Tat

I'd guess, from the cite at the end, that this is (C.S.) Ford and (F.A.) Beach, in Patterns of Sexual Behavior, 1951. I have not read this book, so I can not speak to the reseach methods employed.

As an aside, the way that such numbers are usually created today is usually through the use (or misuse) of an anthropological database known as the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF). It is an extensive collection of ethnography (writing about cultures), about 365 groups of people throughout the world. There is an electronic version which has roughly 100 groups.

Whether this number particularly comes from HRAF reseach or not, I don't know. 1951 is pretty early for HRAF, so this reseach specifically may have used an earlier ethnographic atlas, or some other similar resource (it may have been, <gasp> independant reseach).

The way to come up with the percentage of polygamous societies is look in the file on Polygamy (OCM Subject 595, for what its worth). In it is contained a copy of every ethnographic reference to polygamy in the database. The reseacher reads each entry and decides, accoding to some criteria, if the group is polygamous or not.

More sophisticated methodology includes limiting the seach to 60 "representative" groups (what they are representative of, I've never figured out).

The problems with such numbers are huge. Not only does the reseach rely on some (more-or-less) arbitrary definition of what is "a culture," but it forces what may be different cultural phenomena into preset catagories.

There is the further difficulty that what is allowed is not always commonplace, nor what is commonplace always sanctioned. It may well be that 87% of cultures allow polygamy, in that they have no prohibition against it, but most people in each group do not practice it. It may be the reverse.

Of course, it is quite a difficult to differentiate what is tolerated in a society, what is the norm of a society and what is prohibited. A given activity or practice may be tolerated for some members of a group, and prohibited to others. What may be tolerated for all may be practiced by none.

This rather leads to my opinion of such numbers, which is largely negative. To make a percentage of "cultures" inevitably requires a definition of what consititutes an unique, well definied, culture. It is my view that the resulting number is largely an artifact of this definition.

There are great uses for HRAF and similar data, usually as a staring point of reseach. Generally speaking, however, relative numbers of cultures does not give particularly meaningful results, at least in my view.

Doubting Didymus

An excellent post, Tat. Your observations support my skepticism of trebaxians figures. I will need something more concrete from you, totalitarianist. (Not that it matters much. The naturalistic fallacy is snapping at your heels nonetheless).

Totalitarianist

I am already aware of the Naturalistic Fallacy, and how it relates to this. In my perspective, any ethical or moral code is a fallacy, forasmuch as each one gives examples of what is good, thereby defining "good".

I have not as yet said that anything is good in proportion to its being natural or unnatural; I have only expressed my skepticism concerning the conception that polygamy is morally incorrect because it is unnatural (which is an exceedingly common belief), and have only commented on my conclusion. My comments (e.g., that nature is patriarchal, that that which is natural cannot be bad, etc.) do not affect the argument, that polygamy cannot be bad upon the grounds that it is unnatural, since that seems not to be the case.

Doubting Didymus

Not aware enough. You have said several times that anything pleasant is acceptable provided it is natural. That's the very definition of the naturalistic fallacy.

Actually, you said exactly that. Don't you remember? Its right here:

What does that mean, if not that certain things are right or wrong conditional to is natural status?

When the hell did this conversation become about polygamy anyway? The opening paper did not mention it.

...

Right. Openeyes started it, okay. Openeyes' comment was also about the naturalistic fallacy. It may be natural for men to seek multiple parteners, but being natural does not make it right on its own. It must be seen in a complete social context, and in the context of individual desires. I agree with you completely that polygamy cannot be bad on the grounds that it is unnatural. Neither can it be good on that grounds. Its acceptability must derive from elsewhere. My own moral code would seek to investigate the question with respect, not to inherent goods and evils, but to individual and social benefits and harms. "Nature" is a poor guide.

Oolon Colluphid

It was a new term to me too (though some of the ideas weren’t), till I got my copy of Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett’s Human Evolutionary Psychology
(there’s a bit more info at the UK site). Still reading gradually, but so far it’s excellent.

Cheers, DT

Another

[false claims, ad hominem, and misrepresentation deleted. Please don't do this kind of thing.]

Another

My regrets, but in explanation if not defense I must note that the topic is purposefully inflammatory.

Doubting Didymus

You think? How can that be, when the OP is only a link to an (admittedly poor) scientific discussion article? Forgive my ignorance, but it seems that trebbie is dogged by his reputation even where he is not misbehaving.

Another

Sir, I do.

The implications of the topic are clear. In my opinion the association with darwinian theory is an example of dangereous and distasteful sociobiology. Further this topic is keeping with a prior pattern of topics on eugenics, justifying dictators and in general justifying inhumanity toward our fellow man under the guise some type twisted darwinism.

I believe we have an appropriate role in taking this to task.

In general, many posters have a political or social belief system which they try to advance here. Many have knowledge or experience that benefits all. The best ones also either have "works in progress" or are otherwise trying to gain understanding (often through reading or listening).

"Trebbie" wants none of this.

To be blunt, he only wants to inflame for no reason, to urinate in the pool of reason and intellect you are trying to create here.

Thank you for considering what I have to say. With respect,

Another

Vorkosigan

The evidence suggests that there is significant variation accross time and space of criteria of physical attractivness in human societies.

Quite true. But what is the tendency? Is the variation distributed randomly, or do males in nearly all cultures show a marked preference for females younger than themselves regardless of the particular elements that cause them to favor one young female over another?

Also, what role does the age of the male play?

Did you know that 87% of all cultures are polygamous?

Yes, and 72% of statistics are made up on the spot

Vorkosigan