Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on April 03, 2011, 03:19:48 PM
-
"Adaptive" in the Darwinian sense, as in "aversion to homosexuality makes a creature more fit to survive and have progeny."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=natural-homophobes-evolutionary-psy-2011-03-09
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=homophobia-phobia-bad-science-or-ba-2011-03-22
The work in question dates back to 1995-1996 and involves a four-paper exchange published in Ethology and Sociobiology. It is a dialogue between two influential evolutionary psychologists—Gordon Gallup of SUNY-Albany, whose work on human sexuality I’ve covered before, and British psychologist John Archer of the University of Central Lancashire. Their primary debate is about whether or not people’s aversion to homosexuality (colloquially called "homophobia," although both authors acknowledge that this is a misnomer because it is more a negative attitude towards this demographic than it is fear) is a product of natural selection or, alternatively, a culturally constructed, transmitted bias.
The author then goes on to suggest new research be done on this topic, since the opposite proposition has also been covered:
...most evolutionary research on homosexuality involves trying to locate its fringe gene-enhancing benefits. This homosexuality-is-adaptive-too approach complements a growing tolerance for gay individuals, such as, happily, myself. Gallup comes at things from a very different angle, instead asking why there is such disdain for gay people to begin with and—although cultures may vary in their relative degree of tolerance or practice of homosexual behaviors—why no cultures actually endorse exclusive, lifelong same-sex relationships.
Oh, and a bit about adaptive behavior:
Remember, adaptive behavior is behavior that simply favors genetic replication. So just as being cuckolded results in maladaptive, unprofitable parental investment in someone else’s biological offspring, gay offspring—even your own biological child—are less likely to reproduce, and are likewise genetically costly.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/263602
The modern cant is that homophobia is “socially constructed,” which means that it is instilled by indoctrination into the sheep-like masses by power elites who find it useful to their self-preservation.
As with “racism,” that is all nonsense. Attitudes so widespread, in so many times and places, call for some deeper, more coherent explanation than the sub-Marxist gibberish of crackpot French intellectuals. So what’s the explanation for homophobia?
...
Bering doesn’t have any results of his own to offer; he’s just calling for someone to take up where Gallup left off...
The Left was quick to react...
The real issue here for the Left, as Myers makes all too plain, isn’t whether homophobia is or is not adaptive, it’s whether anyone who wants to research such a topic, or even just ponder it, is fit to be admitted to polite society.
To put it differently, this is not a matter of scientific inquiry, it’s a matter of social-status assertion via moral one-upmanship and the outlawing of dissent from ideological dogmas. There’s a lot of that about.
Pity the author of the SA article. Yes, he is a good lefty and homosexual, to boot. He just hasn't learned that some topics are taboo in some primitive sub-cultures. >:D
I'd suggest reading them, as they also provide a quick & dirty primer on what is called, nowadays, "evolutionary psychology."
That intersects another post I read about the rationality of anti-intellectualism:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117902/
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2400310
Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think...Scientists have failed to resist politicization across the board, and the standards of what constitutes science continues to shift from a living, vibrant, thoughtful understanding of the purposes and ways of science to a scelerotic hide-bound form-over-substance version of science where papers are too often written to either explicitly attract grants or to confirm someone’s political beliefs…
So, I see two main topics of interest (along with several others):
1. "...whether or not people’s aversion to homosexuality...is a product of natural selection or, alternatively, a culturally constructed, transmitted bias."
This really is not all-encompassing query, but more like, "What color is the object, black or white?" which leaves out all the other possible colors ["Chartreuse!"]. There are more than the two possibilities, but science is not equipped to examine some of them.
2. The use of social pressure by politicized sub-groups to inhibit scientific inquiry.
I am reminded of Galileo's scientific colleagues(1), who tossed similar arguments at him, instead of addressing the substance.
I do expect a lot of "tl;dr" responses. That would be a pity.
(1) No, the Roman Catholics did not go a-hunting Galileo. They had to be prodded into action. G's competitors agitated to get the RC church to take a gander at his cosmology. FTR, the Pope at the time was a buddy of G's and quite, ah, "inquisitive" his own self.
-
I'd say that the fact that there has been more than one culture in history that was tolerant of homosexuality would point to the aversion being cultural rather than evolutionary.
-
oh my you are an evil man. am i gonna have fun with this....
be right back gotta bait another forum with this
-
I'd say that the fact that there has been more than one culture in history that was tolerant of homosexuality would point to the aversion being cultural rather than evolutionary.
IOW, "tl;dr"
oh my you are an evil man.
I live but to serve.
-
I'll ask the same thing here that I ask those who believe homosexuality is genetic.....if it is, what happens when some geneticist finds a cure for it?...... =|
-
I'll ask the same thing here that I ask those who believe homosexuality is genetic.....if it is, what happens when some geneticist finds a cure for it?...... =|
I could have a lot of fun playing devil's advocate with this one, but I'll try to resist the almost overwhelming urge.
-
I'll ask the same thing here that I ask those who believe homosexuality is genetic.....if it is, what happens when some geneticist finds a cure for it?...... =|
Or if science finds a way to change sexual orientation at will. You are gay today, heterosexual next week, bisexual next month. I have read several science fiction novels/stories with a similar premise. Sometimes the ability to change orientation is forced, as in a government changing the orientation of most everyone gay, as a means of controlling over-population.
I have seen a somewhat similar debate over the concept of implanting cochlear implants into profoundly deaf children shortly after birth, so that they can grow up hearing and speaking essentially normally. This would mean the end of 'deaf culture', and a lot of deaf people are comparing this sort of medical intervention to forced sterilization or genocide that would eradicate a population.
-
Or if science finds a way to change sexual orientation at will. You are gay today, heterosexual next week, bisexual next month. I have read several science fiction novels/stories with a similar premise. Sometimes the ability to change orientation is forced, as in a government changing the orientation of most everyone gay, as a means of controlling over-population.
I have seen a somewhat similar debate over the concept of implanting cochlear implants into profoundly deaf children shortly after birth, so that they can grow up hearing and speaking essentially normally. This would mean the end of 'deaf culture', and a lot of deaf people are comparing this sort of medical intervention to forced sterilization or genocide that would eradicate a population.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You're right. That is a very similar debate. Can you provide any links to the "end of deaf culture" nonsense?
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=cochlear+implant+end+of+deaf+culture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Lots of interesting links there.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You're right. That is a very similar debate. Can you provide any links to the "end of deaf culture" nonsense?
Being nearby, I remember the 2006 protests, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaudet_University#Deaf_President_Now_.281988.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture#Values_and_beliefs
Chris
-
the deaf community has very strong feelings and are not shy.
-
Yeah, I googled it all by myself (thank you very much :P ) and found some amusing bits.
That treating deafness as a disability "sends a message to the Deaf that they are of lesser worth." Of course you could only have that opinion if you believed that the disable are of lesser worth. Who's the bigot now?
One person laments that hearing mothers can shout things to their hearing kids without ever turning away from the stove; but if they were still deaf, they would be forced to face each other in the more intimate communication of sign language. Never mind that a kid without a cochlear implant will have no communication - at all - with hundreds or thousands of people they might have otherwise connected with. Then there's the whole getting run over by a truck because you couldn't hear it coming sort of thing.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: But, yeah, pretty similar to the whole notion that helping homosexuals straighten themselves out is some sort of hate crime.
http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2011/04/apple-and-the-battle-for-free-speech.html
-
But, yeah, pretty similar to the whole notion that helping homosexuals straighten themselves out is some sort of hate crime.
So you think that homosexuals need to be straightened out, is that your premise? Who else, in your opinion, needs to be straightened out?
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: But, yeah, pretty similar to the whole notion that helping homosexuals straighten themselves out is some sort of hate crime.
So you think that homosexuals need to be straightened out, is that your premise? Who else, in your opinion, needs to be straightened out?
I think that fistful's statement is akin to my own question.....no position stated, but definitely food for thought....
-
That treating deafness as a disability "sends a message to the Deaf that they are of lesser worth." Of course you could only have that opinion if you believed that the disable are of lesser worth. Who's the bigot now?
Wow. Just. Wow.
Really?
I don't suppose it would occur to you that people might wish to guard against a specific message being sent because it, um, IS, rather than because they hold it deeply themselves?
If I acknowledge that people have historically treated Jews as inferior, does that mean I think Jews are inferior? If I acknowledge that people with mental illness are highly stigmatized and tend to be treated as histrionic losers who just need to man up, does that mean that I stigmatize people with mental illness, because I believe we are histrionic losers who just need to man up?
If I acknowledge the presence of the 600 pound gorilla in the room, does that mean I'm straight out of Planet of the Apes?
-
If I acknowledge the presence of the 600 pound gorilla in the room, does that mean I'm straight out of Planet of the Apes?
Nope. King King, maybe. ;
This thread really has the potential to get ugly. I hope it stays polite.
-
I hereby submit a WAG that may be tangential to these articles: A culture's acceptance of homosexuality is inversely proportional to its birth rate. IOW, high birth rate, homosexuality less acceptable. Lower birth rate, more acceptable. No idea why, but it seems to correlate.
-
The one thing that bothers me the most is the over and misuse of the term homophobia. A phobia is a fear, yet the word is used as an accusatory perjorative. It is a shame how words are misused in this way. That particular misuse cause divisiveness and oddly those doing a good deal of the the dividing now a days call themselves progressives.
-
If I acknowledge the presence of the 600 pound gorilla in the room, does that mean I'm straight out of Planet of the Apes?
No....but I'd ask why you seem pretty focused on it.....have you got something against gorillas?.....or are you prejudiced about big people?........
-
Nope. King King, maybe. ;
This thread really has the potential to get ugly. I hope it stays polite.
Heck, I hope someone posts anything remotely related to the OP.
So far, no one has engaged the issues in the OP, even tangentially. Yes, thread drift at APS is a feature, not a bug, but to "go off on a tangent" means one was once on the circumference. "Thread drift" requires one once was nearby. It is like a whole thread of non sequitur. We're already past Planet of the Apes and are quickly approaching The Black Hole.
So, I see two main topics of interest (along with several others):
1. "...whether or not people’s aversion to homosexuality...is a product of natural selection or, alternatively, a culturally constructed, transmitted bias."
This really is not all-encompassing query, but more like, "What color is the object, black or white?" which leaves out all the other possible colors ["Chartreuse!"]. There are more than the two possibilities, but science is not equipped to examine some of them.
2. The use of social pressure by politicized sub-groups to inhibit scientific inquiry.
I am reminded of Galileo's scientific colleagues(1), who tossed similar arguments at him, instead of addressing the substance.
-
Missed ZOB's post. Yes it is tangential. Best we've got, so far.
-
Meh, I thought about it. Even started writing it. Decided I didn't want to spend a lot of time on it, stopped. :shrug:
-
The whole OP was very intellectual and smart. Not being of that persuasion (intellectual and smart, that is) I don't have anything to offer but nebulousness, thus the tangent. :angel:
-
How does "sending the message" that deaf people can't hear in any way biased or derogatory?
-
I think its a cultural aversion.
From a sociologic standpoint, sexual deviance (any sexual activity outside the 'norm' defined here by vanillia hetrosexual acts) is a part of being human, so having people who are primarly wired for such behavior would serve as a kind of relief valve for tension created by the simple fact that humans are sexually devient pretty much across the board.
Many cultures don't put it in the spotlight or accept them as mainstream, but have definate subcultures that are accepted, to a certain degree. I can't remember were it is but somewhere in southeast asia, there is an accepted form of transgender, where a young boy from many familys is raised as a girl, with the sole purpose of growing up as the designated transgender member of the family.
India actually has a religious caste of homosexuals/transgender that are universially abused but also considered holy.
And we all know about the Romans, who took it a step further and encouraged homosexuality within the ranks to provide added incentive for the soliders to fight together.
Basivally, my theroy would be that historically, cultures don't really like sexual deviance, but must accept it to a certain degree, so they keep it controled on the fringes of society.
I'd like to see what happens when a culture manages to openly accept human sexuality in its entirity. From an acedemic standpoint, it would be interesting.
-
How does one define homophobia when I don't think people know what "homosexual" means. I don't think homosexual people know what "homosexual" means.
Are men and women in prison "homosexual" who are arguably straight heterosexual, and may never have had a homosexual thought/fantasy in their life, then have homosexual sex in prison, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual once released, and may never have had any homosexual tendencies if they never had been incarcerated?
I think there are people who definitely didn't "choose" to be homosexual, clues were there from early childhood from the time they could walk, talk, or play. However, I think it's naive to think there aren't people who did "choose" it, or life circumstances did lead them in that direction.
Then what about cases that might be gender identity problems. Is a woman who feels/believes herself to be a man, and as such has relationships with women, really a "lesbian"?
Are effeminate homosexuals even the "same" kind of homosexual as butch homosexuals?
Ultimately, there are obviously plenty of people who are pretty stereotypically gay or straight, it's like the concept of race, lots of gray areas, but "you know it when you see it" etc. However, there are LOTS of people who don't fit into the neat classifications either.
Are you homophobic when presented with the "idea" of homosexuality, like say some rural fundamentalist Christian might be expected to react?
Are you only homophobic when they hook you up to body monitors that monitor for stress symptoms, then put you in a room with homosexual people, and they record sufficient results?
Are you still homophobic when you only react in a room full of leather daddies and drag queens, and butch lesbian bikers, but don't react when it's a room of people in business suits having a business lunch that you're told are homosexual?
What if there are homosexual people who freak out around the extreme examples of their "culture"? Are they homophobic too? =|
-
AJ, one problem is the confusion of gender identity and sexual orentation.
They are two VERY diffrent things.
the vast majority of people are technically bisexual, in terms of orientation. Under any given set of circumstances a person can have a "homosexual" experiance (or for those who identify as homosexual, a hetrosexual experiance)
Like I said, I think having a small portion of the society primarly wired to go the other way, is for the benift of the whole, since almost anyone can do it, and if they can, they will.
-
Adaptive" in the Darwinian sense, as in "aversion to homosexuality makes a creature more fit to survive and have progeny."
The progenerative drive can be satisfied in a multitude of ways.
Only one is actually useful to the gene pool, though. Yet, the "multitude" are greeted with different levels of aversion/attraction.
That leads me to believe it is cultural, for if it was strictly biologic/evolutionary then there would be extreme instinctual aversions to the parts of "the multitude" that do not benefit the gene pool.
-
AJ & BSL:
The linked articles in the OP are very enlightening WRT some of y'all's questions.
-
The one thing that bothers me the most is the over and misuse of the term homophobia. A phobia is a fear, yet the word is used as an accusatory perjorative. It is a shame how words are misused in this way. That particular misuse cause divisiveness and oddly those doing a good deal of the the dividing now a days call themselves progressives.
As I have always had it, "homo" in this usage means sameness, and phobia is not just a fear but an irrational or pathological fear. Thus, homophobia, properly parsed, is an irrational or pathological fear of things or people like yourself. Now that is one hell of a condition, sort of a pathological zenophilia.
-
AJ & BSL:
The linked articles in the OP are very enlightening WRT some of y'all's questions.
I have been reading them, and I see all sorts of "chicken and egg" problems though. (Not that I fault the author, or Gallup, how do you get a handle on something as elusive and slippery as sexual orientation data? You have to start somewhere..)
Gallup points to data showing that boys whose first masturbation experiences are around other boys are more likely to be homosexual as adults than are those who are alone.
There's tons of these things that can be countered with "Correlation does not equal causation". Perhaps boys with homosexual tendencies are more likely to have a group experience than a solitary one.
Same for the links between child molestation and homosexuality. Icky as it might be to think about it, there could be a self-selecting mechanism involved between homosexual children and molesters. More receptive to the same-sex "grooming" activities and attention, etc...
AJ, one problem is the confusion of gender identity and sexual orentation.
They are two VERY diffrent things.
Oh I agree. I probably just put it badly. However, I was trying to say even some of the people suffering from gender identity issues may not know it, trying to decide if they're gay, straight, or gender mis-identified. Someone in my own family is going through this. Young woman in her twenties, always was a "tomboy", buzz cut, dresses male, trying to to work out the "Lesbian thing" but it's not working for her.
On top of it, she's deaf, so it's a double-whammy to try and find your way in life with. Bright side, family is very accepting, but that only helps her not be miserable. It's not enough to make her happy I fear. I really hope she can find what's going to work for her.
-
That treating deafness as a disability "sends a message to the Deaf that they are of lesser worth." Of course you could only have that opinion if you believed that the disable are of lesser worth. Who's the bigot now?
Wow. Just. Wow.
Really?
I don't suppose it would occur to you that people might wish to guard against a specific message being sent because it, um, IS, rather than because they hold it deeply themselves?
It seems you misunderstand me, and the view I was rebutting. The latter being that, if x is acknowledged to be a disability, then people afflicted by x will be regarded as having less worth; thus x should not be regarded as a disability.
Obviously, people with disabilities are sometimes seen as being less worthy. The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.
So you think that homosexuals need to be straightened out, is that your premise?
That is the traditional (possibly still the majority) view, and it is well-founded.
-
Basically, my theory would be that historically, cultures don't really like sexual deviance, but must accept it to a certain degree, so they keep it controlled on the fringes of society.
I'm not an idealist. I know a lot of things that people do are awful low, but that's between them and God. Do you believe in God? I believe in God, son. ....... I will tolerate *one* gang, because that is the nature of things. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable. You boys work it out. I don't give a damn ...
-
I hereby submit a WAG that may be tangential to these articles: A culture's acceptance of homosexuality is inversely proportional to its birth rate. IOW, high birth rate, homosexuality less acceptable. Lower birth rate, more acceptable. No idea why, but it seems to correlate.
And I'd argue it the other way around. But let me approach the question from a different angle. What happens to a species that is too successful in its niche? As birthrates skyrocket the species overruns its ecosystem. Competitors are crowded out. Food resources become scarce. But it isn't common that any species completely destroys the habitat, because some other pressure is exerted to thin out the population: Disease, less available food, and lower fertility and birthrates. Humans have done pretty well against disease, and we're producing more food than ever before (albeit with looming long-term consequences). And the birthrate, while lower per person than in years past, is still skyrocketing because there are so many people.
Could the increase we see in homosexuality be a result of population pressures? Same-sex relationships have always existed, in humans and other animals, so one can hypothesize that there is a genetic component to it. With that, might environmental pressures trigger an increase in animals exhibiting same sex behaviors as part of an effort to slow or stop population increase? This idea does draw on the Gaea Hypothesis, which posits that the planet as a whole is a self-regulating organism.
-
I'm not an idealist. I know a lot of things that people do are awful low, but that's between them and God. Do you believe in God? I believe in God, son. ....... I will tolerate *one* gang, because that is the nature of things. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable. You boys work it out. I don't give a damn ...
Deviance in this context does not indicate something bad, but rather just something outside the given cultures accepted norms.
Which, in our culture pretty much covers anything but hetrosexual vanillia sex.
-
The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.
they don't want to be treated or "cured" . they ask to be left alone. they consider themselves normal and think you/i am the odd one.( a theory with some support)
it is very common for folks to treat deaf folk like they have a mental disability and that gets old. there is a tendancy to socialize amongst themselves
-
Deviance in this context does not indicate something bad, but rather just something outside the given cultures accepted norms.
Which, in our culture pretty much covers anything but hetrosexual vanillia sex.
What part of my APS history leads you to think I will have any intent to stay on topic when I can instead try to shoehorn in a movie quote?
:P
-
What part of my APS history leads you to think I will have any intent to stay on topic when I can instead try to shoehorn in a movie quote?
:P
I know, but your movie quote didn't quite fit :P
-
I know, but your movie quote didn't quite fit :P
All the guys say I have a big shoehorn...
-
All the guys say I have a big shoehorn...
Now your in the wrong thread... ;/
But, since jamis closed that one, I guess you have nowhere else to go... :lol:
-
The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.
they don't want to be treated or "cured" . they ask to be left alone. they consider themselves normal and think you/i am the odd one.( a theory with some support)
;/ I don't see anyone forcing the deaf (or homosexuals for that matter) to be cured. At least not the adults. What we DO see is a post-modern fringe which tries to pretend that obvious problems are not problems. This is harmful to those with the aforementioned problems, besides being a lot of hogwash.
-
Fistful, its not a minority fringe group that thinks homosexuality is not a problem anymore.
Because, despite your beleifs, its really not a problem.
and yes, it offends me that you would use the word 'cure'.
-
And your view offends me. I was thinking of the deafness issue when I said "fringe." I am well aware that your point of view is the new, official orthodoxy.
Because, despite your beleifs, its really it being emotionally and physically unhealthy, we can pretend it's not a problem.
FTFY
-
And your view offends me. I was thinking of the deafness issue when I said "fringe." I am well aware that your point of view is the new, official orthodoxy.
FTFY
And perhaps what you call the new official orthodoxy are the deeply held beliefs of people who have given the matter thoughtful consideration based on their own moral and religious values. As you clearly have.
-
And perhaps what you call the new official orthodoxy are the deeply held beliefs of people who have given the matter thoughtful consideration based on their own moral and religious values. As you clearly have.
Yes, perhaps. Did I say otherwise?
-
Fistful
Never 'fix' stuff for me again.
:mad:
-
Fistful
Never 'fix' stuff for me again.
:mad:
Fine. If you will refrain from any response to/comment on any of my future posts, I will return the favor. If you wish to keep the lines of communication open, then we should treat one another the same as any other forum member. That would include occasional "fixings."
-
So much for this one.
Chris