Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[littlelostboy]

Does fraternal twins count?

[Watchman]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.
I think one of my textbooks had an expression for it.
...

Oh yeah. "The mortal sin of reductionism".

[littlelostboy]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.
I think one of my textbooks had an expression for it.
...

Oh yeah. "The mortal sin of reductionism".

Nice quote. And you're right, people need some tangible proof in front of their eyes.

[Big_John]

why are people afraid of reductionism? it's a key to knowledge.

[Lemur]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.

Well, something causes gayness. I utterly reject the argument that people make a choice to be gay -- that's beyond absurd. I didn't make a choice to be straight, and neither did you. I knew that I liked girls in a special way somewhere around six years old.

I don't see why it's wrong to look to biology and/or evolution for an explanation for gayness. It serves some sort of purpose, or it wouldn't exist.

And if you hate economic examinations of real-world behavior, you're really going to hate Freakonomics. Fun book.

[Byzantine Prince]

It's not correct to bring evolution into this. A lot of traits exist despite being meaningless. Although homosexuality could possibly hinder someone's chances of reproduction, natural selection has not proven enough for its dissapearance as a trait. Perhaps it is because, like the article says, it is not genetic, but rather a periodical* malfunction of the womb that causes it, and it would explain why it still exists.

*EDIT.

[Lemur]

Although homosexuality could possibly hinder someone's chances of reproduction, natural selection has not proven enough for its dissapearance as a trait.

Actually, I'm coming at this from the opposite angle. Maybe a limited homosexual population confers an advantage on a group, which would explain why the trait has survived all of these thousands of years.

Heroic sacrifice doesn't improve your breeding chances, so why do we still turn up heros? Because heroic sacrifice can improve your group's chances, which can be just as important from a natural selection point of view. Maybe homosexuality serves much the same function. If you have a free male within your group who is not making babies, you've got a mighty fine free source of labor. And the more sons you have, the more an extra laborer might be useful.

I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.

[doc_bean]

I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.

It really isn't, a lot of human traits can't be explained by simply thinking of selection (in evolution) only happens at the individual level.

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.

[Big_John]

It really isn't, a lot of human traits can't be explained by simply thinking of selection (in evolution) only happens at the individual level.

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.

while inclusive fitness does explain certain aspects of human behavior, there are some things which simply are not controlled by selective pressure. i.e., a certain condition of an organism may simply be a side effect of its design, and may not be important at all in determining natural selection. humans living well beyond they're reproductive capacity may be one of these aspects. but the inclusive fitness idea (that having old people around to help raise children and possibly contribute 'wisdom' = better for the population) is more accepted than the 'left-over' idea, in this case, afaik.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If you have a free [gay] male within your group who is not making babies, you've got a mighty fine free source of labor.

Lemur supports the enslavement of gays!!?!111

[Byzantine Prince]

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.

Senescence is directly related to the predatorial history of our species.

Heroic sacrifice doesn't improve your breeding chances, so why do we still turn up heros?

Being a hero is a trait? :P

If you have a free male within your group who is not making babies

Making babies is not that time consuming. Raising children is not something straight males are genetically forced to do either. :P

And the more sons you have, the more an extra laborer might be useful.

You do realize there are female gays as well?

But yeah, that is a crackpot theory Lemur.

[Aenlic]

I don't see why it's wrong to look to biology and/or evolution for an explanation for gayness. It serves some sort of purpose, or it wouldn't exist.

For my part, Lemur, I'm not saying that there isn't a biological component. In all likelihood, there is. My personal opinion is that it's a mix of both nature and nurture. My beef is with psychologists and social scientists using statistical studies of psychology and social environment and then making claims about biology and genetics. As far as I can determine, that's exactly what this study did. They took a statistical study of the number of brothers, natural and adopted, and then made conclusions about something happening in the womb, with reference to the immuno-response of the mother? That's insane. What about the social environment of having various numbers of brothers? I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.

[doc_bean]

I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.

While I agree with the rest of your statement, I think you're overestimating the importance/quality of peer review these days

[IrishArmenian]

I am the 9th man in my family, but I am not any different than the rest of my brothers in sexual orientation. Maybe the 6 girls spread out helped that. That is interesting, I had leanred that it was biolojical, but I did not know how.

[doc_bean]

I am the 9th man in my family, but I am not any different than the rest of my brothers in sexual orientation. Maybe the 6 girls spread out helped that. That is interesting, I had leanred that it was biolojical, but I did not know how.

15 kids ????

damn...