[The E]

I do not need to present "counterarguments" to a theory, when the null hypothesis is just as likely (or more, given Ockham) to occur.

Suppose you are in the middle ages. Someone argues with you that god creates thunderbolts. He gives you a weak argument about it, but it is nevertheless an argument. You give none, you're just skeptical about it. Does that mean that he has a point and that I should concede it, otherwise I'm a "crack"?

As a believer in the scientific theory, no, you shouldn't. What you should do is refute the arguments, finding corroborating evidence against the other guys' theories, and finding evidence for alternate explanations. You did nothing of the sort.

Do I need to refute all the theories in the world in order to be rightfully skeptical of them?

Ridiculous.

Not at all. Just the ones you choose to attack.

My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.

Yes, but how proven does it have to be? Where's the threshold where these theories cross the line into "firmly established science"?

Given how the scientific method works, you can extend that skepticism into eternity. It's the same tactic the intelligent design crowd uses, which is really not something to recommend said tactic.

[General Battuta]

My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.

That's what he's saying now, but the very fact that he'd make that argument betrays the fact that he has no idea what's going on any more.

He lost his way a couple pages back and since then it's mostly been batting the mouse around. He conceded every point that was raised initially, then conceded the second set of points, and now fallen back to quibbling about a tertiary argument he fabricated himself.

He conceded that the pornographic acts he was revolted by were not inherently degrading to women, conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity, conceded that there is evidence for postcopulatory selection, exposed his ignorance of female reproductive anatomy in a pretty silly gaffe, and is now just trying to save face by making an issue of a straw man.

Interestingly there's some psychological evidence that the area he's from is one of those afflicted by a so-called 'culture of honor', which may play into the issue here. Fuel for motivated cognition.

EDIT: I will remind the court that the statement in contention is this:

Really? But if they *do* that unconsciously, as you admit, then the choice is quite *different* than the mating selection we were discussing before, which requires a little bit of reasoning.

Or not. It's quite interesting, but frankly it is an astonishing proposal and you give nothing but speculations that this is the case, not even understand how it works, so I'll just skip such speculations (everything is possible in speculations).

It is quite clear that more than speculation has been presented at this point; evidence for postcopulatory selection across species has been presented in detail. The subject's arguments that this does not constitute complete 100% proof of postcopulatory selection are obviously immaterial.

[Mikes]

conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity

We propably agree on that point, but I just want to emphasize that an evolutionary incentive is but one of many determinants of our behavior.

In the end actual observable behavior comes down to a mix of all kinds of things including personal preference, philosophy, ethics, or plain icecream again

[General Battuta]

conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity

We propably agree on that point, but I just want to emphasize that an evolutionary incentive is but one of many determinants of our behavior.

In the end actual observable behavior comes down to a mix of all kinds of things including personal preference, philosophy, ethics, or plain icecream again

Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition we've started to depart pretty sharply from ESS-compliant behavior on the individual, local level.

[Mikes]

Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]

Yeah whatever that is

[Luis Dias]

My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.

That's what he's saying now, but the very fact that he'd make that argument betrays the fact that he has no idea what's going on any more.

He lost his way a couple pages back and since then it's mostly been batting the mouse around. He conceded every point that was raised initially, then conceded the second set of points, and now fallen back to quibbling about a tertiary argument he fabricated himself.

He conceded that the pornographic acts he was revolted by were not inherently degrading to women, conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity, conceded that there is evidence for postcopulatory selection, exposed his ignorance of female reproductive anatomy in a pretty silly gaffe, and is now just trying to save face by making an issue of a straw man.

Interestingly there's some psychological evidence that the area he's from is one of those afflicted by a so-called 'culture of honor', which may play into the issue here. Fuel for motivated cognition.

All of this is just fuel for more fire.

And I'm the immature brat?

For ****'s sake. Get a life.

[General Battuta]

Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]

Yeah whatever that is

Well, what I mean is we've started radically modifying our own behavior. We gained the ability to pass memes as well as genes, and those have altered our society really profoundly. Some of the departures we've taken are not what you'd expect with evolutionary game theory, at least in the short term for the individual.

Cognition has a lot of weird side effects.

[Mikes]

Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]

Yeah whatever that is

Well, what I mean is we've started radically modifying our own behavior. We gained the ability to pass memes as well as genes, and those have altered our society really profoundly. Some of the departures we've taken are not what you'd expect with evolutionary game theory, at least in the short term for the individual.

Cognition has a lot of weird side effects.

Oh yep i knew what you meant. I was just giving a nod to the possibility that our "conscious" thought process may turn out not to be all that it is made out to be,
which might  make cognition a much more deterministic affair than its commonly thought to be.

In other words: Personally i would find that a point by point rational explanation of why i like vanilla icecream and not chocolate icecream kinda sucks. I might start eating the other icecream just to ruin someones statistic.

[General Battuta]

Oh yeah I agree, we're definitely not as agentic as we think we are.

[Black Wolf]

I should admit at the outset here that I've not read the papers Maybe I should read the papers, but frankly, I'm not interested enough in the subject right now.

A few things do spring to mind from reading the thread though. Firstly, the idea that Luis has to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position is ridiculous. He's skeptical. That's what science is.I'll grant you, skepticality has to be put into context  skepticism of something like gravity or evolution as broad concepts add no value. But a very specific topic like this one, especially further specified to such complex organisms as humans, well, the burden of proof for something so outlandish falls squarely on those proposing it. And to be specific here, I'm talking about the idea that cryptic sexual selection (i.e. segregation and storage of sperm from different potential fathers) allows for some kind of complex, higher order selection in humans.

Secondly, I also note with concern the number of articles by the same bloke on that list. Granted, that could mean a long history of painstaking, precise research building towards a significant contribution to evolutionary science. Or it could be one professor's pet heory that he hands off to all his doctoral students. So while there's a lot of actual titles there, without a bit more research I'd be concerned about the value of every one of them.

Thirdly, I have some trouble accepting that cryptic choice plays any significant role in mammalian selection, let alone human. A quick google search for 'Cryptic Femal Choice human' throws up a lot of words like "controversial" and "unrepeated", as well as this paper:

In this paper, I consider the criteria necessary to demonstrate the postcopulatory ability of females to favor the sperm of one conspecific male over another, that is, sperm choice. In practice it is difficult to distinguish between sperm competition and sperm choice, and sperm choice can be demonstrated only if the effects of sperm competition can be controlled. Few studies have used experimental protocols that do this, so evidence for sperm choice is limited. Moreover, in those studies in which sperm choice occurs, it does so to avoid incompatible genetic combinations and is therefore unlikely to result in directional sexual selection.

[General Battuta]

A few things do spring to mind from reading the thread though. Firstly, the idea that Luis has to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position is ridiculous. He's skeptical. That's what science is.I'll grant you, skepticality has to be put into context  skepticism of something like gravity or evolution as broad concepts add no value. But a very specific topic like this one, especially further specified to such complex organisms as humans, well, the burden of proof for something so outlandish falls squarely on those proposing it. And to be specific here, I'm talking about the idea that cryptic sexual selection (i.e. segregation and storage of sperm from different potential fathers) allows for some kind of complex, higher order selection in humans.

Being skeptical of a strong assertion that this is so is one thing. Being skeptical of the assertion that it may be so, and that the general mechanism of postcopulatory mechanisms could conceivably be at play somewhere in humans - which was the actual assertion - is entirely another. Fortunately he more or less conceded that, and I think we're both aware that his skepticism of this particular issue was tangential to the general course of the debate - it was something for him to seize on to save face.

Thirdly, I have some trouble accepting that cryptic choice plays any significant role in mammalian selection, let alone human. A quick google search for 'Cryptic Femal Choice human' throws up a lot of words like "controversial" and "unrepeated", as well as this paper:

No one has argued any differently. The issue of cryptic female choice was part of Luis Dias' third fallback after conceding his first two positions, and it was never particularly central - the only assertions made about it was that the idea that postcopulatory selection in humans could have shaped social structures and that it was ridiculous to subscribe to a pure 'male promiscuity, female monogamy' description of mating strategies.
 

In this paper, I consider the criteria necessary to demonstrate the postcopulatory ability of females to favor the sperm of one conspecific male over another, that is, sperm choice. In practice it is difficult to distinguish between sperm competition and sperm choice, and sperm choice can be demonstrated only if the effects of sperm competition can be controlled. Few studies have used experimental protocols that do this, so evidence for sperm choice is limited. Moreover, in those studies in which sperm choice occurs, it does so to avoid incompatible genetic combinations and is therefore unlikely to result in directional sexual selection.

This is saying nothing I haven't said repeatedly in this thread.

It is a good topic and would make for a good discussion, separate from the original issues that Dias brought up (and, as I mentioned, subsequently conceded); it's a shame that one side of the debate proved not up to the challenge.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm really glad this got split because otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to read it on this boring Tuesday.  I'm thoroughly entertained.  I'm kind of sad I missed out on page ~2ish.

Luis, a piece of friendly advice since you're a relatively new face to science-based (particularly biology-) debate threads here in GD:  arguing from a blind position without a shred of fact to back you up, and then further compounding the error by dismissing peer-reviewed research (based on the title, for Pete's sake) without appropriate countering data is going to get you laughed out of the thread.  Which, for the record, happened on page 3.

You're debating with people who have formal education in the subjects you're delving into - your points should be formulated accordingly.  Instead, your posts are reading much like those of a petulant teen, and your continued criticism of Battuta's analysis isn't helping that perception.

And Black Wolf, while Luis would not be expected to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position, he is expected to provide counter-point sourcing to factually illustrate an alternate position - which he has not done.  Skepticism is valid only if premised upon a factually solid position (which, of course, his ideas may well be - the problem lies in his failure to establish that).  Skepticism for skepticism's sake is not a valid position in the face of evidence to the contrary (so says the scientific method) - in that context, skepticism is just opinion.  And opinions, as the old adage goes, are much like a certain posterior-positioned orifice discussed in this thread which every human being possesses

[Luis Dias]

it was something for him to seize on to save face.

No, it was something you seized on. All my original points were agreed upon ages ago, contrary to what you are shenanigizing about.

The only thing I admit is that I loled to your assertion that this phenomena was actually taking place, and was part of an argument. You swayed me to thinking that there is somewhere in the aether a "line of reasoning" from A to Z (skipping most of the words, but hey that's science for you), that considered this possibility.

The original disagreement was over porn. I expressed myself badly, and I see where GB went crazy about it. My point was not so much about the specific practices of it, but the general feel of it. No single sexual practice is "inherently" anything, it's the context. And the context of it is mostly degradational of women, mostly. That's how I view it. GB thinks differently, perhaps. I don't care about him anymore.

[General Battuta]

Well that's actually a pretty reasonable summary. 

And yeah I do think that most porn is shot with a male POV, in a not-too-healthy way. I think that's actually one of the things most missing from porn, some sense of connection or empathy. To bring it waaaay back to like page one, people go gaga over romance novels, and I can't imagine something like that shot as video wouldn't sell. Heck, Blue Valentine (a regular old motion picture released recently) had genuine, not-fake sex on camera, the actors actually going down on each other and stuff.

I guess you'd have to dig up attractive people who could actually act.

[karajorma]

Luis Dias if you're going to ignore the evidence and fail to post an sources you have no place in a scientific debate.

If you're going to enter a scientific debate and ignore science you're not going to find yourself able to enter scientific debates any more.

[Luis Dias]

Luis Dias if you're going to ignore the evidence and fail to post an sources you have no place in a scientific debate.

If you're going to enter a scientific debate and ignore science you're not going to find yourself able to enter scientific debates any more.

Where did I *ignore* the evidence? Please stop misconstruing me.

I'm anything but perfect. I make huge mistakes. Don't compound that situation with this nonsense.

I didn't ignore it. I analysed it. I read the most relevant papers that he generously provided us with. And I gave you my thoughts about it.

p-value papers with data going all over the place and with a miraculous "line fit" in the middle of it, "proving" (rofl) that males have better fitness when they continue their "courting" post-coitally. This is not an empirical evidence that shows that the hypothesis of post-coital selection is happening. Rather, it's a compatible evidence with this theory, but it's also compatible with multiple, infinite other theories, and, obviously, the null hypothesis.

There is no evidence shown that is sufficiently good to falsify any alternative. Not even statistically. All it does is provide evidence that *agrees* with the hypothesis, indirectly.


Do you need "sources" for this simple reasoning?

[General Battuta]

If your argument against the idea that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not totally sure it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, is that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not TOTALLY SURE it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, you're not making a very strong argument.

You started from the position that men followed a simple promiscuous strategy and women followed a simple monogamous strategy. You've done well to abandon it, recognizing that the situation is more complex. You laughed at the idea that there could be any female-agentic postcoital selection idea whatsoever. You've done well to abandon that too, because you were given a list of well-cited articles describing that there may be some evidence for its possibility.

If your argument is now that we don't know whether postcoital selection happens in humans, you're not going to find any disagreement. But that wasn't your argument until you had no other options.

[General Battuta]

Huh, look at this

T h e   e f f e c t  o f  t a p p i n g   m o v e m e n t s   wa s   s t u d i e d   b y   al-
l o w i n g   s o m e   p a i r s   t o   h a v e   s e v e r a l   t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s   in
o n e   b o u t   (12.8_+6.1,  m e a n _ + S D )   w h e r e a s   t h e   o t h e r s 
w e r e   i n t e r r u p t e d   i m m e d i a t e l y   a f t e r   a n   i n t r o m i s s i o n .   A
logi s t i c  r e g r e s s i o n   f o r  t w o - c a t e g o r y  r e s p o n s e  w h e r e  m a l e 
n u m b e r   a n d   d a t e   ( b e c a u s e   o f  t h e   d i f f e r e n t   ha l f - l ive s   o f 
t h e   i s o t o p e s )   w e r e   c o n t r o l l e d   wa s   c a l c u l a t e d .   T h i s   wa s 
d o n e   b y   a s k i n g   w h e t h e r   t h e   p e r c e n t a g e   o f   3H  in  t h e 
d r o p l e t   a n d   t h e   b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x   c o u l d   p r e d i c t   w h i c h 
m a t i n g   g r o u p   (i. e.  n o   t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s   o r   s e v e r a l   t a p - 
p i n g   s e q u e n c e s  b e f o r e  egg l a y i n g )  t h e   f e m a l e  c a m e   f r o m . 
U s i n g  b o t h  d r o p l e t   a n d  b u r s a  c o p u l a t r i x  r e s u l t s  t o  d i s t i n - 
g u i s h  b e t w e e n  t h e  m a t i n g s ,  t h e  a n a l y s i s  g a v e  a  s i g n i f i c a n t 
r e s u l t   (){2 =  9.50,  df=2, P < 0 . 0 1 ) .   O f  thi s ,   ){2---4.94  (df=
1,  P < 0 . 0 5 )   wa s   d u e   t o   t h e   d r o p l e t   a n d   ){2 = 4 . 5 6   (df= 1,
P < 0 . 0 5 )   t o   t h e   b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x   a l o n e .   T a b l e   1  s h ows 
t h a t   i n   S - H   m a t i n g s   w i t h   s e v e r a l   t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s ,   t h e 
p e r c e n t a g e   o f   3H  in  t h e   d r o p l e t   wa s   s m a l l e r   a n d   t h e 
p e r c e n t a g e   r e m a i n i n g  in  t h e  b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x  wa s   h i g h e r
t h a n  in m a t i n g s  w i t h o u t  t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s .  T h e  p e r c e n t - 
a g e   o f   3H  w i t h i n   t h e   d r o p l e t   wa s   8 5 . 9 %   a n d   9 4 . 2 % 
f o r  m a t i n g s   w i t h   s e v e r a l  t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s   a n d   m a t i n g s 
w i t h o u t   t a p p i n g   s e q u e n c e s ,   r e s p e c t i v e l y .   T h e   c o r r e - 
s p o n d i n g   f i g u r e s   f o r   t h e   b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x   w e r e   88.8  a n d 
83.2,  r e s p e c t i v e l y .  T h e   r e s u l t   t h e r e f o r e   s u g g e s t s   t h a t   t h e 
t a p p i n g   m o v e m e n t s   i n c r e a s e d   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f  t h e   l a s t 
m a l e ' s   s p e r m   in  t h e   b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x   a n d   d e c r e a s e d   i t 
in  t h e   d r o p l e t .   T h e   r e s u l t s   in  H - S   m a t i n g s   ( T a b l e   1)  a l s o 
s h o w   t h a t   t h e   p e r c e n t a g e   o f   3sS  c o m i n g   o u t   w i t h   t h e 
d r o p l e t   wa s   s m a l l e r   in  m a t i n g s   w i t h   s e v e r a l   t a p p i n g   se-
q u e n c e s ,   a s   e x p e c t e d   ( t h e   a v e r a g e   n u m b e r   o f   t a p p i n g 
s e q u e n c e s   wa s   10.6_+4.6).  H o w e v e r ,   t h e   p e r c e n t a g e   r e - 
m a i n i n g   in  t h e   b u r s a   c o p u l a t r i x   a f t e r   s e v e r a l   t a p p i n g 
s e q u e n c e s   wa s   a l so  sma l l e r .   T h i s   c o n t r a d i c t i o n   m a y   b e 
d u e  t o   a  sma l l   s a m p l e   size in  H - S  m a t i n g s .   

An experimental intervention producing statistically significant results that reject the null! How wonderful. It would be tempting to overanalyze this, but as it stands, it's just a nice piece of evidence for some form of immediate postcopulatory selection in this species of insect.

This was in the first paper from the citation list that I opened at random.

[General Battuta]

Ooh this is a good one. Second one too!

It has been suggested that these behaviours have evolved by cryptic female choice, whereby females are thought to impose biases on male postmating paternity success. Males of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum rub the lateral edges of the females' elytra with their tarsi during copulation. We manipulated female perception of this behaviour by tarsal ablation in males, thus preventing males from reaching the edge of the female elytra with their manipulated legs, and by subsequently performing a series of double–mating experiments where the copulatory behaviour was quantified. We found a positive relationship between the intensity of the copulatory courtship behaviour and relative fertilization success among unmanipulated males. This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.

Beautiful - an experimental intervention with a strong rejection of the null. Again, a good piece of evidence.

And wow, look at this data:

Residual fertilization success was
generated in a generalized linear model, identical to the one
presented in table 1 apart from the exclusion of the rate of leg
rubbing and its interaction with leg manipulation. Male
fertilization success increased with the rate of leg rubbing in
unmanipulated males (test of H0
: ­ ˆ 0; t ˆ 2.75, d.f. ˆ 47,
p ˆ 0.009) but not in males with manipulated legs (test of H0
:
­ ˆ 0; t ˆ 0.045, d.f. ˆ 60, p ˆ 0.964)

P of .0009! Holy ****. That is a damn fine P and the effect size is not shoddy either. I can see why that paper was published!

So to return to your statement:

p-value papers with data going all over the place and with a miraculous "line fit" in the middle of it, "proving" (rofl) that males have better fitness when they continue their "courting" post-coitally. This is not an empirical evidence that shows that the hypothesis of post-coital selection is happening. Rather, it's a compatible evidence with this theory, but it's also compatible with multiple, infinite other theories, and, obviously, the null hypothesis.

So far my highly scientific sample has found none of these, and instead has found papers that firmly reject their null hypotheses with solid statistical tests, adding interesting grains of sand to an as-yet-incomplete pile.

[Luis Dias]

If your argument against the idea that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not totally sure it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, is that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not TOTALLY SURE it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, you're not making a very strong argument.

Nope. I'm saying that the evidence you provided us with for that hypothesis is next to zero.

So it's not a matter of "totally suredness" to me at all. To me, it is "possible", not "probable". "Possible" in the sense of "anything's possible".

You started from the position that men followed a simple promiscuous strategy and women followed a simple monogamous strategy. You've done well to abandon it, recognizing that the situation is more complex.

I didn't "start" at it. I started the discussion with it, so we could discuss it. I always caveated to the problems of iterations due to the stochastic processes, etc. In my view, simple strategies are far more easy to prove or disprove than complex ones. And post-coital selection strategies are way down the complex tube. It's far away from empirical reach. At least, if what you've shown here is representative.

You laughed at the idea that there could be any female-agentic postcoital selection idea whatsoever.

No, I laughed to, and I quote:

but the very fact that they can be selective within themselves (and they can)

(My emphasis) to your positive, unambiguous claim that this was in fact, a fact!

So instead of your rosy picture of me "abandoning" territory so you can "claim" some kind of "kinky" victory is quite the opposite of the truth.

You were the one claiming something to be entirely factual, when after all said and done, you have nothing but post-coital courtings between bees to show as evidence of this phenomena.

You've done well to abandon that too, because you were given a list of well-cited articles describing that there may be some evidence for its possibility.

It's as if I'm talking to a wall.

An experimental intervention producing statistically significant results that reject the null! How wonderful. It would be tempting to overanalyze this, but as it stands, it's just a nice piece of evidence for some form of immediate postcopulatory selection in this species of insect.

As I said, you provide evidence that post-coital "exercise" given by the male  influences his fitness. This link is not surprising to me. Why wouldn't such an energy expenditure have any profit in its fitness?

Now you can try to gap the bridge between "tapping" (I almost read it with an f) and "post-coital female selection", without making a leap in logic.

We found a positive relationship between the intensity of the copulatory courtship behaviour and relative fertilization success among unmanipulated males. This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.

Quite the conclusion. Stronger, I admit, but damn, to arrive at the conclusion that the female has chosen anything, deriven from the absence of stimuli by her partner, is incredible. Are they sure it isn't just a reaction? You rub the female's leg, she gets either relaxed or excited, muscles behave differently, fitness is hampered with.

What the hell does that have to do with "Choice"?