Do you think human males are ‘innately’ more competitive than females? — Joshs

Among socializing mammals the norm is competition for social dominance between males and separately between females. The difference is that the among males, dominance conveys breeding rights if the species is sexually dimorphic, as we are.

I think the answer to your question is no. The weight of millions of years of evolution is behind competitiveness in both sexes.

I agree. The OP simply starts with the news that our biology suggests that we should have reduced monogamy. What's going on with us that we've made monogamy an ideal?

It's an invitation to speculate. I think so far the consensus is that it had to do with suppressing male-male competition for the sake of social stability along with a few other stray factors.

I did search as you indicated. The first item I came across is the one I quoted in a previous post that contradicts your — T Clark

As I said, those who can't use Google Scholar are screwed, in a number of ways.

A lot of the people in Genesis practiced polygamy. Maybe because war killed the men?

You — T Clark

I provided it to those who are capable of searching Google Scholar. Those who can't are just screwed. :victory:

Many non-human animals; whether they're mammals, birds, or something else, are monogamous. That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too. — T Clark

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. This is explained in the OP.

We like to feel we have strong connections to others — schopenhauer1

And this is another Homo Sapiens anomaly. Studies show that we look directly into one another's eyes more than other primates do. I don't want to read too much into that, but it stands to reason that this is a sign of a deeper drive to connect intimately with others in a way that isn't necessarily sexual.

It may be that the ground for monogamy has more than one source.

Eros1982
74
Because we somehow show we can be different from all mammals... and we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains (which often are socially/ethically oriented). — Eros1982

This is why the topic intrigues me. The fact that males and females are dimorphic reminds us of our basic earthly makeup. Our ideas about monogamy are opposed to this, attempting to leave the earth behind in some ways.

Likewise the fact that the eyes of white men of a certain age tend to be spaced apart just so that they provide improved long distance depth perception, the fact that the leg muscles of black men tend to allow them to jump higher, these are intrusions on the image of a certain kind of Over-human: the one who is over nature, above time and space, evacuated from the earth.

It isn't that correlation is meaningless, it is that correlation in and of itself is meaningless. There's a distinction that needs to be made there. — ThinkOfOne

Sure. I don't disagree with this.

It's merely a statistic what shows correlation. In and of itself, it means nothing. — ThinkOfOne

Correlation isn't meaningless. It's a mistake to assume causation, as you said. It's definitely mistake to jump to conclusions based on a correlation. But it's not meaningless.

This doesn't even begin to make rational sense for any number of reasons. Not least since NFL quarterbacks typically become starters well before the age of 32. Racism has been and remains the best answer. Seems likely that this "little stray factoid" was started by racists. — ThinkOfOne

Why would racism pertain to the quarterback position, but none of the other positions? I'd be happy to believe it, it just doesn't make any sense.

This seems a bit strong. Correlation does not imply causation. Seems more likely that it is rooted in the neurobiological incentive system than primate dimorphism. — ThinkOfOne

What sort of incentive system would explain why dimorphic animals are usually not monogamous? I'm asking.

It's not just primates, btw.

how did monogamy become an ideal for our species?
— Tate

Stability comes to mind — ThinkOfOne

Social stability is the hypothesis that makes the most sense to me at this point.

If it's derailing, it's because of your unsupported and unlikely claims about the social effects of sexual and racial differences. — T Clark

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from assigning views to me that I did not express.

This is starting to derail, but I did think it was funny.

You have to get past the idea of drive as some kind of simple mechanism, with cognitions in a one-way relation of subservience to them. Have you read John Dewey’s The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology? — Joshs

No, I haven't. The name suggests that instincts are dynamic? I suppose that's possible.

I've speculated that the reason Homo Sapiens picked up monogamy was because it decreased social unrest. It was part of our launch into larger scale groups. I think you're suggesting that once this started, it began to shape our instincts.

. If monogamy isn’t a thing among other primates , it’s not strictly because of top down influence of biological drive on behavior , but because of the way the intentional aims of the animals interact with and co-shape motivated behavior. — Joshs

How do you know this?

do you have any credible evidence about white people's vision vs. black people's? — T Clark

No. It's just white males between 32 and 43 years old. It was confirmed by NASA, and the Russian space program discovered the same thing. Does that seem racist to you? I just thought it was funny.

They used to say is was because black players weren't smart enough — T Clark

I've never heard that. It's kind of stupid because NFL quarterbacks don't call the plays. They don't have to be very intelligent.

one did a statistical analysis of the cultural roles
assigned to human beings on the basis of biological sex, and only had the centuries prior to the 20th century to work with, one might be convinced the evidence was strong enough to claim that human males have a large range of innate capabilities not shared by women. — Joshs

This actually started because of a little stray factoid. The reason most NFL quarterbacks are white isn't what you'd expect. It's not a history of racism. It's that white males between 32 and 43 have superior long range depth perception. Go figure.

There is just as much evidence that in humans, ‘biology’, in the form of motivations, drives and instincts , are just as much the servants of changing cognitively-shaped purposes as they are their master. — Joshs

So are you agreeing that biology suggests we shouldn't be monogamous, but we've somehow overridden that? The OP question was simply whether that actually happens. How would we know whether our purposes are in charge or slaves to instinct?

If there is a fundamental human ‘drive’, it isn't static survival but
pragmatically oriented anticipatory sense making. — Joshs

The will to meaning? You sort of act like anything static is non-existent. There is no change without stasis. It's two sides of one coin.

Monogamy is desirable for modern cultures because it is an optimal way to achieve the most intimate and stable relational bond with another person, — Joshs

Is it?

and this in turn maximizes the richness of our sense making engagements — Joshs

So, you're saying we choose monogamy, contrary to biological drives, because it enriches our anticipatory sense making? :chin:

That's a very weak response. A non sequitur. Human babies take much more care than gorillas. I think you have you're own preconceived notions and are not interested in examining them more thoroughly. — T Clark

That's true. Human babies do require more care. Why couldn't a community of women handle it?

There are very few people on this forum who are capable of being civil for more than a few minutes at a time, so if you go off the rails into psychosis, I won't be surprised.

I think the lesson here is to avoid drawing causal conclusions about human behavior from statistical analyses of animal behavior. — Joshs

It doesn't just come down to statistics. There's a theory for why monogamy and monomorphic sexes tend to appear together. The evidence is strong enough to warrant the question: what are Homo Sapiens doing working against biology?

the women will have to agree to patriarchy as well as the men, but when you frame it like that it's a lot harder to catch on. So, monogamy. — Moliere

I don't think patriarchy answers the question, though. Patriarchy doesn't entail monogamy. A harem allows a male to guarantee patrilineal descent.

Again, I think the answer might have to do with the egalitarianism required by a larger society for the sake of social stability.

Children of a harem system thrive.
— Tate

Do you know that's true? — T Clark

Well, gorillas seem to have survived pretty well using that reproductive system. They've been doing it for 7 million years, so I assume it has the potential to work.

Why wouldn't work for humans? That was the question. I think your answer was that the needs of a larger society require squashing the harem system (assuming it ever existed among Homo Sapiens).

It only assumes that any society, human or otherwise, will only work if it can take care of it's children. — T Clark

Children of a harem system thrive. Why would monogamy allow us to care for children any better? What the non harem system allows is egalitarianism.

The wifeless men are not individually powerful, but as a group they can be disruptive — T Clark

What I explained earlier is that our biology should preclude large scale societies where male-male competition is seen as a threat. So you're suggesting that the answer is simply that: when we started creating large societies (maybe post agriculture?) we needed to squash social unrest, so monogamy appeared as one way to do that.

For that I'd say the explanation is patriarchy. Men wanted ways to ensure that the children they were responsible for were actually their children, so monogamy was invented as an ideal. — Moliere

Why not just have harems like gorillas? The whole point of our larger size is to run off other males, but instead we gang together in large groups.

Maybe it's related to egalitarianism: if we all can't have harems, nobody gets one? That would be in line with:

Having more than one spouse would not be feasible except for the rich and powerful. Also, without monogamy there would not be enough women for all the men, which would lead to social disruption. I'm pretty sure women would not think it is a very good idea. — T Clark

This all supposes power on the part of every male in society. Maybe as you say, for the sake of peace.

Another possibility is that human females are smaller, but maybe their aggression makes up for that?

Not completely related but think you will enjoy. Sapolsky is a brilliant speaker (thanks for reminding me he exists): — I like sushi

I'll check it out, Thanx!

Compared to most other apes this is pretty common knowledge. It is not just me saying it. — I like sushi

Really? I don't think we're that out of proportion to the dimorphism of other primates. Are we?

I don't think so. We are able to posit ideals that we're unable to live up to. — Moliere

Whether we manifest the vision of monogamy or not, a fair chunk of western culture orbits the idea of monogamy, if only serial. My question is why?

Probably because males are not that much strong (nor different) from women compared to other apes. — I like sushi

You're saying we lean toward monomorphism? If that's true, that would explain it. But we sure don't look monomorphic (except for the occasional androgynous individuals).

In the sense that people say they believe in it, of course, but the people who follow through on that belief are few enough that I'd say it doesn't really count as a species trait. — Moliere

That may be. I suppose the question would then be: why did it ever come up at all? Biologically speaking, it probably shouldn't have. Does this imply that we're more than our biology?

We might eventually set up mines on the moon for He-3, a potential fuel source for fusion power. Here

Very sci fi.

:up:

But if it does, it’s indirect — Xtrix

It sounds like you have a theory about the mechanism. Since holes open up in the field during a shift, we'd get a little more radiation than we normally get. Is that how you explain the historic correlation?

take it up with NASA. The statement was theirs, not mine. — Xtrix

Yes. I'm familiar with the source of that statement. That the atmosphere isn't ferrous is true. Unfortunately, the rest of the statement conflicts with high quality research.

But I’ll go with NASA over you and one article. — Xtrix

Yes. We're on the same side here. Neither of us wins anything for being right about whether a shift in the electromagnetic field would do much to the weather.

It is true. Air isn't ferrous and rarely does the magnetic field have an impact on the troposphere. If it does, it's an indirect one -- but that's fairly controversial and not much is known about it. — Xtrix

We know that variability in the electromagnetic field affects the whole atmosphere. It has an impact on weather, so the statement you posted,

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

is just wrong. It does affect the weather.

Although these strands of evidence are intriguing, they remain very controversial, while there is no clear mechanism to explain the relationship between magnetic field variations and climate variability.

So we know there's a relationship. We don't know the mechanism. This has been echoed in other articles.

@spirit-salamander

Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

This isn't true. Here.

All should be aware that pointing to today's weather as a sign of climate change is a mistake. We're always one volcano away from a cooling event, so if the public thinks we can determine climate change from the weather, they'll be led astray.

Eh, only a slave interprets a book the same all the other sheep do, toeing the line.

I don't follow climate change debates. — Tom Storm

Why would you?

This is not something that will happen in some indeterminate future. It will happen any day now. — Fooloso4

Sure. They thought the end of the world was at hand.

I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change.
— Xtrix

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap: — Tom Storm

Very witty, yes. Does it gain us an ally or make the opponent dig in their heels?

What exactly do you want from the exchange? The gratification of pissing on someone else? Or making your position stronger in numbers?

, your effort in these matters is evident. — Paine

I'm actually one of the illuminati.