Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
74 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,078 Year: 2,724/14,102 Month: 389/703 Week: 42/168 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological instinct in female to seek out a mate outside of the group.
Taz
Member (Idle past 2155 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 61 (635927)
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


So, a few weeks ago, my wife and I visited her parents. When we arrived, a very handsome man walked by with his dog. My wife started talking with him as if they had known each other all their lives. Well, when I was finally properly introduced, it turned out that they really did know each other almost all their lives. The man, as it turned out, grew up with my wife and they used to play together as kids around the neighborhood.

For some reason, his name escapes me at this moment. What I do know is he is a graduate of an ivy league school. Smart, physically fit, handsome, friendly to animals, very liberal views, etc., basically every woman's dream man.

After the guy went on to continue walking his dog, I jokingly asked my wife why she didn't marry him, and her answer was "ewww, it's like marrying my brother". Later that day, I asked the in-law and her answer was basically the same.

Intrigued by both of their answers, I'd since asked a dozen other females and they all gave the same answer. I asked them if they'd date and marry a man who they grew up with in the neighborhood if he was the perfect man of their dream, and they all gave me the same "ewww, that's nasty" answer.

Have I stumbled upon an biological instinct in females to diversify the gene pool by having an instinctual negative reaction to mating a male that's near by? After all, inbreeding, even beyond the family but within a group or clan, would inevitably result in a not-so diversified gene pool.

Thoughts, biologists?

Creationist views are also welcomed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by caffeine, posted 10-03-2011 5:31 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 10-03-2011 7:26 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 9:00 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 10-07-2011 1:03 AM Taz has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3933
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 61 (635929)
10-03-2011 2:44 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 10-03-2011 3:52 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 61 (635930)
10-03-2011 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
10-03-2011 2:44 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Does your anecdote not conflict with my friend marrying her childhood sweet heart, or my buddy marrying the literal girl next door?

Abe: talking to my wife, she seems to that that the number of possible mates is far greater 'out of group' than 'in group' so the likelyhood of pairing up with someone 'in group' is tiny compared with the 'out group', so there dies not need to be an instinct for it as it is a statistical inevitability.

Which seems reasonable, to me.

Edited by Larni, : Talking to my wife.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-03-2011 2:44 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 4 of 61 (635932)
10-03-2011 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


The Westermarck Effect
I've heard of this idea before, but it's supposed to be males, as well as females. A quik check on wikipedia reveals that it's known as the Westermarck Effect, after anthropologist Edvard Westermarck.

The brief wiki article offers only one piece of evidence in support of the idea, and that's a study done with people raised on Israeli kibbutzim. The children there would have been raised collectively by age group, so they had a big pool of people to look at who were brought up in close proximity.

Out of almost 3,000 marriages between people in the kibbutz, only 14 were between two chldren raised together, and none between children raised together before the age of six.

I don't know how well supported the idea is in general, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 61 (635941)
10-03-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


Foolishly I replied to Adminmoose's promotion post.

Just letting you know I replied to your post.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 6 of 61 (635950)
10-03-2011 8:32 AM


Incest may be a factor here. This trait may be hidden, as it impacts reproduction growth and can be metabolized in the female. The thread of incest spreads more than immediate family and is quite complicated. E.g. a man can marry his neice but a woman cannot marry her nephew. Its like the woman knows by instinct what is best in this regard.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 12:42 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 61 (635954)
10-03-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


This isn't confined to humans. Mammals, at least, all (AFAIK) have mechanisms to prevent/discourage littermates/close relatives from breeding. I seem to remember it having a lot to do with smell: a full brother should smell sort of similar, and sister won't put up with hanky-panky from someone like that. Whether this can be extended to smells that you were exposed to as a young child - like an adopted littermate or the toddler next door - I don't know. But it sounds sort of plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 10-03-2011 10:14 AM Coragyps has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 61 (635956)
10-03-2011 9:22 AM


I thought we were talking about proximity and exposure at a young age to incest?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2958 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 61 (635960)
10-03-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
10-03-2011 9:00 AM


Generally the theory that sexual aversion is due to shared upbringing in early childhood (the Westermarck effect) is seen as competing with the theory that such aversions have an innate genetic basis.

In other vertebrates there is some evidence that olfactory cues alone can act as a signal of relatedness, even for a sibling which has not been raised with the test subject (Mehlis et al., 2008; Boulet et al., 2009).

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 9:00 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 12:39 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 61 (635970)
10-03-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
10-03-2011 10:14 AM


Thanks, WK! Your second link leads to a free(!!!!!!) copy of the paper - and it is on a primate that possibly uses odor to 1) prevent incest and 2) promote nepotism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799416/?tool...

Whatever it was that I read about this "odor of close kin" issue wasn't about lemurs - but I have no clue as to where I read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 10-03-2011 10:14 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 61 (635971)
10-03-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 8:32 AM


E.g. a man can marry his neice but a woman cannot marry her nephew.

Clarify that for me just a smidgen, IaJ. Like a tiny bit of context: in Hebrew culture or in Hawaiian?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 7:26 PM Coragyps has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 12 of 61 (636039)
10-03-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
10-03-2011 12:42 PM


Its to do with blood lines - several pages are devoted to what constitutes incest in the Hebrew bible - it is surprising and complicated. Thereafter, it enters the science/medicine/biology faculty - if an action is damaging to reproduction, there is an instinctual trait not to like it. Marrying kin can be both normal or not normal in small restrictive margins, some being damaging to healthy growth, and anything which is close to the damaging point is involintarilly rejected; this can impact on a close relationship from childhood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 12:42 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 7:54 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 61 (636051)
10-03-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 7:26 PM


No, clarify. Not obfuscate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 7:26 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:03 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 14 of 61 (636055)
10-03-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coragyps
10-03-2011 7:54 PM


quote:
No, clarify. Not obfuscate.

It aligns with an involuntary rejection/aversion of what is damaging to reproduction; marrying kin has benefecial factors like keeping the wealth in tact, etc - but it also has precarious impacts when there is a blood line connection, such as deformities in the offspring. The latter causes a warning sign and rejection syndrome. ToE calls it survival of the fittest and natural selection. This same syndrome is also seen with gay - it is not a moral/ethical premise as imagined by society but an existential one, the reason it is rejected by the majority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2011 7:54 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 10-04-2011 9:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2155 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 61 (636135)
10-04-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 8:03 PM


Edited... I get it now.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:03 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:58 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021