Wow, there's a lot of subtext to what you're saying here! Individual benefit vs. societal benefit is a zero sum game? DNA does not serve the collective, man, it uses it. Your concept about where "cost" is derived from is not a universally accepted agreement.
-
-
With all due respect, I don’t think there is any subtext. And don’t think what I am saying is really controvertable. Didn’t make any of the assumptions u stated.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Just saying there is a (perhaps quite small) cost to the individual for doing something that *seems* easy to evolve a preventative measure, and serves no biological benefit to individual. So puzzle that preventative measure didn’t evolve. Straightforward evo analysis tbh
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
The implicit assertion there is that it does no good for the individual to have a sexual relationship with itself and to better understand its own sexuality independent of dynamic interpersonal contexts. That hasn't exactly been ruled out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes that is an implicit assumption. But well founded. Our species doesn’t self fertilize.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
We also don't procreate with members of the same sex, yet sexuality manifests that way (and a wide variety of other ways). I think it's safe to say we haven't conclusively measured every facet of human sexual behavior enough for a predictive model of its evolutionary path.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That’s absurd. Evolutionary puzzles exist. There is (legitimate and interesting) debate as to the causes of homosexuality. That in no way implies evolutionary insights don’t exist re sex (that’s *very* false). not that ain’t value to spotting the things needing evo explanation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
Now you are suggesting that the causes for masturbation and homosexuality are causally unrelated. That doesn't seem like the simplest explanation, to me. I think we don't know what promotes and doesn't promote mutation in sexual behavior.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poplopo @Moshe_Hoffman
At the moment, the most promising theory of causes of homosexuality suggests that the genetic factors that make eg men interested in men make their sisters so much more interested in men that the resulting reproductive success compensates for reduced fertility of their brothers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
that seems plausible. Or that getting the dosing of sex hormones (and resulting neurochemostry) right is a complex error prone task. Or that creates help for other kin. Those r theories I have heard. Not expert/haven’t followed up on evidence. U? My $ is on complexity story.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Both may be true. Homosexuality runs in families and male homosexuals tend to have more fertile mothers, aunts and sisters (suggests balancing selection hypothesis), and is more frequent in later births (complexity).
-
-
Yeah. That all seems consistent with the complexity story, and just more likely when have some section for more of a certain sex hormone in lineage?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The stats u mention above r well supported? (I haven’t looked at this lit since college. Recall it being messy then.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.