evolution, modularity and homosexuality

[luckyme]

There is some support for homosexuality to be carried along on a species fitness level. I haven't bought into that yet, but haven't ruled it out as playing a part. Main reluctance comes from a parsimonious take on modularity.

Until I'm convinced that it isn't a normal spin-off from our modular nature regarding sexual behavior in general, it's hard to support a group level explanation.
To oversimplify it - our mind/brain has lots of modular aspects and given the mixes that occur and the ubiquitousness of the sexual/power/bonding ones we can't help but have some form into various homosexual holistic behavior in some individuals.

From an similar angle - as long as sex is a major focus of a successful social modular-minded species, homosexuality is going to appear. The arousal triggers are not directly hooked to reproductive copulation.

Focused fitness seems a distant second at best ???

luckyme

[Phil153]

That pretty much sums up my thinking. The existence and development of fetishes adds support to this view I think.

How much of this are you suggesting is genetic? I belief a large part is due to faulty "wiring" in a person's psychology as they grow up.

I agree with you on the group level. One of the dumbest explanations given by armchair evolutionists is the group level selection argument. I don't think the effect is strong enough or selected enough or frequent enough to evolve specific traits. Perhaps on a larger scale (i.e. whole brain architecture) or further back in our history (pre-ape), but certainly not recent specific traits.

[chezlaw]

Why do dogs hump lamposts?

maybe because dogs who will hump anything have fitter genes?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That pretty much sums up my thinking. The existence and development of fetishes adds support to this view I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar sources. More directly played out.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That pretty much sums up my thinking. The existence and development of fetishes adds support to this view I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar sources. More directly played out.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its missing the important point which is the importance of diversity for a species. No-one (afaik) would argue that fetishes are directly beneficial for the group, but that it may be advantagous for the genes to have hosts that are not too rigidly in their sexual proclavities.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That pretty much sums up my thinking. The existence and development of fetishes adds support to this view I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar sources. More directly played out.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its missing the important point which is the importance of diversity for a species. No-one (afaik) would argue that fetishes are directly beneficial for the group, but that it may be advantagous for the genes to have hosts that are not too rigidly in their sexual proclavities.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure...-ish. Yet it seems to be pulling attributes of the overall longterm effects of the genes down to their own level. Rather the reverse of what people have done with the 'selfish gene' concept.

Where that diversity resides and how much value it has in different dollops is of course part of the overall issue. Likely it builds up and depletes depending on environmental pressures. It a stable environment, diversity maintainence would be a costly drag.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How much of this are you suggesting is genetic? I belief a large part is due to faulty "wiring" in a person's psychology as they grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, it seems like a combination of genetic and womb environmental influences just as a lot of other traits we end up with are.

'Faulty' seems a bit strong and not because of PC reasons. I see no reason to treat Genghis Khan as the pinnacle of humanity.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That pretty much sums up my thinking. The existence and development of fetishes adds support to this view I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar sources. More directly played out.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its missing the important point which is the importance of diversity for a species. No-one (afaik) would argue that fetishes are directly beneficial for the group, but that it may be advantagous for the genes to have hosts that are not too rigidly in their sexual proclavities.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure...-ish. Yet it seems to be pulling attributes of the overall longterm effects of the genes down to their own level. Rather the reverse of what people have done with the 'selfish gene' concept.

Where that diversity resides and how much value it has in different dollops is of course part of the overall issue. Likely it builds up and depletes depending on environmental pressures. It a stable environment, diversity maintainence would be a costly drag.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
But diversity maintenance is very cheap, its specialisation that's very expensive.

The nub of the issue is whether diverse populations tend to be more fit over evolutionary timescales then less diverse ones. Or put another way, which levels of diversity are most fit and we can get out of our armchairs and do some maths or computer simulations if we want to.

I think phil's main objection is claims about the actual world as even if diversity is more fit it doesn't follow that the diversity we see is the result of this additional fitness - but I also think he sometimes mistakes evolutionary theory for claims about the history of the world.

chez

[Rduke55]

Most of the thinking behind homosexuality and evolution are not traditional group selection centered ideas. They are based on gene selection. Things like genes that increase fertility in females cause homosexuality in men, genes in certain combinations increase fitness - in others cause homosexuality, etc.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the thinking behind homosexuality and evolution are not traditional group selection centered ideas. They are based on gene selection. Things like genes that increase fertility in females cause homosexuality in men, genes in certain combinations increase fitness - in others cause homosexuality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to present an alternative to a cultural or group fitness explanation. You're right it was the 'better for the tribe if some men can be babysitters' type of thinking that was my main target, but I was hoping to catch the general 'homosexuality is selected for' on the roundabout, also.

You,re taking it one level deeper, I was at the 'our mind/brain will end up with some uncommon macro effects as long as freud was wrong' one. A pheno-geno flippage.

luckyme