Jump to content
Science Forums

The monogamy instinct within humans


HydrogenBond

Recommended Posts

This is not established science. Rather it is an observation that I am presenting as a topic of open discussion.

 

The genetic argument of sexual promiscuity being connected to increasing genetic diversity makes sense at the genetic level. It has led to the conclusion humans are promiscuous animals. But there are strong human counter emotions that suggest there is also a monogamous instinct within humans. This appears to be connected to the emotions and effects centered on jealousy, which can lead to crimes of passion.

 

If both natural impulses were given free reign, as an experiment, the monogamous related instincts (as defined) would go to the most extreme of expression. Crimes of passion are illegal because of this. In the hierarchy of instinct, the most extreme usually has the highest instinctive priority. I tend to think both impulses are part of humans, with the monogamy impulses stronger. The full effect is countered by manmade law because of the primal irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what you want to discuss here, but as far as I'm concerned, the whole monogamy thing with humans might be slightly overstated and mostly cultural and probably artificial.

 

Genetic tests amongst many animals believed to be monogamous have indicated that a very big percentage of offspring are not related to the male the female associates herself with.

 

Also, if any male or female has a predisposition to copulate outside the bounds of their relationship, it should definitely be a characteristic to be selected for. A promiscuous male clearly has a genetic lead over his rivals who stick to exclusively procreating in their relationships - he can have hundreds of offspring in his lifetime, whilst his monogamous male peers will only have as many children as his female partner can bear.

 

So, I personally believe that humans are polygamous at their very core - and all the monogamous pretensions we might have is simply a thin veneer of culture plastered over our true lusty selves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the phantom cow of justice, monogamy is part of some cultures not a genetic drive. If it were instinctive I doubt so many cultures would be polygamous. Even in Christianity you find cults of polygamy and early Judaism was polygamous. Monogamy is an artificial construct brought about by religion to control the sexual expression of the congregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my theory for the monogamous instinct, indirectly inferred by the defensive reaction associated with crimes of passion. If you look at the past 10,000 years, the advantage of humanity was more connected to the brain than to genetics. Through language, education and now science, whatever we lack genetically, can be compensated for by the brain/mind. The modern medical mind is able to alter genetics, due to science, which is a product of the brain. It is hard to point out major genetic changes over the past 10,000 years, that can explain what the brain has accomplished. Show me the gene that put a man on the moon.

 

Animals are different than humans, in that their genetics lead, since their brains are wired into genetics. The brain has some liberty for adaptation but their pace of change is slow and very conservative.

 

That being said, an animal will benefit by promiscuity, because it will increase the genetic diversity. I agree with that, since their genetics is leading, and this will give a selective advantage via more genetic combinations. With the human mind leading the past 10,000 years, increased genetic diversity, all by itself, would not have allowed the same pace as the brain created. Selective advantage for humans, when civilization began, needed to be geared to the needs of the brain more than simple genetic diversity.

 

Something changed in humans so humans could better pass down more to the young brain than just genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something changed in humans so humans could better pass down more to the young brain than just genes

Indeed. And I guess a human of 10,000 years ago isn't genetically as different as a human of, say, 20,000 years ago.

 

And what happened, is that humans have invented writing.

 

Our genetic code only carries so much useful information. Every new generation has to physically learn what the previous generations have learned the hard way, through experience. Instinctive knowledge is only useful up to a point, and will not put a man on the moon.

 

The human species is the first species to stockpile knowledge outside the restrictions of our DNA. We call it a library, and it carries tons of information from generation to generation. Imagine if each and every generation had to invent calculus for themselves. Today, you merely go to the library and read about Newton, and there you go.

 

I don't think polygamy or monogamy has anything to do with what you propose; I suspect the "magic bullet" that lead humanity (genetically almost identical to our ancient primitive ancestors from thousands of years ago) to achieve greatness (like landing on the moon) is merely the ability to do what I'm doing now, and what you're doing right now. I'm able to write, and you're able to read it. And right there, exactly the thing we're busy with right now, is what makes humans great, if not awesome - and eventualyl leads to such cool things as moon landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was trying to do is show a distinction between genetic based and brain/mind based changes in humans from 20,000 years ago. Biological or genetic evolution, from what I have learned, is based on drift, random change and selective advantage. The brain/mind connection evolves more in terms of progression. For example, computers, which stemmed from the human brain, improves and progresses over time, with a sense of direction that is defined by the computer R&D visionaries. The goals are already there before anything is made. The future form is limited by support technology which also has to progress. From what others have said, DNA has no goal but drifts in the wind.

 

Human evolutionary confusion is connected to genetics and brain doing it differently, yet both are connected. I am sort of diverging from the topic of monogamy, but this background will loop back. Most scientists call monogamy a product of the brain and not a part of genetics. This is correct in the sense it is connected to the brain/mind aspect of human change and not to genetics.

 

One possible way to separate the genetic and the brain/mind effects of human progression/evolution (direction and drift) is using a computer analogy. The genetics is analogous to the hardware of a computer, with better hardware having an advantage. The brain/mind aspect is more like software. Software will not work without the hardware, with better hardware allowing better performance. But software can be used to emulate hardware. For example, software can be used to take the place of hardware like an audio card. The brain does not have to wait for genetics to make an audio card, so to speak, but can approximate this with software.

 

For example, say it gets cold, animals who are not use to the cold would need go through a genetic change to get thicker fur for insulation. Selective advantage will go to those would develop this genetic hardware. This will be passed on through breeding. With the human brain, we can simulate the genetic fur hardware, with clothes. We don't have to wait for genetic hardware changes. Instead of humans with clothes having to breed, biologically, to pass on this software-hardware simulation, it is passed on via the brain copying the behavior.

 

Once humans put on the clothes, the genetic drift of all the other animals to the cold does not fully apply to humans, because of the software-hardware simulation. Hardware drift toward fur in humans could lead to a disadvantage because of too much insulation. Human genetic selective advantage will go one way and the animals the other way because the human brain and its hardware emulation.

 

We need to go back in time, to the point where genetics has dominate control, and the earliest humanoids were based primarily on hardware. In this state, the humanoids would be like a mechanical device, where hardware simulates software. For example, an old fashion mechanical clock, composed of gears and levers, uses hardware to simulate software. It can keep time and trigger a wood cutting to come out and chop every hour and then go back in, with the door shutting. This is done all with hardware. Genetic evolution improves the gears and levers. Shifting to software, simplified the increasing requirement of genetic hardware for gearing and levers.

 

The observation that humans are progressing via the brain/mind faster than can be attributed to hardware alone, seems to imply the brain/mind favoring hardware emulation because of the speed. This means behavior, at some point had to change away from that which would favor gears and levers to simulate brain software, into favoring software to emulate gears and levers.

 

The easiest way to make that shift, is to disconnect, some of the brain, from a direct connection to genetic gears and levers using a separate control console. Human will power is this separate console. But we also have the genetic hardware with its ancient gears and levers for software emulation.

 

If we compare promiscuity to monogamy, promiscuity is better geared to the needs of genetic variation. This will improve the genetic hardware, fastest. But on the other hand, all things being equal, monogamy within parents improves the mind/brain software in the next generation of brains, which are the children. Humans are composed of hardware and software, creating a dichotomy.

 

Monogamy in adults is better geared to the software emulation of hardware, within children because it doesn't change programming oars in midstream. It would be like writing a program and then the boss saying we can't do it that way because the wind is not blowing from the north but now from the south. There will be software bias that can effect the final hardware emulation. The result may be the need to start up in safe mode using genetic software emulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Request thread be moved to Strange Claims bucket.

 

This is not science (as expressly conceded in the OP), and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to the actual science (even Wiki has an entire section discussing this specific issue of it being cultural).

 

 

Monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The incidence of sexual monogamy can be roughly estimated as the percentage of married people who do not engage in extramarital sex. Several studies have looked at the percentage of people who engage in extramarital sex. These studies have shown that extramarital sex varies across cultures and across genders.

 

The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample describes the amount of extramarital sex by men and women in over 50 pre-industrial cultures. [37] [38] The amount of extramarital sex by men is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 29 cultures, "occasional" in 6 cultures, and "uncommon" in 10 cultures. The amount of extramarital sex by women is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 23 cultures, "occasional" in 9 cultures, and "uncommon" in 15 cultures. These findings support the claim that the amount of extramarital sex differs across cultures and across genders.

 

Recent surveys conducted in non-Western nations have also found cultural and gender differences in extramarital sex. A study of sexual behavior in Thailand, Tanzania and Côte d'Ivoire suggests about 16-34% of men engage in extramarital sex while a much smaller (unreported) percentage of women engage in extramarital sex. [39] Studies in Nigeria have found around 47-53% of men and to 18-36% of women engage in extramarital sex. [40] [41] A 1999 survey of married and cohabiting couples in Zimbabwe reports that 38% of men and 13% of women engaged in extra-couple sexual relationships within the last 12 months. [42]

 

Nowhere has extramarital sex been examined more frequently than in the United States. Many surveys asking about extramarital sex in the United States have relied on convenience samples. A convenience sample means surveys are given to whomever happens to be easily available (e.g., volunteer college students or volunteer magazine readers). Convenience samples do not accurately reflect the population of the United States as a whole, which can cause serious biases in survey results. It should not be surprising, therefore, that surveys of extramarital sex in the United States have produced widely differing results. A few studies relying on convenience samples have tried to compensate for biases by surveying large numbers of people. These studies report that about 12-26% of married women and 15-43% of married men engage in extramarital sex. [43] [44] [45] Although surveying large numbers of people helps to counteract the biases of convenience samples, the only way to get scientifically reliable estimates of extramarital sex is to use nationally representative samples. Three studies have used nationally representative samples. These studies have found that about 10-15% of women and 20-25% of men engage in extramarital sex. [46] [47] [48]

 

A majority of married people remain sexually monogamous during their marriages. The number of married partners who engage in extramarital sex never exceeds 50 percent in studies using large or nationally representative samples. Yet, the incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures. People in some cultures are more sexually monogamous than people in other cultures. Women also appear to be more sexually monogamous than men.

 

 

Surely, if it were "instinctual," you wouldn't have such cultural variation, and likely not such a high incidence of infidelity to begin with. Seems to me somebody is engaging in wish thinking in an attempt to justify their faith based worldview.

 

Btw... That quoted bit above is supported by no less than 11 different references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Request thread be moved to Strange Claims bucket.

 

This is not science (as expressly conceded in the OP), and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to the actual science (even Wiki has an entire section discussing this specific issue of it being cultural).

Might not be Science with a capital "S" yet, but it seems HB is still developing his argument in his last post, albeit with a bit of a detour.

Surely, if it were "instinctual," you wouldn't have such cultural variation, and likely not such a high incidence of infidelity to begin with.

I agree with that, but discussing the origins of the idea that humans are supposedly monogamous, and whatever benefits upholding that pretension might have, is surely scientific.

Seems to me somebody is engaging in wish thinking in an attempt to justify their faith based worldview.

I don't recall HB dragging religion into it anywhere.

 

Religion might be a strong angle in defense of this particular idea, but the fallacy of human monogamy cuts across all racial, cultural and religious lines. Western Europeans have religion to thank for their monogamous viewpoint, but amongst the Bushmen of the Kalahari, strict monogamy is part and parcel of their makeup. And they've only been in contact with Christianity for a relatively short while. I have a suspicion that in their desert conditions, the original basis for their monogamy has more to do with keeping the population limited in the face of harsh living conditions than with religion.

 

So, while I certainly understand your objections and your call for moving this thread to Strange Claims, I do see fertile soil for a proper discussion of the Scientific Kind with regards to this particular topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the high level approach you are taking towards these ideas.

 

I feel like jealousy is a byproduct of our whole motivation system and could not be changed in isolation. Therefore I disagree that this is a "monogamy instinct". For that matter I think the opposing force is a byproduct of the same system.

 

Jealousy just seems to do with the fear of the loss in the most general sense. Also, I have observed that jealousy is greatly reduced when you remove value judgements on people. People have less of a problem (if any) with a desired person giving admiration to all than they do with that person giving admiration ONLY to someone else because they think that person is "better" in some way. Fear of deception is also an issue here - for when you are deceived, you assume that the situation is much worse than just what you have found out about.

 

As for the instinct to mate with many partners, it seems like we are attracted to general attributes like certain shapes, outlines etc. New relations with these general outlines are most impactful. If it wasn't for this, we would just sit staring and smiling back at the first smile we came across until we starved to death.

 

I would agree this system could be described as a driving force for reproduction, but I believe it is also the cause of all of our behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, but discussing the origins of the idea that humans are supposedly monogamous, and whatever benefits upholding that pretension might have, is surely scientific.

Sorry to have to disagree with you here, mate, but I do. Shouldn't one first prove there is a such thing as unicorns before they go on conjecturing about which chemical causes them to be different colors?

 

Humans are not monogamous, and if there were some genetic instinct for us to be then we wouldn't see such commonality in infidelity nor differing behaviors across the various cultures. My first foray into science and research was several years in the human sexuality lab at our university, and I have a fairly firm grasp of this topic.

 

 

The data to the contrary is so plain that the idea itself can be discarded on its face (not to mention HBs history of posting unfounded nonsense grounded in false premises).

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like jealousy is a byproduct of our whole motivation system and could not be changed in isolation. Therefore I disagree that this is a "monogamy instinct". For that matter I think the opposing force is a byproduct of the same system.

 

Jealousy just seems to do with the fear of the loss in the most general sense. Also, I have observed that jealousy is greatly reduced when you remove value judgements on people.

Jealously seems to have conferred selective benefit. You should check out the work of David Buss, specifically, his text "The Dangerous Passion." Covers this issue quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to have to disagree with you here, mate, but I do. Shouldn't one first prove there is a such thing as unicorns before they go on conjecturing about which chemical causes them to be different colors?

Woah there, cowboy! Hold on to yer horses!

The concept of human monogamy is prevalent throughout most cultures. As fallacious as that might be, the idea that we are monogamous exist. And what would give rise to that idea? It's not, however much you might want to turn this into a religious thing, exclusively because of religion that we might think we are, or should be, at least, monogamous. The Kalahari Bushmen I mentioned above serves as a case in point.

Humans are not monogamous, and if there were some genetic instinct for us to be then we wouldn't see such commonality in infidelity nor differing behaviors across the various cultures.

Yet, the idea of human monogamy is prevalent, spanning cultures and religions. Why would that be, and why would getting to the root of that not be a discussion worthy of science? I find it very curious.

My first foray into science and research was several years in the human sexuality lab at our university, and I have a fairly firm grasp of this topic.
"Firm grasp" on the topic... at the sex lab? Man, I can think of a million witty comebacks to that one...:)

But then again, arguing from authority is in itself a bit of a no-no. There's only one thing that carries weight, and that's your argument. And you are the very first one to raise religion here, not HB.

The data to the contrary is so plain that the idea itself can be discarded on its face (not to mention HBs history of posting unfounded nonsense grounded in false premises).

Once again, I think you missed a bit in my last post - the one you objected to:

Personally, I don't think humans are monogamous. Not as a species, at least. You get cases like my cousin who'll be just too glad to get laid at least once, for all he's gettin' now. But that's on an individual basis. What I'm getting at is that the idea of human monogamy is prevalent - and the discussion of how and why we got to believe that particular line of BS is worthy of discussion - and no, however much you may want the contrary to be the case, religion is not the sole proprietor of the idea that humans are supposed to be monogamous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be missing my point. The rough outline of what I'm saying is that it's completely baseless to first assume a monogamy instinct since all of the data available indicates that we have evolved to prefer numerous mates, and to exploit numerous mating opportunities. It is only through cultural conditioning that we suppress those urges and remain monogamous. However, the urges we feel are to mate with multiple different partners as often as possible, the exact opposite of the suggestion in the OP of a "monogamy instinct."

 

The idea of monogamy is all well and good, and is definitely worthy of discussion in a psychology thread, however, my interpretation is that this is hardly the intended purpose here based on the OPs own posts.

 

I'm gonna lay the legal smack down on your cow worshippin' *** now. :hyper:

 

 

Exhibit A:

there are strong human counter emotions that suggest there is also a monogamous instinct within humans.

 

Exhibit B:

Here is my theory for the monogamous instinct

 

You may also recall that I expressly suggested that one should first demonstrate the existence of a "monogamous instinct" prior to speculating about potential causes of it.

 

 

Exhibit C:

all things being equal, monogamy within parents improves the mind/brain software in the next generation of brains, which are the children. Humans are composed of hardware and software, creating a dichotomy.

 

Monogamy in adults is better geared to the software emulation of hardware, within children because it doesn't change programming oars in midstream.

 

If that's not a strange claim, then I don't know what is. :bouquet:

 

Regardless, it's all baseless assertions, without a single solitary citation or reference with hard empirical data in support. He may as well be arguing that the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, but only on Tuesdays during a leap year.

 

 

Hmmm... Okay, so maybe I wouldn't make a very good lawyer, but my original point remains. It's completely baseless to first assume a monogamy instinct since all of the data available indicates that we have evolved to prefer numerous mates, and to exploit numerous mating opportunities... All data suggests that our "instincts" are to have diverse sexual partners, and that "monogamy" is a learned trait tied strongly to the society in which we were raised whereby we condition ourselves to suppress those natural urges. Either way, our "natural urges" (what some might call "instincts") are toward engaging in coitus with multiple partners. It's as simple as that.

 

 

Maybe things would be better if HB actually took a moment to define "monogamy instinct." What does that even mean? Does it mean that if I'm in a relationship with one girl and I see some other uber hot nude female beckoning me to her bed that I'm going to run the other direction due to some instinctual repulsion... a repulsion I would only feel due to my already being in a relationship with someone else? ... That if I weren't in another relationship, I would not feel the urge to run away or be repulsed? I mean, WTF are we even talking about here? The suggestion is laughable. The data is so fully on the other side of this I wonder why the question was even asked in the first place (but, while I wonder, TBH, I don't really care). :thumbs_up

 

 

"Firm grasp" on the topic... at the sex lab? Man, I can think of a million witty comebacks to that one...:bounce:

 

I've certainly missed you, my friend. I hope things are well in SA. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, but discussing the origins of the idea that humans are supposedly monogamous, and whatever benefits upholding that pretension might have, is surely scientific.
Sorry to have to disagree with you here, mate, but I do. Shouldn't one first prove there is a such thing as unicorns before they go on conjecturing about which chemical causes them to be different colors?

 

Humans are not monogamous

I disagree with several of the statements implied by these quotes.

 

First, when studying animal behavior, even that of members of the brainy, social, human species, studying our ideas – which, in this context, I think is more clearly termed our beliefs – about the behavior is complicated and problematic. It’s more effective, I think, to approach the subject empirically, defining and measuring the collection of behavior in questions. While even little experienced students of non-human animal behavior usually understand the importance of and strive to avoid anthropomorphizing the object of their study, students of human behavior need also to understand and avoid this source of bias, and attempt to study humans as just another animal species, as if the student was not of the same species.

 

Second, the analogy that studying monogamous behavior in humans, or any other animal, is like studying unicorns, is, I think, off. Animals don’t exhibit well-defined “unicorn-related behavior”, but various species do exhibit monogamous behaviors. A source of potential confusion is that there are several important behaviors to which the term “monogamous” applies – social, sexual, genetic, and marital, to name just those in the wikipedia article to which InfiniteNow linked. Some members of an animal populations, including humans, engage in various combinations of these behaviors at different times and circumstances in their lifetime.

 

So stating that humans are or are not monogamous is like stating that humans are or are not swimming, or some other inconstant behavior. Better, I think, to agree with the statement “some humans sometimes behave monogamously”, and seek a clear definition of what this means.

 

Toward this end, I propose that we adopt a “central dogma of human monogamy”, that is, a core area of empirical observation on which we can agree. Here’s my first draft, culled from various anthropologists and zoologists, especially Desmond Morris:

  • The likelihood of children surviving to reach maturity and having offspring is increased by being protected by adults, and decreased by being attacked by adults.
  • Usually, adults are more likely to protect, and less likely to attack, children they believe are their genetic offspring than those who are not.
  • Because of an uninterrupted “chain of custody”, a mother is almost always certain if a child is hers.
  • A man is certain that he is the father of a child only if he is certain that no other man had procreative sex with the mother during the period in which conception occurred.
  • A man is certain that he is not the father of a child if he has not had sex with the mother during this period.

From these few assumptions, the rationale for a variety of behaviors are suggested:

  • To assure that a man will protect her offspring, a woman will attempt to assure a man with whom she’s had sex that she has had sex with no other man.
  • To assure that the child of a woman with whom he’s had sex is his, a man will attempt to assure that the woman has sex with no other man.
  • To assure that many men will think they might be her child’s father, a woman will have sex with as many men as possible
  • To assure that he has as many children as possible, a man will have sex with as many women as possible.
  • To assure that another man who has had sex with a woman will protect her child, believing it his own, a man will attempt to keep his having sex with her secret

Throw on top of this list the biological trait of human females, unusual in the primate family, that it is difficult to determine when they are or are not able to conceive, and the species's great language and social skills, and you have a motivational basis for myriad, complicated, culturally-dependent confidence-winning, deception, suspicious and jealous behaviors. Whether you categorize the collection of these behaviors for a given culture or the whole of human kind as “primarily monogamous” or “primarily promiscuous”, or eschew such labels, these behaviors are clearly not simple.

 

An additional biological trait of human females, common among mammal species, is that breastfeeding greatly reduces the likelihood of conception, gives rise to a grim tendency in human male behavior. If a man is having sex with a woman with a young child he is certain or strongly suspects is not his own, he has a motive to stop her from breastfeeding it, by some means, so that he she can conceive his child. Even if the child is no longer breastfeeding, it requires resources that may be limited, and shared with children the man is confident are his. Thus, as in many mammal species, males are more likely to kill children than females, with stepchildren being at greatest risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me evidence of a human monogamy instinct and I will entertain further study with you. Until then, I don't care what you think makes unicorns pink or purple.

 

 

As I stated myself, there exists monogamy, but the data STRONGLY implies that it is a learned, cultural trait which makes us suppress our actual instincts. I don't discount the fact that monogamy occurs, nor how it can prove beneficial. What I take issue with is the baseless assertion that it is instinctual.

 

 

 

EDIT: Perhaps I can be more clear. There are obviously strong social bonding traits in all of us, and even many times a desire to pair bond with a single mate for life. However, the concept of "monogamy" relates specifically to sexuality, and we DO NOT have an instinct to have sex with only one person, nor does our sexual desire go away when we are actively partnered in a pair bond. The sexual urges remain, despite the presence of a life partner.

 

The desire to bond with a single partner is one thing, but the concept of monogamy does not describe that.

 

To reiterate, monogamy is specific to sexual activity, not bonding activity. It may seem that these are the same things, but the differences are profound.

 

We suppress our natural urges... urges fed by hormones and instinct... when we choose to avoid copulation with other partners. That's not to say that we don't have genetic tendencies toward pair bonding with single partners, just that the idea of monogamy applies to sexual activity by definition, and hence the assertion that it is instinctual is counter to all data available to us.

 

Now, if HB is talking about pair bonding for life with a single mate being instinctual, let's explore that. However, if he's talking about monogamy being an instinct, he's simply wrong.

 

 

Alternatively, let's define what we mean by "monogamy." In our lab, we spoke of monogamy as the sexual part, and the relationship as the pair bonding part. Perhaps I was wrong to assume this is how all researchers do it (not that HydrogenBond is a researcher on this topic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, Louise...

 

Sometimes, I think I'm talking to a wall. Or that very few of my posts are actually read.

 

If HB says that humans are monogamous, then he's flat-out wrong.

 

However, the idea that humans are monogamous is prevalent, and cuts across cultural and religious boundaries.

 

Why would that be?

 

That, in itself, the idea that we are something that we clearly and explicitly are not, is endlessly fascinating in itself, and is fertile soil for discussion of the properly scientific kind.

 

I won't recommend this thread for Strange Claims, because after all, this isn't the first time you heard any human claim to be monogamous. Let's forget the fact that HB claims that there's a monogamy instinct, which is false, and dig a little deeper and ask him why he believes it to be the case. Because that, in itself, is mighty fascinating.

 

I'll tell you my theory for the belief in human monogamy: It all boils down to our social hierarchy. You don't wanna mess with the Alpha Male's women. And not because you don't want to, but because the Alpha Male wants to protect his interests, and don't want any other DNA to compete with his. By the same token, you wouldn't take any nonsense from any other males lower on the totem pole. And so the chief, or priests, or whoever in any particular society sways the biggest influence, defend the concept of human monogamy. Although the real reason might not be religious, as might be claimed by the priest. The real reason behind it is merely the preservation of the hierarchy, or simply the maintenance of social stability.

 

That's one of the reasons that I believe HB can so easily fall into the trap of simply assuming human monogamy as a fact. Because its culturally ingrained over so many generations that we have come to unquestioningly accept the dogma.

 

But the prevalence of that particular dogma would not make it a strange claim in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to develop the idea of genetic hardware emulating brain software and the brain/mind software emulating hardware. The first would be genetic based chemical effects leading to genetic behavior and the second involves conscious learning that emulates genetic hardware.

 

For example, a woman can increase her sex appeal by changing the color of her hair, putting on make-up to give her a clear and radiant complexion and/or to make her lips look fuller or her eyes brighter. She can create the impression of longer legs with hi-heals, perkier breasts with a good bra, etc. All these things attempt to emulate genetic hardware that exists within nature, because some human female have these things genetically and these can trigger the gears and levers in males. But since most women do not have this genetic hardware, they have to emulate it. The bird with colorful feathers has that because of genetics. Humans can create their version of colorful feathers, if it does not exist genetically, by learning a procedure to create the emulation.

 

Once couples pair up, typically there is less need for as much hardware emulation because the two people have time to see who is under the mask. Human promiscuity is optimized with a higher ratio of sexual based hardware emulation. Monogamy may not be pure genetic hardware in action, by it requires a lower ratio of hardware emulsion, since the female doesn't have to wear makeup for her husband and the husband doesn't have to be use pretend charm or sing a song that works again and again.

 

Let me go back. The genetic hardware is a like a mechanical clock where gears and levers cause the woodcutter to come out, circle a couple of times, chop wood and then go back into the house. The software based hardware emulation can tinker with the wood cutter, since this is an edible region.

 

Say we edited the woodcutter by giving him a heavy stone ax instead of the genetic wood ax. The genetic gears and levers will still drive the mechanism, but we may have altered the center of gravity and increase the moment of inertia of the woodcutter. If this was a mechanical device, it would start to lose natural time due to the change of torque, and/or the woodcutter will start to wobble. He will still come out of the house, circle a couple of times, chop wood and go back. It looks similar, but is not the same as the version where we don't edit the woodcutter. Zero editing is genetic while maximum editing is connected to mind/brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics is very conservative and changes slowly. The mind/brain emulations can create potentials between the mind/brain emulation and conservative machine of genetics. A good mechanical analogy to see a type of effect is a washing machine. If too many clothes end up on one side, the wash machine will starts to buck and make noise. The genetic machine is designed to handle the weight of these clothes and will last for years, but they clothes need to be distributed evenly, or else unbalanced stresses will appear.

 

Relative to our unbalanced wash emulation, the washing machine might start to walk across the floor. Theoretically, one could use this imbalanced walk, to turn the wash machine into a plow. We have not altered the genetic machine, at the hardware level. We are still using it to wash clothes, but we have turned the genetic software emulation into two things. Technically, the new walking and plowing features are connected to genes without any change to the DNA in terms of sequences. Although genetic expression may shift due to the imbalance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...