And if we look at our closest cousins, the bonobos and chimpanzees — Moliere

Your cousins are apes? Strange

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.

From the web:

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

If 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. This is the danger of not appreciating the complex and reciprocal way that culture and cognition interact with biological motives in humans.


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. If there is a fundamental human ‘drive’, it isn't static survival but pragmatically oriented anticipatory sense making.
Monogamy is desirable for modern cultures because it is an optimal way to achieve the most intimate and stable relational bond with another person, and this in turn maximizes the richness of our sense making engagements.

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:

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.

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

Do you have evidence for this? They used to say it was because black players weren't smart enough. If you don't have specific credible evidence you can share, you should be ashamed of yourself.

For what it's worth, black quarterbacks make up between 15 and 20 percent of quarterbacks in the NFL while black people make up 12 percent of the US population.

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.

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

You've avoided the question - do you have any credible evidence about white people's vision vs. black people's? You're using that as evidence that selection of quarterbacks does not reflect racial prejudice. As I noted, a weak argument.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

Does that seem racist to you? — Tate

I didn't say it was racist.

I just thought it was funny. — Tate

That's not true. You didn't say you thought it was funny. You said it was the reason there are fewer black quarterbacks in the NFL than one might expect.

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

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

What does this imply about the human psyche in terms of our power to override biology? — 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.

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

Stability comes to mind. Two are more likely to be stable than three, three more likely than four...

This is starting to derail — Tate

If it's derailing, it's because of your unsupported and unlikely claims about the social effects of sexual and racial differences.

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 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.

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

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.

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

You made a specific claim that the relative lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL is because of racial differences in eyesight.

You have stated explicitly and without evidence that, given biological differences between human males and females, human families should be expected to be made up of one male and more than one female or, as you say, harems. You then go on to provide unconvincing and unnecessary explanations.

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

It's not just primates, btw. — Tate

The point was that dimorphism likely has nothing to do with it. It's merely a statistic what shows correlation. In and of itself, it means nothing.

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.

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.

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

Based on your responses on this thread, you don't seem very familiar with the history of the NFL, racism in the US and the long-term effects of systemic racism. Another poster started to try to explain things to you, but you didn't seem to have the prerequisite knowledge needed to understand what was being said.

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.

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.

To me monogamy is about division of responsibility. If it so happens that one person can take care of many, polygamy, polyandry will find a social niche to call its own.

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
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.

By the way, women shortage (some members are mentioning here) must be a phenomenon of the 20th century related to birth/gender controls (China, communist countries and Middle East) and massive emigration of male workers to Europe and US.

When the institution of marriage was invented I'm quite sure that there was big shortage of males, not of females.