Dr Rick

The sexual urge or drive is inborn, but not the behavior in some primates such as gorrillas and humans; they must be "taught" or observe mating behavior to learn it. That is part of the reason it is so difficult to breed gorrillas that were born into captivity; if they haven't observed other gorrillas mating, they don't know how to do it themselves.

Rick

jayh

Are you saying that the mating behavior of people does not involve choice? That it is purely a matter of instinct (and opportunity) that determines if and when one mates?

Not in the details, but in the overall.

If we consider a specific example, say lions, we may observe that the male lion has a harem for a limited portion of his life.

When I speak of 'monogamy' I am talking in relative, not absolute terms. Mates die and wander off, circumstances change, mongamy is describing general patterns not every outworking of every case. The lions specifically are a somewhat different behavior pattern, based on their lifestyle.



Do you mean to suggest that there is a specific set of genes that causes monogamy or promiscuity, or are you speaking in the abstract?

I'm suggesting that behavior *patterns* which favor certain behaviors are genetic. The particular behaviors favored depend on the evolutionary history of the species involved.

There is another possible motive for her infidelity, and that is to provide a stronger or otherwise better father for her children.

That would be one of the 'social' advantages for promiscuity I suggested.

There are social factors that may be at work in such matters, so it may have nothing to do with genetics.

Absolutely. Creation of social structure is itself an evolutionary adaptation. No exact social structure is evolutionary, but the nature of humans to form them is, and there are specific styles of culture that seem to be favored.

In most human societies, males have had financial independence, whereas women often have not.

Why do you suppose this is the case in most societies?


The social conditions being different for the sexes can easily explain these different descriptions of 'jealousy'.

Why do you feel it easier to suggest external financial influences, as opposed to the assumption that sexual jealousy had an evolutionary purpose, and manifests itself differently to the advantages of two very different reproductive strategies.

I recall reading some speculation about differences in jealousy being caused by knowledge of reproduction, and the inherent uncertainty of a male that he is ever a father.

I recall reading some speculation about differences in jealousy being caused by knowledge of reproduction, and the inherent uncertainty of a male that he is ever a father.

This is the general mechanism, wrapped up in actual knowledge of the reproductive process. But that knowledge alone would not create the deep feeling of the emotion, the emotion is there deeper and stronger because it's roots are beyond the intellectual knowledge of reproduction.

Our intellectual knowledge is very late, but the behaviors that protect one's reproductive role had evolutionary survival advantage are far older. The old brain that governed our actions throughout our history before the evolution of the rational brain was already fine tuned to these nuances. Our 'gut' feelings (which despite intellectual analysis are very difficult to ignore) are the way we perceive the patterns of this older (but still very important) part of our brain.


[None of this is to suggest a justification for promiscuity, irrational jealousy or other bad behaviors. Just because there is some evolutionary component at work does not mean the particular manifestation of the behavior is good. But it does help to understand where some of this baggage comes from.]

j

Pyrrho

The portions in bold were originally posted by me.

Anything that anyone says about this is going to be rather speculative, as we are dealing with the prehistoric origins of society. However, the fact that men tend to be bigger and stronger, which makes them able to impose their will, along with the obvious inclination that we can observe many men actually having, is sufficient to explain why men would have a dominant role. Even today, it is common for a man to beat a woman into submission (though, of course, it is impossible to get precisely accurate numbers on how often this occurs). As we have this ready explanation, Occam's Razor suggests that we stick with it unless there is some evidence to the contrary. And, in prehistoric times, brute strength was probably far more important than it is today.



Occam's Razor. My theory postulates no new entities that are unknown; yours suggests genes causing things that there is no reason to believe have been caused that way. We KNOW that there have been differences in finances; we do not know that genes directly cause jealousy.



First, NO ONE has demonstrated that the differences in jealousy (even if they exist today) existed in prehistoric times. You are merely assuming this in order to justify your position. Furthermore, you have given NO REASON to believe that the lack of knowledge that one is a father is something that cannot generate deep emotion. (Indeed, I think your assertion is not merely unfounded, but false. However, I will be content to defend the idea that you have simply not given any reason to believe that deep emotions cannot be connected with knowledge or the lack thereof.)

jayh

However, the fact that men tend to be bigger and stronger, which makes them able to impose their will, along with the obvious inclination that we can observe many men actually having, is sufficient to explain why men would have a dominant role.

Precisely. Adapted to a more aggressive behavior pattern (not that different from other social primates)



My theory postulates no new entities that are unknown; yours suggests genes causing things that there is no reason to believe have been caused that way.

Jealousy over mates exists in the animal world, no new mechanism is needed.

Furthermore, you have given NO REASON to believe that the lack of knowledge that one is a father is something that cannot generate deep emotion.

Sexual jealousy tends to be much deeper and more visceral than jealousy over food, money or status, even among childless couples. This strongly suggests a pre-rational component.

Protecting access to one's reproductive resources is universal in the animal world. Various aspects of animal behavior (including species dependent behavior by males to prevent others from fertilizing their mates) have been optimized in many studied species, there is no reason to assume that humans are any different.

The problem is, because we have a relatively recent rational behavior overlay, we tend to try to rationalize our instinctive behaviors rather than recognize how much of our activity and feelings are located in our older brains.

j

Majestyk

We are apes. I'm inclined to think we can look at other apes, as well as any remaining "stone age" cultures, for insights as to the nature of sexual relations in early homo sapiens communities. Those characteristics that are common amongst all groups would be likely to have a genetic, as opposed to a cultural, impetus.

Dr Rick

Which primates? Bonobos, Chimps, Gorillas, or others? They all have considerable differences in their sexual and community behaviors, so which one do we putatively assume to be the most behaviorally similar to early homo sapiens?

Dr Rick

I tend to think that my cognitive skills make me behave much differently than any other species, so assuming that any behavior in the animal kingdom can be an attribute of humans seems unwarranted without some some objective, verifiable evidence.

Pyrrho

You seem to be forgetting the fact that many people (and many other animals, for that matter) do NOT seem to have any sexual jealousy at all. If it really were wired in or genetic, as you suggest, this would be impossible. But the fact is, many people have "open" relationships in which they do not care about how many sexual partners their partners have. So you must be mistaken.

Majestyk

Apes. Not primates. Look for commonalities in behavior.

Such, commonality would not automatically be a Law of all ape behavior but would lend itself as a possible indication of human behavior prior to the advent of such technology as language and culture.

Dr Rick

Apes it is, then.

Okay...what commonalites in any ape behaviors can you find with the behaviors of Charles Manson, Arnold Schwartzenigger, and Boy George, and what does this commonality tell us or allow us to predict or explain about all three of these men?

How would we go about verifying or refuting whatever hypothesis about Boy George's or any other man's behavior we derive from our ape observations?

I just don't see the utility in speculating about human behaviors based upon what we observe in non-humans.