shiue@h-sc1.UUCP (steve shiue) (05/19/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** This is just to present one argument in favor of a genetic predisposition for homosexuality - I don't claim to know anything about psychology or anthropology, but am just adding some "food for thought". The argument is the one presented by E.O. Wilson in his book On Human Nature, and is one sociobiologist's perspective. Wilson centers the whole argument on the idea of altruistic behavior and kin selection. He starts off, if I remember correctly, by citing twin studies (i.e., identical twins raised in different environments tend to have a greater incidence of being either both heterosexual or both homosexual than statistics would account for in a situation where there was no genetic influence involved) that "demonstrate" a genetic factor, then proceeds to propose a model of how genes for homosexuality might increase genetic fitness of the RELATIVES of homosexuals to the point where it could at least survive as a recessive (?) trait. Obviously, the most difficult obstacle here is the fact that sexual preference for the same gender would tend to lessen (probably to nil in most cases) one's chances of furthering one's line DIRECTLY. Here is where relatives, and kin selection, come in. What Wilson argues is that perhaps homosexuality might be genetically linked some traits that might help advance the position of the homosexual in society to an extent that could increase the reproductive viability of the homosexual's relatives. (This is similar to the model of how altruistic behavior is genetically preserved - such behavior as the warning cries of prairie dogs, etc. - the behavior helps preserve the reproductive viability of the family and animal society as a whole against predators, so it is advantageous enough to stay around, even if a few prairie dogs bite the dust.) The gene is not necessarily dominant, so the relatives could carry it and still be heterosexual and pass it on. The kind of traits that Wilson cites would be ones such as intelligence. I don't really have much problem with the argument presented, it's just that I find some of the evidence he cites a bit shaky. First of all, I don't know how good the "twin" studies are, how controlled the conditions are, etc. (I'm not saying that they AREN'T good, I just don't know anything about psychology, etc.) Secondly, the evidence he provides that homosexuality could be coupled with advantageous genes I find questionable at best. I will try to describe it briefly here. He cites, I believe, the fact that American homosexuals tend to be more intelligent, white collar, etc. He also mentions hunter-gatherer societies where homosexuals tend to rise to positions of power and influence, such as religious shamans, etc. - hunter-gatherer societies are extremely important in Wilson's studies, because he regards them as the point where genetic evolution is mostly finished for humans, and everything since is cultural evolution. As there are still a few of these left in the world, he considers it of singular importance to study them before they are perverted by Coca-Cola, video games, etc. [NOTE: If you're going to attack Wilson's arguments, evidence, etc., PLEASE refer to On Human Nature first! I haven't read the book for several months and don't wish to misrepresent the man's arguments.] A General Note: E.O. Wilson seems to be a very controversial figure in intellectual circles. I have often heard his theories, and sociobiology in general, denounced as racist. Sociobiology is, I believe, the study of human (or any other) behavior in the context of a somewhat genetically determined trait - I think the cries of racism come from people who believe that sociobiology leads to the explosive conclusion that race is a determinant of intelligence, thus opening the golden gate of scientific legitimacy to William Shockley-variety spooks. I haven't read many articles, books etc. about this issue, just OHN. I don't know if the alleged racism comes from Wilson and Co., KKK'ers who abuse his theories, or whether it exists at all. However, from my contact with this one book, I must say that I am quite impressed - it seems to me that the theory of sociobiology is quite powerful, and at least some of it is probably true, though I take issue with some of the "applications" of it. I am struck in particular, by the breadth of the man's education (he seems to know so much in other intellectual spheres than science, such as philosophy, literature...), and by what seems to me an overwhelming intellectual integrity, which I find so rare. I did find a few remarks towards the end of the book about eugenics, simply thrown in from nowhere, a bit chilling, though (a section about how we might best shape the kind of society we want, once we attain the sophistication to do that). E.O. Wilson is also the author of other books about sociobiology and insect societies (his primary field of research). I would appreciate any other postings commenting, flaming, etc. on E.O., sociobiology, etc. - and any good articles or books to read would really be appreciated. -Steve Shiue