The monogamy instinct within humans

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Sorry to have to disagree with you here, mate, but I do. Shouldn't one first prove there is a such thing as unicorns before they go on conjecturing about which chemical causes them to be different colors?

Woah there, cowboy! Hold on to yer horses!
The concept of human monogamy is prevalent throughout most cultures. As fallacious as that might be, the idea that we are monogamous exist. And what would give rise to that idea? It's not, however much you might want to turn this into a religious thing, exclusively because of religion that we might think we are, or should be, at least, monogamous. The Kalahari Bushmen I mentioned above serves as a case in point.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Humans are not monogamous, and if there were some genetic instinct for us to be then we wouldn't see such commonality in infidelity nor differing behaviors across the various cultures.

Yet, the idea of human monogamy is prevalent, spanning cultures and religions. Why would that be, and why would getting to the root of that not be a discussion worthy of science? I find it very curious.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

My first foray into science and research was several years in the human sexuality lab at our university, and I have a fairly firm grasp of this topic.

"Firm grasp" on the topic... at the sex lab? Man, I can think of a million witty comebacks to that one...
But then again, arguing from authority is in itself a bit of a no-no. There's only one thing that carries weight, and that's your argument. And you are the very first one to raise religion here, not HB.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The data to the contrary is so plain that the idea itself can be discarded on its face (not to mention HBs history of posting unfounded nonsense grounded in false premises).

Once again, I think you missed a bit in my last post - the one you objected to:
Personally, I don't think humans are monogamous. Not as a species, at least. You get cases like my cousin who'll be just too glad to get laid at least once, for all he's gettin' now. But that's on an individual basis. What I'm getting at is that the idea of human monogamy is prevalent - and the discussion of how and why we got to believe that particular line of BS is worthy of discussion - and no, however much you may want the contrary to be the case, religion is not the sole proprietor of the idea that humans are supposed to be monogamous.

[InfiniteNow]

I think you may be missing my point. The rough outline of what I'm saying is that it's completely baseless to first assume a monogamy instinct since all of the data available indicates that we have evolved to prefer numerous mates, and to exploit numerous mating opportunities. It is only through cultural conditioning that we suppress those urges and remain monogamous. However, the urges we feel are to mate with multiple different partners as often as possible, the exact opposite of the suggestion in the OP of a "monogamy instinct."

The idea of monogamy is all well and good, and is definitely worthy of discussion in a psychology thread, however, my interpretation is that this is hardly the intended purpose here based on the OPs own posts.

I'm gonna lay the legal smack down on your cow worshippin' ass now.


Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

there are strong human counter emotions that suggest there is also a monogamous instinct within humans.

Exhibit B:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is my theory for the monogamous instinct

You may also recall that I expressly suggested that one should first demonstrate the existence of a "monogamous instinct" prior to speculating about potential causes of it.


Exhibit C:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

all things being equal, monogamy within parents improves the mind/brain software in the next generation of brains, which are the children. Humans are composed of hardware and software, creating a dichotomy.

Monogamy in adults is better geared to the software emulation of hardware, within children because it doesn't change programming oars in midstream.

If that's not a strange claim, then I don't know what is.

Regardless, it's all baseless assertions, without a single solitary citation or reference with hard empirical data in support. He may as well be arguing that the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, but only on Tuesdays during a leap year.


Hmmm... Okay, so maybe I wouldn't make a very good lawyer, but my original point remains. It's completely baseless to first assume a monogamy instinct since all of the data available indicates that we have evolved to prefer numerous mates, and to exploit numerous mating opportunities... All data suggests that our "instincts" are to have diverse sexual partners, and that "monogamy" is a learned trait tied strongly to the society in which we were raised whereby we condition ourselves to suppress those natural urges. Either way, our "natural urges" (what some might call "instincts") are toward engaging in coitus with multiple partners. It's as simple as that.


Maybe things would be better if HB actually took a moment to define "monogamy instinct." What does that even mean? Does it mean that if I'm in a relationship with one girl and I see some other uber hot nude female beckoning me to her bed that I'm going to run the other direction due to some instinctual repulsion... a repulsion I would only feel due to my already being in a relationship with someone else? ... That if I weren't in another relationship, I would not feel the urge to run away or be repulsed? I mean, WTF are we even talking about here? The suggestion is laughable. The data is so fully on the other side of this I wonder why the question was even asked in the first place (but, while I wonder, TBH, I don't really care).

Originally Posted by Boerseun

"Firm grasp" on the topic... at the sex lab? Man, I can think of a million witty comebacks to that one...

I've certainly missed you, my friend. I hope things are well in SA.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I agree with that, but discussing the origins of the idea that humans are supposedly monogamous, and whatever benefits upholding that pretension might have, is surely scientific.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Sorry to have to disagree with you here, mate, but I do. Shouldn't one first prove there is a such thing as unicorns before they go on conjecturing about which chemical causes them to be different colors?

Humans are not monogamous

I disagree with several of the statements implied by these quotes.

First, when studying animal behavior, even that of members of the brainy, social, human species, studying our ideas – which, in this context, I think is more clearly termed our beliefs – about the behavior is complicated and problematic. It’s more effective, I think, to approach the subject empirically, defining and measuring the collection of behavior in questions. While even little experienced students of non-human animal behavior usually understand the importance of and strive to avoid anthropomorphizing the object of their study, students of human behavior need also to understand and avoid this source of bias, and attempt to study humans as just another animal species, as if the student was not of the same species.

Second, the analogy that studying monogamous behavior in humans, or any other animal, is like studying unicorns, is, I think, off. Animals don’t exhibit well-defined “unicorn-related behavior”, but various species do exhibit monogamous behaviors. A source of potential confusion is that there are several important behaviors to which the term “monogamous” applies – social, sexual, genetic, and marital, to name just those in the wikipedia article to which InfiniteNow linked. Some members of an animal populations, including humans, engage in various combinations of these behaviors at different times and circumstances in their lifetime.

So stating that humans are or are not monogamous is like stating that humans are or are not swimming, or some other inconstant behavior. Better, I think, to agree with the statement “some humans sometimes behave monogamously”, and seek a clear definition of what this means.

Toward this end, I propose that we adopt a “central dogma of human monogamy”, that is, a core area of empirical observation on which we can agree. Here’s my first draft, culled from various anthropologists and zoologists, especially Desmond Morris:

• The likelihood of children surviving to reach maturity and having offspring is increased by being protected by adults, and decreased by being attacked by adults.
• Usually, adults are more likely to protect, and less likely to attack, children they believe are their genetic offspring than those who are not.
• Because of an uninterrupted “chain of custody”, a mother is almost always certain if a child is hers.
• A man is certain that he is the father of a child only if he is certain that no other man had procreative sex with the mother during the period in which conception occurred.
• A man is certain that he is not the father of a child if he has not had sex with the mother during this period.

From these few assumptions, the rationale for a variety of behaviors are suggested:

• To assure that a man will protect her offspring, a woman will attempt to assure a man with whom she’s had sex that she has had sex with no other man.
• To assure that the child of a woman with whom he’s had sex is his, a man will attempt to assure that the woman has sex with no other man.
• To assure that many men will think they might be her child’s father, a woman will have sex with as many men as possible
• To assure that he has as many children as possible, a man will have sex with as many women as possible.
• To assure that another man who has had sex with a woman will protect her child, believing it his own, a man will attempt to keep his having sex with her secret

Throw on top of this list the biological trait of human females, unusual in the primate family, that it is difficult to determine when they are or are not able to conceive, and the species's great language and social skills, and you have a motivational basis for myriad, complicated, culturally-dependent confidence-winning, deception, suspicious and jealous behaviors. Whether you categorize the collection of these behaviors for a given culture or the whole of human kind as “primarily monogamous” or “primarily promiscuous”, or eschew such labels, these behaviors are clearly not simple.

An additional biological trait of human females, common among mammal species, is that breastfeeding greatly reduces the likelihood of conception, gives rise to a grim tendency in human male behavior. If a man is having sex with a woman with a young child he is certain or strongly suspects is not his own, he has a motive to stop her from breastfeeding it, by some means, so that he she can conceive his child. Even if the child is no longer breastfeeding, it requires resources that may be limited, and shared with children the man is confident are his. Thus, as in many mammal species, males are more likely to kill children than females, with stepchildren being at greatest risk.

[InfiniteNow]

Show me evidence of a human monogamy instinct and I will entertain further study with you. Until then, I don't care what you think makes unicorns pink or purple.


As I stated myself, there exists monogamy, but the data STRONGLY implies that it is a learned, cultural trait which makes us suppress our actual instincts. I don't discount the fact that monogamy occurs, nor how it can prove beneficial. What I take issue with is the baseless assertion that it is instinctual.



EDIT: Perhaps I can be more clear. There are obviously strong social bonding traits in all of us, and even many times a desire to pair bond with a single mate for life. However, the concept of "monogamy" relates specifically to sexuality, and we DO NOT have an instinct to have sex with only one person, nor does our sexual desire go away when we are actively partnered in a pair bond. The sexual urges remain, despite the presence of a life partner.

The desire to bond with a single partner is one thing, but the concept of monogamy does not describe that.

To reiterate, monogamy is specific to sexual activity, not bonding activity. It may seem that these are the same things, but the differences are profound.

We suppress our natural urges... urges fed by hormones and instinct... when we choose to avoid copulation with other partners. That's not to say that we don't have genetic tendencies toward pair bonding with single partners, just that the idea of monogamy applies to sexual activity by definition, and hence the assertion that it is instinctual is counter to all data available to us.

Now, if HB is talking about pair bonding for life with a single mate being instinctual, let's explore that. However, if he's talking about monogamy being an instinct, he's simply wrong.


Alternatively, let's define what we mean by "monogamy." In our lab, we spoke of monogamy as the sexual part, and the relationship as the pair bonding part. Perhaps I was wrong to assume this is how all researchers do it (not that HydrogenBond is a researcher on this topic).

[Boerseun]

Jeez, Louise...

Sometimes, I think I'm talking to a wall. Or that very few of my posts are actually read.

If HB says that humans are monogamous, then he's flat-out wrong.

However, the idea that humans are monogamous is prevalent, and cuts across cultural and religious boundaries.

Why would that be?

That, in itself, the idea that we are something that we clearly and explicitly are not, is endlessly fascinating in itself, and is fertile soil for discussion of the properly scientific kind.

I won't recommend this thread for Strange Claims, because after all, this isn't the first time you heard any human claim to be monogamous. Let's forget the fact that HB claims that there's a monogamy instinct, which is false, and dig a little deeper and ask him why he believes it to be the case. Because that, in itself, is mighty fascinating.

I'll tell you my theory for the belief in human monogamy: It all boils down to our social hierarchy. You don't wanna mess with the Alpha Male's women. And not because you don't want to, but because the Alpha Male wants to protect his interests, and don't want any other DNA to compete with his. By the same token, you wouldn't take any nonsense from any other males lower on the totem pole. And so the chief, or priests, or whoever in any particular society sways the biggest influence, defend the concept of human monogamy. Although the real reason might not be religious, as might be claimed by the priest. The real reason behind it is merely the preservation of the hierarchy, or simply the maintenance of social stability.

That's one of the reasons that I believe HB can so easily fall into the trap of simply assuming human monogamy as a fact. Because its culturally ingrained over so many generations that we have come to unquestioningly accept the dogma.

But the prevalence of that particular dogma would not make it a strange claim in the least.

[HydrogenBond]

I started to develop the idea of genetic hardware emulating brain software and the brain/mind software emulating hardware. The first would be genetic based chemical effects leading to genetic behavior and the second involves conscious learning that emulates genetic hardware.

For example, a woman can increase her sex appeal by changing the color of her hair, putting on make-up to give her a clear and radiant complexion and/or to make her lips look fuller or her eyes brighter. She can create the impression of longer legs with hi-heals, perkier breasts with a good bra, etc. All these things attempt to emulate genetic hardware that exists within nature, because some human female have these things genetically and these can trigger the gears and levers in males. But since most women do not have this genetic hardware, they have to emulate it. The bird with colorful feathers has that because of genetics. Humans can create their version of colorful feathers, if it does not exist genetically, by learning a procedure to create the emulation.

Once couples pair up, typically there is less need for as much hardware emulation because the two people have time to see who is under the mask. Human promiscuity is optimized with a higher ratio of sexual based hardware emulation. Monogamy may not be pure genetic hardware in action, by it requires a lower ratio of hardware emulsion, since the female doesn't have to wear makeup for her husband and the husband doesn't have to be use pretend charm or sing a song that works again and again.

Let me go back. The genetic hardware is a like a mechanical clock where gears and levers cause the woodcutter to come out, circle a couple of times, chop wood and then go back into the house. The software based hardware emulation can tinker with the wood cutter, since this is an edible region.

Say we edited the woodcutter by giving him a heavy stone ax instead of the genetic wood ax. The genetic gears and levers will still drive the mechanism, but we may have altered the center of gravity and increase the moment of inertia of the woodcutter. If this was a mechanical device, it would start to lose natural time due to the change of torque, and/or the woodcutter will start to wobble. He will still come out of the house, circle a couple of times, chop wood and go back. It looks similar, but is not the same as the version where we don't edit the woodcutter. Zero editing is genetic while maximum editing is connected to mind/brain.

[HydrogenBond]

Genetics is very conservative and changes slowly. The mind/brain emulations can create potentials between the mind/brain emulation and conservative machine of genetics. A good mechanical analogy to see a type of effect is a washing machine. If too many clothes end up on one side, the wash machine will starts to buck and make noise. The genetic machine is designed to handle the weight of these clothes and will last for years, but they clothes need to be distributed evenly, or else unbalanced stresses will appear.

Relative to our unbalanced wash emulation, the washing machine might start to walk across the floor. Theoretically, one could use this imbalanced walk, to turn the wash machine into a plow. We have not altered the genetic machine, at the hardware level. We are still using it to wash clothes, but we have turned the genetic software emulation into two things. Technically, the new walking and plowing features are connected to genes without any change to the DNA in terms of sequences. Although genetic expression may shift due to the imbalance.

[HydrogenBond]

One groups of genetic hardware emulations required by the mind/brain to support promiscuity are associated with STD's. These result from certain reproductive behavior and increase in odds as we shift to increasing promiscuity.

Most humans do not have natural genetic hardware to generate the software emulation within the immune system to deal with these diseases, especially AIDS. Science, which is mind/brain has to create hardware emulation (medicines) to extend the natural genetic immune system to deal with these.

If we took away all such hardware emulation associated with the natural genetic immune system, as well as mind/brain prevention behavior not in genetics, monogamy may not even notice the difference, since it does not require as much hardware support. Promiscuity on the other hand, which has a higher hardware emulation requirement would creates a paradox for itself.

Human promiscuity, although increasing genetic diversity, which is good for genetics, will also create STD's, which have the potential to make the same healthy genetic specimens sickly, due to negative hardware emulation created by the STD's. The same negative hardware emulation can also be passed on to the unborn and undermine the natural genetic advantages of the offspring stemming from the induce genetic diversity.

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct, in my opinion, since it also has a mind/brain connection. However, because it has a lower emulation requirement, it is closer to natural, at least for humans. This may be different for other animals, who don't have the same level of willful mind/brain influence on genetic hardware and software emulation to create unbalanced genetic cycles that need additional brain/mind requirement.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct, in my opinion

Instinct is, by definition, genetic. Am I the only one who thinks strange claims continues to beckon?

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Jealously seems to have conferred selective benefit. You should check out the work of David Buss, specifically, his text "The Dangerous Passion." Covers this issue quite well.

If I read every potentially poorly reasoned argument someone directed me to I would have a lot less free time on my hands for next to no increase in knowledge. No doubt what you say is true in some regard - since without jealousy more capable animals would sit by while less capable ones mated.

But these issues are far less signifigant when considering intelligent beings. If there is any major measure of capability among us, it is iq / complex reaction time. But this has already been correlated with lower rates of reproduction. So, even if IQ helps wins disputes over mates, it doesn't help society as a whole. If a capable mate is sought after and won by someone with a high IQ, they are less likely to mate thus wasting the capabilities of the person sought after.