turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/25/90)
----- In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? It is hard to imagine an environment that allows a human to survive to adolescence that does not provide cultural training of some sort. To the extent that one can imagine such an environment, like the fabled children who survived in the wild, it is unlikely that any human so raised would be capable of much sexual activity beyond masturbation, at least, not without being shown how. Humans by their *nature* develop in a culture. To talk about what humans would *naturally* do without culture is nonsense. It is NOT natural for humans to develop without culture. To understand what is natural to humans, one can only look at the range of cultures that have developed. Are humans naturally monogamous or not? In some cultures they are and other cultures they aren't, and in yet other cultures, such as our own, they can be either. That is the only realistic answer to your question. Russell
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (10/25/90)
In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > ----- > In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >> Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >> be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > > It is hard to imagine an environment that allows a human to > survive to adolescence that does not provide cultural training > of some sort. To the extent that one can imagine such an > environment, like the fabled children who survived in the wild, > it is unlikely that any human so raised would be capable of > much sexual activity beyond masturbation, at least, not without > being shown how. > > Humans by their *nature* develop in a culture. To talk about what > humans would *naturally* do without culture is nonsense. It is NOT > natural for humans to develop without culture. > This is entirely true. Many animals are totally *naturally* oriented to being raised in a group or family situation. If raised otherwise they suffer from SERIOUS mental and emotional problems. Humans fall into this catagory. > To understand what is natural to humans, one can only look at the > range of cultures that have developed. Are humans naturally > monogamous or not? In some cultures they are and other cultures they > aren't, and in yet other cultures, such as our own, they can be > either. That is the only realistic answer to your question. > > Russell This answer fits the general anthropological idea of humans. It is really a cultural explanation and since humans ARE the ultimate cultural animal then it fits the situation.
kathy@ut-emx.uucp (Katherine Holcomb) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes: >In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: >>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against >> ^^^ >> >> When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you >>meant "male" or "person". [stuff deleted] > >"Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. >God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. > >"Homo sapiens" would have been correct and not at all ambiguous, but >I suppose you would argue that because it translates to "wise man" >it too would have been confusing. > [some stuff deleted] "Homo sapiens" is better translated as "wise human being." The Latin word for "adult male human being" is "vir." Many languages are unlike English in having separate words for the concepts of "human being" and "adult male human being." It is pretty well established that language shapes culture, as well as vice versa; I leave the implications of this to the reader. Now back to some biology. (As in "a little" biology.) I think about all that can be said that is unequivocably biological is that human sexual behavior is, if not unique among mammals, at least unusual in that the female is receptive to the male even during non-fertile periods. Presumably this has something to do with the formation of a pair bond between a male and a female. It says nothing about whether such pair bonds necessarily form, nor about how long they "should" last if they do. That's my $0.02 worth. Katherine (no .signature yet)
mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) (10/25/90)
In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? (... some stuff delete...) To understand what is natural to humans, one can only look at the range of cultures that have developed. Are humans naturally monogamous or not? In some cultures they are and other cultures they aren't, and in yet other cultures, such as our own, they can be either. That is the only realistic answer to your question. Russell I think that your answer is a little too pat and simplistic. Yes, it is true that you can't have humans without culture. However, it is also true that you can't have humans without biological drives and genes, and they do give us some direction (Actually, they usually give us a number of different, conflicting, directions!). In a follow-up book to Sociobiology the author (Wilson?) noted that the current research indicates that human beings have a definite polygamous tendency, although societies tend to prohibit against polyandry (i.e., the female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of monogamy. Mike Bender
garlow@lpl.arizona.edu (Kevin Garlow x2272) (10/26/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: [deletions] > >female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology >have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. ^^^^^^^^^^ >E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown >to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. > [deletions] >Mike Bender I *think* Mike meant to say that "Studies have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be MONOGAMOUS, are not." This would jibe with the following sentence. Kevin Garlow
cel@duke.cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/26/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: >In a follow-up book to Sociobiology the author (Wilson?) noted that the >current research indicates that human beings have a definite polygamous >tendency, although societies tend to prohibit against polyandry (i.e., the >female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology >have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. >E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown >to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. I think you have a typo. Is it that numerous monogamous animals are not or that numerous polygamous animals are not? >So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are >completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the >original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that >they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of >monogamy. Well, now, this is a sneaky rhetorical trick ';-) It is not at all the same thing to deny evolution and to assume that human behavioral tendencies are fundamentally cut off from bird behavior. The extra complexity and size of the human brain makes it a much more plastic or programmable structure than a bird's brain. (For that matter, birds behavior is probably more varied than is realised (as I guess your typoed revisionist biology indicates.)) The content and meaning of categories that "biological drives" act on are probably cultural variables. If people have a "drive" to "mate" with the "same person", then what constitutes the same person may simply be a person who looks similar, or who talks similar, or who wears the same kind of red shoes. Or it may be the same person, but only while that person acts a certain way or while that person is a certain age. Likewise "mating" may very from masturbating while being held by that same person to PV intercourse to anal sex or heavy SM stuff; all of these activities involve the mating area of the brain, and often release "sexual tension", leaving one feeling that one's drives have been fulfilled. The mental categories within which "drives" have to operate are determined in very broad and multi-causal ways. Basically, you can't have a drive to be with the same person any firmer than your understanding of what makes a person the same. People change, and they often find that their lovers no longer wish to be with them when they have changed. Likewise, one may find that basically what distinguishes people from one another is only isomorphic with gender, and then desire to be with every person of a given gender; this "promiscuous and evil" behavior might result from a neurological drive for monogamy that augmented by a neurology that identifies similarly gendered people as the "same person" for the purposes of fucking. >Mike Bender Chris Lane -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful.
arkeo@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (10/27/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>, mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: > In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) > writes: > > In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP > (Steve Reiser) writes: > > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > > (... some stuff delete...) > > I think that your answer is a little too pat and simplistic. Yes, it is > true that you can't have humans without culture. However, it is also true > that you can't have humans without biological drives and genes, and they do > give us some direction (Actually, they usually give us a number of > different, conflicting, directions!). > > (some normative Sociobiology deleted) > > So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are > completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the > original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that > they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of > monogamy. Again, too pat and simplistic. In fact, the CAPACITY to be cultural is a GENETIC CAPACITY. This is the logic: Cultural is defined as those aspects of the phenotype acquired by means of teaching/learning/imitation from other humans. The capacity for culture is the ability (frequency, if you will) of the above in a member of a population. Our distant ancestors were less cultural than us (data from palaeoanthropological record supports this). The evolution of Homo sap sap, amoung other things, may be characterized by increases in the ability to be cultural. This evolution HAD to proceed by means of natural selection. The GENETIC changes in the evolving popualtion would be (must be, according to Nat Sel theory) driven by maximization of fitness. Fitness in the hominid lineage was highest in those members of the lineage who left offspring who exhibited a higher cultural capacity than other members of the lineage. (which is how the capacity increased over time in the lineage). Yet, as we note, the PERFORMANCE of culture involves determining aspects of the phenotype WITHOUT *Direct* instruction from the genes (save in the capacity). Overall, we could say that, in our lineage, genetic fitness was greatest in those ancestors or ours who had the LEAST direct genetic influence on the specifics exhibited in their behaviour. Hence we need not reject evolution in order to accept an autonomously functioning CULTURAL determination of behaviour. [Note this is NOT to claim that the *specific behaviors* coded in a cultural system are necessarily IMMUNE from any sort of selection (analagous to natural selecttion). This however is a separate issue.] What is important here is to realize that CULTURE (as a capacity of individual humans) is ITSELF a product of natural selection. When we polarize GENES/CULTURE we miss the most important thing about the genetic evolution of culture itself -- that culture as a genetic capacity evolved by means of natural selection and that this capacity was more fit than "genetic" (less cultural) means of determination of behaviour. Wilson et al always seem to miss this simple genetic point. Tis a shame, since in the process they end up, therefore, making fundamental errors such as confusing evolutionary-biological traits with cultural traits. If a kind of behaviour (ie mating behaviour) is "learned" (coded in the cultural transmission system) it is INCOHERENT to speak of its "genetic" aspects since the only "genetic aspect" it could posess is in the, much larger, capacity for cultural behaviour itself. Dave
peter@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Peter Sellmer) (11/25/90)
I'm really surprised that this discussion hasn't migrated back to sci.psychology. The nature/nurture question has been debated over many a beer for decades now by psych people of every stripe. My $0.02 is that it's pretty clear that humans are somewhere in the middle of the monogamy/polygamy continuum. We pair-bond, but not for life necessarily, though sometimes. Can it get any mushier than that? As well, what's the point? If one wanted to make the statement that we ARE monogamous "naturally" (whatever that means), well, so what? Does this chicken-and-egg philosophizing have real implications for the way we do things? The way we should do things? The way we could do things? Peter -- Peter Sellmer (peter@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca or psellmer@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) "Dip in...to the sea... of possibilities!" Patti Smith
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov24.233954.8869@watcsc.waterloo.edu> peter@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Peter Sellmer) writes: >If one wanted to make the statement that we ARE >monogamous "naturally" (whatever that means), well, so what? >Does this chicken-and-egg philosophizing have real implications for the >way we do things? The way we should do things? The way we could do things? > I think there is a point to knowing what are instinctive, inherited predispositions are - personal unity and integration. If we know ourselves and are honest with ourselves we have a better chance of enjoying life. Doing what comes naturally feels good and acting in sync with our natures is fulfilling. The opposite of this - trying to do what does not come naturally, leads to self-deception, internal conflict and a joyless life cut off from the roots of pleasure deep in our instinctive selves. ann hodgins
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (11/30/90)
In article <1399@gtx.com>, al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: >>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational >>behaviour is quite rare. >Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with >respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's >sometimes hard to tell which is which. Rationality includes (amongst other things) an alignment amongst different elements of experience, include an alignment between intentions and other intentions. From this perspective, I would agree with Chamove and maybe carry it even a bit farther. My view is that all people are inherently rational, if you look from the person-centered viewpoint (i.e., from the viewpoint off the person whose rationality you are considering). No one thinks or does anything that he believes to be irrational -- at the exact moment he thinks or does it. One only spots irrationality in one's own behavior and thoughts in *retrospect* (though that retrospect may be only a second or fraction of a second later). And one is lookinng at prior irrationality from a later viewpoint that one regards as rational. In my view, rationality is built into human nature; we are always being as rational as we can. We call others "irrational" when we refuse to understand the viewpoint from which we could otherwise see the rationale of their thoughts and actions. >I don't see that you can classify the goals themselves as "rational" or >"irrational", though you might say "I agree with that goal" or "I >disagree with that one". That, in fact, is the way in which "irrational" and "rational" tend to be used. But if some goals were universal and paramount in human nature, then goals that conflicted with those universal goals might justly be considered irrational, because there would inevitably be a conflict between them and the higher universal goals. I happen to think that goals like the goal to destroy others -- or even the goal to be irrational -- might be considered irrational because I believe that there is a universal and paramount tendency toward love and communion with others and toward having an orderly world. (Sort of the opposite of Original Sin -- Original Virtue?) -- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: [apple or practic or pyramid]!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 431 Burgess Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (12/01/90)
In article <9382@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Ann Hodgins writes: > The opposite of this - trying to do what does not come naturally, leads to > self-deception, internal conflict and a joyless life cut off from the roots > of pleasure deep in our instinctive selves. Nice theory, like many others, but still only a theory. For openers, try 'clothing isn't natural.' How about a shot at self-deception and internal conflict being quite natural. Look around you, so many folks practice these more faithfully than any religion. And finally, it seems to be society's duty to tame the beast which the human being is, to prevent some of the instinctive selves from running wild and harming others. Bill.etc | All learning has an emotional base. - Plato