The monogamy instinct within humans

[HydrogenBond]

This is not established science. Rather it is an observation that I am presenting as a topic of open discussion.

The genetic argument of sexual promiscuity being connected to increasing genetic diversity makes sense at the genetic level. It has led to the conclusion humans are promiscuous animals. But there are strong human counter emotions that suggest there is also a monogamous instinct within humans. This appears to be connected to the emotions and effects centered on jealousy, which can lead to crimes of passion.

If both natural impulses were given free reign, as an experiment, the monogamous related instincts (as defined) would go to the most extreme of expression. Crimes of passion are illegal because of this. In the hierarchy of instinct, the most extreme usually has the highest instinctive priority. I tend to think both impulses are part of humans, with the monogamy impulses stronger. The full effect is countered by manmade law because of the primal irrationality.

[Boerseun]

I'm not really sure what you want to discuss here, but as far as I'm concerned, the whole monogamy thing with humans might be slightly overstated and mostly cultural and probably artificial.

Genetic tests amongst many animals believed to be monogamous have indicated that a very big percentage of offspring are not related to the male the female associates herself with.

Also, if any male or female has a predisposition to copulate outside the bounds of their relationship, it should definitely be a characteristic to be selected for. A promiscuous male clearly has a genetic lead over his rivals who stick to exclusively procreating in their relationships - he can have hundreds of offspring in his lifetime, whilst his monogamous male peers will only have as many children as his female partner can bear.

So, I personally believe that humans are polygamous at their very core - and all the monogamous pretensions we might have is simply a thin veneer of culture plastered over our true lusty selves.

[Moontanman]

I agree with the phantom cow of justice, monogamy is part of some cultures not a genetic drive. If it were instinctive I doubt so many cultures would be polygamous. Even in Christianity you find cults of polygamy and early Judaism was polygamous. Monogamy is an artificial construct brought about by religion to control the sexual expression of the congregation.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is my theory for the monogamous instinct, indirectly inferred by the defensive reaction associated with crimes of passion. If you look at the past 10,000 years, the advantage of humanity was more connected to the brain than to genetics. Through language, education and now science, whatever we lack genetically, can be compensated for by the brain/mind. The modern medical mind is able to alter genetics, due to science, which is a product of the brain. It is hard to point out major genetic changes over the past 10,000 years, that can explain what the brain has accomplished. Show me the gene that put a man on the moon.

Animals are different than humans, in that their genetics lead, since their brains are wired into genetics. The brain has some liberty for adaptation but their pace of change is slow and very conservative.

That being said, an animal will benefit by promiscuity, because it will increase the genetic diversity. I agree with that, since their genetics is leading, and this will give a selective advantage via more genetic combinations. With the human mind leading the past 10,000 years, increased genetic diversity, all by itself, would not have allowed the same pace as the brain created. Selective advantage for humans, when civilization began, needed to be geared to the needs of the brain more than simple genetic diversity.

Something changed in humans so humans could better pass down more to the young brain than just genes.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Hydrogenbond

Something changed in humans so humans could better pass down more to the young brain than just genes

Indeed. And I guess a human of 10,000 years ago isn't genetically as different as a human of, say, 20,000 years ago.

And what happened, is that humans have invented writing.

Our genetic code only carries so much useful information. Every new generation has to physically learn what the previous generations have learned the hard way, through experience. Instinctive knowledge is only useful up to a point, and will not put a man on the moon.

The human species is the first species to stockpile knowledge outside the restrictions of our DNA. We call it a library, and it carries tons of information from generation to generation. Imagine if each and every generation had to invent calculus for themselves. Today, you merely go to the library and read about Newton, and there you go.

I don't think polygamy or monogamy has anything to do with what you propose; I suspect the "magic bullet" that lead humanity (genetically almost identical to our ancient primitive ancestors from thousands of years ago) to achieve greatness (like landing on the moon) is merely the ability to do what I'm doing now, and what you're doing right now. I'm able to write, and you're able to read it. And right there, exactly the thing we're busy with right now, is what makes humans great, if not awesome - and eventualyl leads to such cool things as moon landings.

[HydrogenBond]

What I was trying to do is show a distinction between genetic based and brain/mind based changes in humans from 20,000 years ago. Biological or genetic evolution, from what I have learned, is based on drift, random change and selective advantage. The brain/mind connection evolves more in terms of progression. For example, computers, which stemmed from the human brain, improves and progresses over time, with a sense of direction that is defined by the computer R&D visionaries. The goals are already there before anything is made. The future form is limited by support technology which also has to progress. From what others have said, DNA has no goal but drifts in the wind.

Human evolutionary confusion is connected to genetics and brain doing it differently, yet both are connected. I am sort of diverging from the topic of monogamy, but this background will loop back. Most scientists call monogamy a product of the brain and not a part of genetics. This is correct in the sense it is connected to the brain/mind aspect of human change and not to genetics.

One possible way to separate the genetic and the brain/mind effects of human progression/evolution (direction and drift) is using a computer analogy. The genetics is analogous to the hardware of a computer, with better hardware having an advantage. The brain/mind aspect is more like software. Software will not work without the hardware, with better hardware allowing better performance. But software can be used to emulate hardware. For example, software can be used to take the place of hardware like an audio card. The brain does not have to wait for genetics to make an audio card, so to speak, but can approximate this with software.

For example, say it gets cold, animals who are not use to the cold would need go through a genetic change to get thicker fur for insulation. Selective advantage will go to those would develop this genetic hardware. This will be passed on through breeding. With the human brain, we can simulate the genetic fur hardware, with clothes. We don't have to wait for genetic hardware changes. Instead of humans with clothes having to breed, biologically, to pass on this software-hardware simulation, it is passed on via the brain copying the behavior.

Once humans put on the clothes, the genetic drift of all the other animals to the cold does not fully apply to humans, because of the software-hardware simulation. Hardware drift toward fur in humans could lead to a disadvantage because of too much insulation. Human genetic selective advantage will go one way and the animals the other way because the human brain and its hardware emulation.

We need to go back in time, to the point where genetics has dominate control, and the earliest humanoids were based primarily on hardware. In this state, the humanoids would be like a mechanical device, where hardware simulates software. For example, an old fashion mechanical clock, composed of gears and levers, uses hardware to simulate software. It can keep time and trigger a wood cutting to come out and chop every hour and then go back in, with the door shutting. This is done all with hardware. Genetic evolution improves the gears and levers. Shifting to software, simplified the increasing requirement of genetic hardware for gearing and levers.

The observation that humans are progressing via the brain/mind faster than can be attributed to hardware alone, seems to imply the brain/mind favoring hardware emulation because of the speed. This means behavior, at some point had to change away from that which would favor gears and levers to simulate brain software, into favoring software to emulate gears and levers.

The easiest way to make that shift, is to disconnect, some of the brain, from a direct connection to genetic gears and levers using a separate control console. Human will power is this separate console. But we also have the genetic hardware with its ancient gears and levers for software emulation.

If we compare promiscuity to monogamy, promiscuity is better geared to the needs of genetic variation. This will improve the genetic hardware, fastest. But on the other hand, 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. It would be like writing a program and then the boss saying we can't do it that way because the wind is not blowing from the north but now from the south. There will be software bias that can effect the final hardware emulation. The result may be the need to start up in safe mode using genetic software emulation.

[InfiniteNow]

Request thread be moved to Strange Claims bucket.

This is not science (as expressly conceded in the OP), and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to the actual science (even Wiki has an entire section discussing this specific issue of it being cultural).


Monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The incidence of sexual monogamy can be roughly estimated as the percentage of married people who do not engage in extramarital sex. Several studies have looked at the percentage of people who engage in extramarital sex. These studies have shown that extramarital sex varies across cultures and across genders.

The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample describes the amount of extramarital sex by men and women in over 50 pre-industrial cultures. [37] [38] The amount of extramarital sex by men is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 29 cultures, "occasional" in 6 cultures, and "uncommon" in 10 cultures. The amount of extramarital sex by women is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 23 cultures, "occasional" in 9 cultures, and "uncommon" in 15 cultures. These findings support the claim that the amount of extramarital sex differs across cultures and across genders.

Recent surveys conducted in non-Western nations have also found cultural and gender differences in extramarital sex. A study of sexual behavior in Thailand, Tanzania and Côte d'Ivoire suggests about 16-34% of men engage in extramarital sex while a much smaller (unreported) percentage of women engage in extramarital sex. [39] Studies in Nigeria have found around 47-53% of men and to 18-36% of women engage in extramarital sex. [40] [41] A 1999 survey of married and cohabiting couples in Zimbabwe reports that 38% of men and 13% of women engaged in extra-couple sexual relationships within the last 12 months. [42]

Nowhere has extramarital sex been examined more frequently than in the United States. Many surveys asking about extramarital sex in the United States have relied on convenience samples. A convenience sample means surveys are given to whomever happens to be easily available (e.g., volunteer college students or volunteer magazine readers). Convenience samples do not accurately reflect the population of the United States as a whole, which can cause serious biases in survey results. It should not be surprising, therefore, that surveys of extramarital sex in the United States have produced widely differing results. A few studies relying on convenience samples have tried to compensate for biases by surveying large numbers of people. These studies report that about 12-26% of married women and 15-43% of married men engage in extramarital sex. [43] [44] [45] Although surveying large numbers of people helps to counteract the biases of convenience samples, the only way to get scientifically reliable estimates of extramarital sex is to use nationally representative samples. Three studies have used nationally representative samples. These studies have found that about 10-15% of women and 20-25% of men engage in extramarital sex. [46] [47] [48]

A majority of married people remain sexually monogamous during their marriages. The number of married partners who engage in extramarital sex never exceeds 50 percent in studies using large or nationally representative samples. Yet, the incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures. People in some cultures are more sexually monogamous than people in other cultures. Women also appear to be more sexually monogamous than men.

Surely, if it were "instinctual," you wouldn't have such cultural variation, and likely not such a high incidence of infidelity to begin with. Seems to me somebody is engaging in wish thinking in an attempt to justify their faith based worldview.

Btw... That quoted bit above is supported by no less than 11 different references.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Request thread be moved to Strange Claims bucket.

This is not science (as expressly conceded in the OP), and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to the actual science (even Wiki has an entire section discussing this specific issue of it being cultural).

Might not be Science with a capital "S" yet, but it seems HB is still developing his argument in his last post, albeit with a bit of a detour.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Surely, if it were "instinctual," you wouldn't have such cultural variation, and likely not such a high incidence of infidelity to begin with.

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

Seems to me somebody is engaging in wish thinking in an attempt to justify their faith based worldview.

I don't recall HB dragging religion into it anywhere.

Religion might be a strong angle in defense of this particular idea, but the fallacy of human monogamy cuts across all racial, cultural and religious lines. Western Europeans have religion to thank for their monogamous viewpoint, but amongst the Bushmen of the Kalahari, strict monogamy is part and parcel of their makeup. And they've only been in contact with Christianity for a relatively short while. I have a suspicion that in their desert conditions, the original basis for their monogamy has more to do with keeping the population limited in the face of harsh living conditions than with religion.

So, while I certainly understand your objections and your call for moving this thread to Strange Claims, I do see fertile soil for a proper discussion of the Scientific Kind with regards to this particular topic.

[Kriminal99]

I don't agree with the high level approach you are taking towards these ideas.

I feel like jealousy is a byproduct of our whole motivation system and could not be changed in isolation. Therefore I disagree that this is a "monogamy instinct". For that matter I think the opposing force is a byproduct of the same system.

Jealousy just seems to do with the fear of the loss in the most general sense. Also, I have observed that jealousy is greatly reduced when you remove value judgements on people. People have less of a problem (if any) with a desired person giving admiration to all than they do with that person giving admiration ONLY to someone else because they think that person is "better" in some way. Fear of deception is also an issue here - for when you are deceived, you assume that the situation is much worse than just what you have found out about.

As for the instinct to mate with many partners, it seems like we are attracted to general attributes like certain shapes, outlines etc. New relations with these general outlines are most impactful. If it wasn't for this, we would just sit staring and smiling back at the first smile we came across until we starved to death.

I would agree this system could be described as a driving force for reproduction, but I believe it is also the cause of all of our behavior.

[InfiniteNow]

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.

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, 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. 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.


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).

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I feel like jealousy is a byproduct of our whole motivation system and could not be changed in isolation. Therefore I disagree that this is a "monogamy instinct". For that matter I think the opposing force is a byproduct of the same system.

Jealousy just seems to do with the fear of the loss in the most general sense. Also, I have observed that jealousy is greatly reduced when you remove value judgements on people.

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.