"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wiOsb.137750$mZ5.948139@attbi_s54... Ignoramus12517 <ignoramus12517@NOSPAM.12517.invalid> writes: Yes. The fun thing is when the "evolutionary psychologists" get in there and try to draw conclusions about humans. Animal behavior is so varied that they then have to pick and choose which examples to draw analogies from. Luckily for them, there are so many interesting animal examples to pick from that they are able to draw any conclusion about humans that they like!

Yes but you forgot about simple physiology. Females have limited eggs, they
are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other
things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her mate.
Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and only
provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by how
many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology.

K.

In article <ySQsb.11873$IK2.916580@news20.bellglobal.com>, Kelly wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wiOsb.137750$mZ5.948139@attbi_s54... Ignoramus12517 <ignoramus12517@NOSPAM.12517.invalid> writes: Yes. The fun thing is when the "evolutionary psychologists" get in there and try to draw conclusions about humans. Animal behavior is so varied that they then have to pick and choose which examples to draw analogies from. Luckily for them, there are so many interesting animal examples to pick from that they are able to draw any conclusion about humans that they like! Yes but you forgot about simple physiology. Females have limited eggs, they are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her mate. Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and only provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by how many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology.

Kelly, it is easy to make statements like that but harder to make true
statements.

So what if males produce billions of sperm. If a male is motivated to
have good children who are well cared for etc, he will be careful in
choosing a mate as well.

i

"Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wiOsb.137750$mZ5.948139@attbi_s54... Ignoramus12517 <ignoramus12517@NOSPAM.12517.invalid> writes: Yes. The fun thing is when the "evolutionary psychologists" get in there and try to draw conclusions about humans. Animal behavior is so varied that they then have to pick and choose which examples to draw analogies from. Luckily for them, there are so many interesting animal examples to pick from that they are able to draw any conclusion about humans that they like! Yes but you forgot about simple physiology.

How is the physiology of humans so different from other primates? Or
other mammals for that matter? Given that all mammals have very
similar physiology, how do you account for the very different social
structures and mating habits?
Females have limited eggs,

Got to be very careful with those 250,000 eggs. Make sure every one count!
they are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her mate. Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and only provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by how many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology.

Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument
that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the
female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child.

Or any of a half-dozen other arguments leading to different behavior.
Furthermore, almost any behavior you can think of occurs among some
primate, so your argument obviously is insufficient to determine
social or mating structures.

Ignoramus12517 wrote: In article <ySQsb.11873$IK2.916580@news20.bellglobal.com>, Kelly wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wiOsb.137750$mZ5.948139@attbi_s54.. Ignoramus12517 <ignoramus12517@NOSPAM.12517.invalid> writes: Yes. The fun thing is when the "evolutionary psychologists" get in there and try to draw conclusions about humans. Animal behavior is so varied that they then have to pick and choose which examples to draw analogies from. Luckily for them, there are so many interesting animal examples to pick from that they are able to draw any conclusion about humans that they like! Yes but you forgot about simple physiology. Females have limited eggs, they are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her mate. Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and only provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by how many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology. Kelly, it is easy to make statements like that but harder to make true statements. So what if males produce billions of sperm. If a male is motivated to have good children who are well cared for etc, he will be careful in choosing a mate as well.

It would make sense that he would ideally choose a great mate to raise
kids with AND inseminate lots of lesser women and leave them to fend for
themselves.

- Ron ^*^

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4rVsb.192868$HS4.1616207@attbi_s01... "Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes: Luckily for them, there are so many interesting animal examples to pick from that they are able to draw any conclusion about humans that they like! Yes but you forgot about simple physiology. How is the physiology of humans so different from other primates? Or other mammals for that matter? Given that all mammals have very similar physiology, how do you account for the very different social structures and mating habits?

Exactly. Genes and environment (i.e. social environment) help determine
differences between habits. Humans have the same reproductive physiology as
apes yet we are monogamous. Something which I believe is determined
socially/environmentally.
Females have limited eggs, Got to be very careful with those 250,000 eggs. Make sure every one
count!

You're missing my point...

they are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her
mate. Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and
only provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by
how many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology. Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child.

But you know in humans that would never happen.

K.

"Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child. But you know in humans that would never happen.

Actually, I think this _does_ happen in humans!

Kelly wrote:
I'm not sure how women who sleep around would be more successful. If they sleep around then there's a good chance they're going to get crappy genes inseminating that egg, compared to if they are choosy, picking the strongest, most physically fit male (or whatever qualities one looks for).

Why do you think sleeping around will get her "crappy" genes? She doesn't
necessarily sleep around with genetically crappy men! If anything, because she
is choosy, she finds herself healthy and physically fit lovers. The man who has
agreed to support her isn't necessarily the best genetic material, is he? Being
faithful to one man will prevent her from seeking better genes from other men!

I am not saying that cheating guarantees better gene pool for a woman's
offspring, but it gives her a better chance at it than if she limited herself to
one man! It's certainly is a viable theory. At least as good as, if not better
than, the theory that it's to her advantage (gene wise!) to stick to the one man
who is willing to support her.

But in my opinion all of this is just fun talk. Humans are too complex to fit in
these kinds of simplistic models.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OoXsb.143921$9E1.728992@attbi_s52... "Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child. But you know in humans that would never happen. Actually, I think this _does_ happen in humans!

Don't you think the men would notice that there are many other men in the
picture and they would all tell her to take a hike??

K.

"Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OoXsb.143921$9E1.728992@attbi_s52... "Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument > that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the > female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child. But you know in humans that would never happen. Actually, I think this _does_ happen in humans! Don't you think the men would notice that there are many other men in the picture and they would all tell her to take a hike??

This isn't theoretical. There have been (for all I know still are)
polyandrous human social groups.

Kelly <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> wrote: Yes but you forgot about simple physiology. Females have limited eggs, they are expensive to make, and provide the embryo with nutrients among other things. This typically selects for females to be very choosy with her mate.

Not necessarily; look at chimps. Chimp females tend to mate with multiple
males during their fertile period "and may the best sperm win."

In terms of human beings, it's pretty clear that whatever selection is going
on, it's primarily socio-cultural, and is in parimarily terms of learned
behavior and not genetics.
Males make billions of sperm, they are unlimited, cheap to make, and only provide DNA. A males reproductive fitness is typically determined by how many females he can inseminate. This is not psychology.

Not necessarily; the whole R vs K selection model applies to males as well
as females -- while the _biological_ energy is minimal, it's easily
demonstrable that in civilized cultural models when a man puts his energy
into providing for children, they do better... and when they're genetically
related to him (either through presumed paternity, or through the known
relatedness of one's sister's children in the case of certain cultures) that
greatly improves your fitness.

"Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<q4Xsb.44248$xI2.912545@news20.bellglobal.com>... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4rVsb.192868$HS4.1616207@attbi_s01...
Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child. But you know in humans that would never happen.

I suspect it probably did, early in our prehistory when we first
started forming tribes. That it doesn't seem so common now, in
recorded history, isn't as interesting to me, since the past two
thousand years are just a blip on the evolutionary scale!

jen

"Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<64Ysb.44761$xI2.946241@news20.bellglobal.com>... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OoXsb.143921$9E1.728992@attbi_s52... "Kelly" <kellyanne@sympatico.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Sure. You can make this argument. I could make a different argument > that by being promiscuous and ensuring that the father is unknown, the > female gives all the males an incentive to help with the child. But you know in humans that would never happen. Actually, I think this _does_ happen in humans! Don't you think the men would notice that there are many other men in the picture and they would all tell her to take a hike?? K.

In the example I gave -- a man loaning out his wife to the most
powerful man in the tribe -- the man does stand to benefit from
allowing his wife to sleep with other men. First, there is the simple
matter that the man receiving such a "gift" is now indebted to giver.
(Here comes another book recommendation: The Origins of Virtue).
Second, if he sleeps with his wife immediately before and again
following her tryst, he has a chance that his sperm will impregnate
her, not the other guy's. Due to doubt of paternity, his offspring
will also have the benefit of being protected not just by him, but by
the most powerful man in the village.

And what about the opposite scenario? Consider a polygomous culture in
which a man takes many wives. Why does the women tolerate her husband
having so many wives? She gets something valuable out of the bargain!
She gets other wives to share her work load. That's why she accepts
such an arrangement, and doesn't tell the man to take a hike. I'll add
that in these cultures, there seems to be very elaborate rituals that
appear to be designed to mitigate any jealousy between the wives. IOW,
I find it interesting that jealousy appears to also be a natural human
trait.

jen

"mikey" <mikey@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<YIbtb.41557$n6.17410@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>... where's bibliographical citations for this list?


There aren't any. These are just my own personal conclusions based on
reading, observation, and my own mental gymnastics. Isn't a person
allowed to have developed their own opinions?

jen

you are, but they sounded so good i wanted to read the underlying journal
articles. you're not an anthropologist employed at a starchy university are
you?

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311141901.1123344d@posting.google.c om... "mikey" <mikey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<YIbtb.41557$n6.17410@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>... where's bibliographical citations for this list? There aren't any. These are just my own personal conclusions based on reading, observation, and my own mental gymnastics. Isn't a person allowed to have developed their own opinions? jen

"mikey" <mikey@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Bnhtb.56576$p9.23387@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>... you are, but they sounded so good i wanted to read the underlying journal articles. you're not an anthropologist employed at a starchy university are you?


No! Just interested in the subject.

jen