ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th February 2019, 03:18 AM   #641
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
He's not using the common terminology, but I think that the concept he's talking about is basically referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment
I'm sure he was thinking of that at least in the back of his mind when he was posting his theory, but that still doesn't account for his idea of "the highest value man is worth more than the highest value woman" in his "biological value" sense.

With all things evolution, the environment matters as much as the genes. A small shift in the environment can radically alter the traits/genetics which replicate most prolifically. Under low-scarcity conditions, it seems like the least selective women will dominate the "breeding market" (lots of "baby daddies" per woman).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:19 AM   #642
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Okay. I'm just saying that inbreeding is happening in every reproductive event that ever happens.
Oh, yeah. Totally.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:24 AM   #643
Dipayan
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That's under the conditions of animal breeding, which is artificial selection. Natural selection is a whole different deal.
Could you clarify what you mean by artificial and natural here? I would think the example is quite representative of the human world.

Let's assume that Josh Brolin and Gigi Hadid are the two most beautiful people in the world. Josh Brolin can produce 200 offsprings in a year. Gigi Hadid can produce 1. Brolin can mate with Hadid for the highest quality offspring, but he can also mate with lesser quality* women for still above average offsprings. Hadid, however, should only mate with Brolin because of the opportunity cost. Therefore Brolin has higher value than Hadid.

*Quality defined here as attractiveness. We can switch out the people involved depending on the quality desired.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:24 AM   #644
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,766
For it to make sense, we might think of "biological value*" to be "value to the fitness of the parents". On average males and females would be of equal value, which is why the sex ratio tends to be 50/50.

But in species like elephant seals, for instance, 10% of males do all of the breeding. So those 10% will have more value to their parent's fitness than the 90% that are left out. Of course a parent doesn't know which side of that equation it's offspring will end up on.

When it does know, it tends to put more resources into the individuals that are more likely to be reproductively successful. We see this type of thing when, for instance, the runt of the litter is allowed to starve in order to preferentially feed it's siblings.

*ETA: To be clear, I don't like this terminology either, I just think that the concept behind it may be valid.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 5th February 2019 at 03:25 AM.
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:29 AM   #645
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But the same logic applies. The stallion can either devote it's time and resources to a single mare, making sure to be picky and find the best one, or it can relax it's selection criteria and attempt to maximize the number of offspring. The mare is faced with a similar choice, but it's total number of offspring is limited and thus it's best strategy is different from that of the stallion.

There need not be any thinking here, just different animals doing things differently and those whose behaviour more closely approaches the strategy that leads to more offspring will find their genes over-represented in the next generation.
There's so much variation with this stuff from species to species and from environmental condition to condition, it's really unwise to extrapolate the reality from one species (or condition) to another.

The broad principal of "mammalian females have a much harder limit on their potential number of offspring, which mammalian males do not have" is real, but it's not all that telling, in and of itself, when it comes to behavioral origins.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:31 AM   #646
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
Could you clarify what you mean by artificial and natural here? I would think the example is quite representative of the human world.
Artificial selection:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...article/evo_30

I'm sure you know what natural selection is.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:34 AM   #647
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
Let's assume that Josh Brolin and Gigi Hadid are the two most beautiful people in the world. Josh Brolin can produce 200 offsprings in a year. Gigi Hadid can produce 1. Brolin can mate with Hadid for the highest quality offspring, but he can also mate with lesser quality* women for still above average offsprings. Hadid, however, should only mate with Brolin because of the opportunity cost. Therefore Brolin has higher value than Hadid.

*Quality defined here as attractiveness. We can switch out the people involved depending on the quality desired.
Are you going with the macroeconomic theory of opportunity cost there?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 03:45 AM   #648
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
For it to make sense, we might think of "biological value*" to be "value to the fitness of the parents". On average males and females would be of equal value, which is why the sex ratio tends to be 50/50.

But in species like elephant seals, for instance, 10% of males do all of the breeding. So those 10% will have more value to their parent's fitness than the 90% that are left out. Of course a parent doesn't know which side of that equation it's offspring will end up on.

When it does know, it tends to put more resources into the individuals that are more likely to be reproductively successful. We see this type of thing when, for instance, the runt of the litter is allowed to starve in order to preferentially feed it's siblings.

*ETA: To be clear, I don't like this terminology either, I just think that the concept behind it may be valid.
Well, that does make sense.

Now I want to write an article on a model of "biological value" and the "Genghis Chads" which emerged from time to time after the advent of agriculture 70,000 years ago and how the New Deal in the US really was a New Deal.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 07:21 AM   #649
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Do we have a clear idea of why mammals in general produce males and females at similar rates instead of leaning heavily towards females? What’s the advantage of a 50/50 mix? Especially in species where the females don’t particularly get much rearing assistance from the males. A population with more males gets you more genetic diversity but not more offspring - how does that trade off shake out? Is there just a disadvantage to ending up with a higher ratio of young to adults or something?

Last edited by Lithrael; 5th February 2019 at 07:24 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 08:15 AM   #650
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,224
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Do we have a clear idea of why mammals in general produce males and females at similar rates instead of leaning heavily towards females?
Toxic masculinity.

Quote:
What’s the advantage of a 50/50 mix?
It promotes toxic masculinity.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 08:32 AM   #651
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Thanks qayak, you’re such a pal.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 08:48 AM   #652
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Do we have a clear idea of why mammals in general produce males and females at similar rates instead of leaning heavily towards females? What’s the advantage of a 50/50 mix? Especially in species where the females don’t particularly get much rearing assistance from the males. A population with more males gets you more genetic diversity but not more offspring - how does that trade off shake out? Is there just a disadvantage to ending up with a higher ratio of young to adults or something?
I believe its Fishers Principle, an unbalanced sex ratio gives an evolutionary advantage to animals which give birth to the less common sex, so it balances out around 50:50
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 09:01 AM   #653
ThatGuy11200
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Do we have a clear idea of why mammals in general produce males and females at similar rates instead of leaning heavily towards females? What’s the advantage of a 50/50 mix? Especially in species where the females don’t particularly get much rearing assistance from the males. A population with more males gets you more genetic diversity but not more offspring - how does that trade off shake out? Is there just a disadvantage to ending up with a higher ratio of young to adults or something?
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
I believe its Fishers Principle, an unbalanced sex ratio gives an evolutionary advantage to animals which give birth to the less common sex, so it balances out around 50:50
To quote Evolution by Douglas Futuyma:

Quote:
The solution to the puzzle [of an even sex ratio] was provided by the great population geneticist R. A. Fisher (1930), who realized that because every individual has both a mother and a father, females and males must contribute equally to the ancestry of subsequent generations, and must therefore have the same average fitness. Therefore individuals that vary in the sex ratio of their progeny can differ in the number of their grandchildren (and later descendants), and thus differ in fitness if this is measured over two or more generations.

...

For example, suppose the population sex ratio is 0.25 (1 male to 3 females) because it consists of a genotype with this individual sex ratio. Suppose each female has 4 offspring. The average number of progeny for each female is 4, but since every offspring has a father, the average number of progeny fathered by a male is 12 (since each male mates with 3 females on average). Thus a female has 4 grandchildren through each of her daughters and 12 throgh each son, for a total of (3x4) + (1x12) = 24 grandchildren. Now suppose a rare genotype with an individual sex ratio of 0.5 (2 daughters and 2 sons) enters the population. Each such individual has 2 x 4 = 8 grandchildren through her daughters and 2 x 12 = 24 grandchildren through her sons, for a total of 32. Since this is a greater number of descendants than the mean number per individual of the prevalent female-biased genotype, any allele that causes a more male-biased progeny in this female-biased population will increase in frequency. Likewise, if the population sex ratio were male-biased, an allele for female-biased individual sex ratios would spread. By this reasoning, a genotype that produces an even sex ratio (0.5) has highest fitness and cannot be replaced by any other genotype.
ThatGuy11200 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 09:01 AM   #654
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Huh! Interesting. Thanks for the link.

It’s wild how often the answers to questions like that turn out to basically be “because math.”

I get bogged down in ‘what confers an advantage’ and forget that advantage itself ends up expressed through math.

Last edited by Lithrael; 5th February 2019 at 09:11 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 09:30 AM   #655
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,680
A simpler way to put it is that producing male offpsring is "higher risk but also higher reward". It's less likely to succeed, but if it does at all, it does so to a greater extent; the chance of getting more grandchildren from a successful son cancels out the chance of getting fewer from an unsuccessful one.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 01:56 PM   #656
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That's under the conditions of animal breeding, which is artificial selection. Natural selection is a whole different deal.
In the natural environment, people chose to eat fruit, so the typical person today clearly hungers more for apples than cookies (which are artificial).

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
A simpler way to put it is that producing male offpsring is "higher risk but also higher reward". It's less likely to succeed, but if it does at all, it does so to a greater extent; the chance of getting more grandchildren from a successful son cancels out the chance of getting fewer from an unsuccessful one.
In The Moral Animal, I think Robert Wright cites research indicating that when it comes to the wealthy vs. the poor, the former tend to prefer sons more than the latter. Females can marry up, but a son, especially if malnourished, is unlikely to secure a mate (in the ancestral environment, height depended more on nutrition/environment than genetics).
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 02:16 PM   #657
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
In The Moral Animal, I think Robert Wright cites research indicating that when it comes to the wealthy vs. the poor, the former tend to prefer sons more than the latter. Females can marry up, but a son, especially if malnourished, is unlikely to secure a mate (in the ancestral environment, height depended more on nutrition/environment than genetics).
That sort of meshes with my pet theory that humans as a species lean patriarchal by default as a result of resource scarcity in the ecological niche we evolved in, in contrast to the matriarchal, egalitarian bonobos.

http://www.bonoboconservation.com/bonobos/

Quote:
Having a diverse diet and living in a resource-rich environment are thought to have enabled bonobos to evolve a more relaxed social system relative to chimpanzees and other great apes. In contrast to other apes, female coalitions form the core of bonobo society.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 01:17 AM   #658
ThatGuy11200
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
In the natural environment, people chose to eat fruit, so the typical person today clearly hungers more for apples than cookies (which are artificial).



In The Moral Animal, I think Robert Wright cites research indicating that when it comes to the wealthy vs. the poor, the former tend to prefer sons more than the latter. Females can marry up, but a son, especially if malnourished, is unlikely to secure a mate (in the ancestral environment, height depended more on nutrition/environment than genetics).
The sweetness of modern fruits is more due to artificial selection since the advent of agriculture than to their natural state.
ThatGuy11200 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 02:24 AM   #659
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
The sweetness of modern fruits is more due to artificial selection since the advent of agriculture than to their natural state.
I weighed whether or not I should add a qualifying remark to that effect but calculated it unlikely anyone would say anything as it would require a special effort to miss the point. Fruit in a state of nature is smaller, and not as sweet or juicy -- in other words, clearly more tantalizing than cookies.

We're adapted to crave sugar (and salt and fat), but one of our modern problems is food abundance. Similarly, the "artificial" environment of large, anonymous cities/online dating can do an end-run around naturally limiting factors, allowing us to indulge our unchecked desires.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 02:40 PM   #660
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,224
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That sort of meshes with my pet theory that humans as a species lean patriarchal by default as a result of resource scarcity in the ecological niche we evolved in, in contrast to the matriarchal, egalitarian bonobos.

http://www.bonoboconservation.com/bonobos/
Are you suggesting that when we get stressed we should all start having sex together?

Another good book on this subject is Predictably Irrational. It exposes the underlying powers that cause us to make the decisions we make. They are far more powerful than most people think and they very much influence who we choose as a partner.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:19 PM   #661
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,457
When toxic femininity joins toxic masculinity:

Quote:
The organization is opposed to feminism and promotes gender stereotypes in which women are subservient to men. The organization has a female-member-only auxiliary wing named "Proud Boys' Girls" that supports the same ideology.
Proud Boys: The organization (Wikipedia)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:48 PM   #662
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,659
Originally Posted by dann View Post
When toxic femininity joins toxic masculinity:
Somewhat less controversially, this is the basic approach taken by evangelical Xn men's movements such as Promise KeepersWP.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 01:42 AM   #663
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,457
Fortunately (I was just about to write, ”Thank God”), we don’t seem to have those guys in Europe. The idea of ’muscular Christianity’ (Wikipedia) must be the reason why their proponents in this forum seem to be so fond of upper-body strength!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.