And if we look at our closest cousins, the bonobos and chimpanzees — Moliere
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
The evolution of primate monogamy is described as an ordered sequence of choices by generalized, hypothetical females and males. Females first choose whether or not to associate with other females. Predators encourage gregariousness in diurnal primates; however, nocturnality or scarce and evenly distributed food supplies may enforce separation. A testable group size model based on food patch size is developed and qualitatively supported. If females choose solitude, males then choose either to defend a single female and invest in her offspring, or to compete with other males for access to several females, usually by defending a territory or establishing dominance over the home ranges of several females. The decision rests on the defensibility of females and on the availability of an effective form of male parental investment. Both of these factors are dependent on local female population density. A model is developed that assumes that territorial defense is the principal form of male parental investment, and it predicts that monogamy should occur at intermediate densities: at high densities, males should switch to defense of multiple females, and at low densities there is no investment value in male territorial defense. — A T Rutberg
The evidence is strong enough to warrant the question: what are Homo Sapiens doing working against biology — Tate
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
If there is a fundamental human ‘drive’, it isn't static survival but
pragmatically oriented anticipatory sense making. — Joshs
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
and this in turn maximizes the richness of our sense making engagements — Joshs
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
It's not a history of racism. It's that white males between 32 and 43 have superior long range depth perception. Go figure. — Tate
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. — Tate
o, you're saying we choose monogamy, contrary to biological drives, because it enriches our anticipatory sense making? :chin: — Tate
In other animals, too, cognition isn’t simply the slave of drives. 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. Other animals modify their aims and purposes within a much more restricted range of possibilities than humans, not because of stronger ‘instincts’ but because of a more limited cognitive capacity.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? — Tate
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
. 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
Does that seem racist to you? — Tate
I just thought it was funny. — Tate
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. — Tate
What does this imply about the human psyche in terms of our power to override biology? — Tate
So how did monogamy become an ideal for our species? — Tate
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
how did monogamy become an ideal for our species?
— Tate
Stability comes to mind — ThinkOfOne
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. — Tate
I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from assigning views to me that I did not express. — Tate
What sort of incentive system would explain why dimorphic animals are usually not monogamous? I'm asking.
It's not just primates, btw. — Tate
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
It's merely a statistic what shows correlation. In and of itself, it means nothing. — 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. — Tate
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. — Tate
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.