substantiates things we already know, not that it opens new lines of investigation. If you can't read them I don't think you're going to get anything valuable from this discussion.
-
Weren't the Amazonians a strongly matriarchal society? May explain polyandry, as the dominant gender seeks to have many of the submissive gender, regardless of what those genders are.
Or maybe my mind is polluted by Hollywood, and the Amazonians have no such culture.
-
Weren't the Amazonians a strongly matriarchal society? May explain polyandry, as the dominant gender seeks to have many of the submissive gender, regardless of what those genders are.
Or maybe my mind is polluted by Hollywood, and the Amazonians have no such culture.
Yeah I think that's just a myth. Given that the Greek Amazons predated contact with the Americas. :p The Greek Amazons, if they had any historical basis, were probably somewhere in the ballpark of Scythia.
-
lmao, thanks for clearing that up for me, so I can be embarrassed here rather than IRL.