The origins and rationality of chastity

[Bronzeage]

Didn't Cain kill Abel because the latter butt fu*ked the former.

What Sunday school did you attend? Genesis doesn't make the motive entirely clear, but it seems Cain was jealous of his brother Abel, because Abel's sacrifice to the Lord was better received.

 

[fromderinside]

If you have a brother near your age when you were a preteen you'll understand the impetus of my comment.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There doesn't seem anything much in nature to compel the fathers to take care of their offspring. Think of rape here if you don't believe me.

Why should anyone "believe you" when you speak of anthropology? What are your credentials for forming your own, personal explanations, based on your own personal observations?

What experts in the field that know what they are talking about because they have professionally studied the science are saying is that there are several mechanisms to help ensure the father takes responsibility for the child.

1) pheromones are produced by both mother and child that 'attract' the genetically similar male to be protective.
2) the vast majority of babies, when they are born, greatly resemble the father, and less so the mother... this changes as the baby develops, but the evolutionary advantage to that is that, while the mother can be pretty damn sure that she is the mother (lol), the appearance of the child is all the father has to go on in measuring their accountability.

I'm not telling you what you should do, but if I have a thought that starts, "maybe its that...", then I retain the fact that I am just making it up and guessing.

Think of rape here if you don't believe me.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Think Kin selection if you believe males don't tend to protect mates and children.
FDI

 

[Speakpigeon]

Think Kin selection if you believe males don't tend to protect mates and children.

Thank you, Dear, I think I understand this belaboured point reasonably well.

I don't think anyone could prove that kin is not a cultural innovation.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Kin selection can be differentiated from group selection which is a cultural model.

For your consideration. Natural selection. VII. History and interpretation of kin selection theory: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.12131/full

Synergism between abstraction and application

Abstraction arises by recognizing the common processes that recur in different cases. Application demands analysis of particular phenotypes under particular circumstances. Kin selection theory grew naturally by the synergism between abstraction and application. Hamilton pulled out the first clear abstraction that united various simple applications. Yet, he could not use his abstract theory to move on to new applications. In particular, he could not solve the problems of dispersal and sex ratios that arose from kin interactions.
As the applied theory eventually developed for dispersal, sex ratios and more complex social phenotypes, deeper abstract principles emerged. For example, the distinction between selection and transmission became clear, and relatedness coefficients became a part of translating causal components into common units. The improvements in abstract theory enhanced the scope of application to complex social phenotypes.
The necessary synergism between abstraction and application showed the ultimate failure of group selection. In particular, group selection is a useful abstraction for a limited set of applications. When faced with a variety of applications, such as sex ratio evolution with multiple male and female interactions, group selection fails. Instead of the limited perspective of group selection, the deeper abstract principles dominate. Those principles include a clear causal analysis of distinct fitness components, separation of selection and transmission, and the proper weighting of the distinct causal components to attain an overall analysis of total change.
When different people focus exclusively on either abstraction or application, deep tension and fruitless debate arise. When the two modes come together, great progress follows.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Kin selection can be differentiated from group selection which is a cultural model.

For your consideration. Natural selection. VII. History and interpretation of kin selection theory: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.12131/full

Synergism between abstraction and application

[FONT=&]Abstraction arises by recognizing the common processes that recur in different cases. Application demands analysis of particular phenotypes under particular circumstances. Kin selection theory grew naturally by the synergism between abstraction and application. Hamilton pulled out the first clear abstraction that united various simple applications. Yet, he could not use his abstract theory to move on to new applications. In particular, he could not solve the problems of dispersal and sex ratios that arose from kin interactions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]As the applied theory eventually developed for dispersal, sex ratios and more complex social phenotypes, deeper abstract principles emerged. For example, the distinction between selection and transmission became clear, and relatedness coefficients became a part of translating causal components into common units. The improvements in abstract theory enhanced the scope of application to complex social phenotypes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The necessary synergism between abstraction and application showed the ultimate failure of group selection. In particular, group selection is a useful abstraction for a limited set of applications. When faced with a variety of applications, such as sex ratio evolution with multiple male and female interactions, group selection fails. Instead of the limited perspective of group selection, the deeper abstract principles dominate. Those principles include a clear causal analysis of distinct fitness components, separation of selection and transmission, and the proper weighting of the distinct causal components to attain an overall analysis of total change.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When different people focus exclusively on either abstraction or application, deep tension and fruitless debate arise. When the two modes come together, great progress follows.[/FONT]

I don't think anyone could prove that kin is not a cultural innovation in humans.

Still, I will grant you that it's not what most scientists themselves seem to believe on the basis of your link, though.

Now, I can't possibly check this paper so thoroughly that I could give a lecture on the subject. So, maybe you're right but according to what it says it still is in discussion and somewhat theoretical, and perhaps inevitably so.

And, at best, the kin factor would be one among other factors, only effective on average over large groups. Maybe some groups go without it. You know, genetic variability.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I believe the point of the article is that when confronted with two hypotheses one cultural and the other strictly genetic the cultural hypothesis is falsified whereas the gene variation among kin holds and leads to more findings.

Population noise can be accounted leaving nearly clean kin sequencing to results negating any problem with that form of variability. The issue becomes one of finding sequences of linked generations associated with kin. Once done all one need do is isolate the actual behavior which might be something other than what was first thought. IOW its not about population variability it's about behavioral variability as seen through the filter of kin genetics.

...and no, there is no relation to this methodology and the deep state speculations.

 

[rousseau]

A thought.

The key thing to social behavior is that pro-creation keeps happening. So agriculture leads to a new dynamic, requiring new sets of behavior, and those who are best adapted to new set of required behavior pro-create, creating new behavioral norms which spring from genetics.

So the agricultural revolution would have been an evolutionary pressure that created a new equilibrium and behavioral mode for people, however subtle or not subtle.

Or in layman's terms, the wedding industry is a result of the agricultural revolution.

 

[bilby]

A thought.

The key thing to social behavior is that pro-creation keeps happening. So agriculture leads to a new dynamic, requiring new sets of behavior, and those who are best adapted to new set of required behavior pro-create, creating new behavioral norms which spring from genetics.

So the agricultural revolution would have been an evolutionary pressure that created a new equilibrium and behavioral mode for people, however subtle or not subtle.

Or in layman's terms, the wedding industry is a result of the agricultural revolution.

I have never seen the word 'procreation' hyphenated before.

I am rather amused by the implication that all other forms of creation are strictly amateur.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There doesn't seem anything much in nature to compel the fathers to take care of their offspring. Think of rape here if you don't believe me.

Why should anyone "believe you" when you speak of anthropology? What are your credentials for forming your own, personal explanations, based on your own personal observations?

Oh dear, here we go again. What's it called? Forum rage? Poster rage? Internet rage?

Road rage
Road rage is aggressive or angry behavior exhibited by a driver of a road vehicle, which includes rude gestures, verbal insults, physical threats or dangerous driving methods targeted toward another driver in an effort to intimidate or release frustration.

I would suggest you attend an anger management class. It's definitely clouding some of your judgement.

And of course, no one needs any credential whatsoever for "forming your own, personal explanations, based on your own personal observations". Like it or not, it's just a fact of life that it's what people do.

What experts in the field that know what they are talking about because they have professionally studied the science are saying is that there are several mechanisms to help ensure the father takes responsibility for the child.

Oh good. I suspected as much. What a relief.

Still, I definitely wanted to express my own, personal explanations, based on my own personal observations.

See, it worked.

1) pheromones are produced by both mother and child that 'attract' the genetically similar male to be protective.

I would have thought of that one. Thank you for confirming my nagging suspicions.

2) the vast majority of babies, when they are born, greatly resemble the father, and less so the mother... this changes as the baby develops, but the evolutionary advantage to that is that, while the mother can be pretty damn sure that she is the mother (lol), the appearance of the child is all the father has to go on in measuring their accountability.

That one is more interesting. Can you explain how caveman Smith 200,000 years ago could have worked out, without being able to look himself in the mirror or a photography of himself, that the baby really looked like him, as opposed to just the mother, or other just as unreliable members of the tribe for that matter, merely claiming so. I'm sure it could work, but it would need a complex set of genes to compel the behaviour of all those that have to be involved for it to work.

I'm not telling you what you should do, but if I have a thought that starts, "maybe its that...", then I retain the fact that I am just making it up and guessing.

Sure. You should do it sometimes.

You think scientists and other knowledgeable people studiously restrain themselves to expressing their views only within the scope of their technical expertise?

I have to laugh.

Just take a breath and cool down.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I believe the point of the article is that when confronted with two hypotheses one cultural and the other strictly genetic the cultural hypothesis is falsified whereas the gene variation among kin holds and leads to more findings.

Population noise can be accounted leaving nearly clean kin sequencing to results negating any problem with that form of variability. The issue becomes one of finding sequences of linked generations associated with kin. Once done all one need do is isolate the actual behavior which might be something other than what was first thought. IOW its not about population variability it's about behavioral variability as seen through the filter of kin genetics.

I'll trust you on that one.
EB

 

[iolo]

The argument for chastity is simple: it is difficulty to find a partner you love and respect, and sex with most of the nasties on offer is repugnant, a bad substitute for wanking at best (and there are arguments about that habit). A matter of self-respect in both cases, even in the earliest days, I'd guess.

 

[rousseau]

The argument for chastity is simple: it is difficulty to find a partner you love and respect, and sex with most of the nasties on offer is repugnant, a bad substitute for wanking at best (and there are arguments about that habit). A matter of self-respect in both cases, even in the earliest days, I'd guess.

The evolutionary argument is actually more about finding a committed partner than finding someone you respect.

For the child-bearer (women), having a child is a big evolutionary cost and commitment, and so they would want someone who genuinely loves and commits to them, rather than impregnating them and running. And so waiting until marriage forces the man to commit before impregnating her. Any many who is unwilling to do this, does not pass on his genes.

From the man's point of view, usually he wants to raise his own children, and so raising a child that isn't his is a big, unnecessary cost. For this reason it's in his interest that women are virgins until he is married to them.

 

[iolo]

The argument for chastity is simple: it is difficulty to find a partner you love and respect, and sex with most of the nasties on offer is repugnant, a bad substitute for wanking at best (and there are arguments about that habit). A matter of self-respect in both cases, even in the earliest days, I'd guess.

The evolutionary argument is actually more about finding a committed partner than finding someone you respect.

For the child-bearer (women), having a child is a big evolutionary cost and commitment, and so they would want someone who genuinely loves and commits to them, rather than impregnating them and running. And so waiting until marriage forces the man to commit before impregnating her. Any many who is unwilling to do this, does not pass on his genes.

From the man's point of view, usually he wants to raise his own children, and so raising a child that isn't his is a big, unnecessary cost. For this reason it's in his interest that women are virgins until he is married to them.

I think we've gone well beyond evolution, so I can't comment. It is becoming an excuse for subhuman behaviour I think.

 

[fromderinside]

Since most mobile life is subhuman it's pretty important.

 

[humbleman]

The argument for chastity is simple: it is difficulty to find a partner you love and respect, and sex with most of the nasties on offer is repugnant, a bad substitute for wanking at best (and there are arguments about that habit). A matter of self-respect in both cases, even in the earliest days, I'd guess.

Self respect is a good explanation. I must agree with that.

People who can't understand it I must refer a true story.

<<<In a beach (60s) women used to change behind rocks located very close to the shore. There were people traveling in cars and walking over the dry sand close to the route.

By chance a strong wind caused the shirt of one of the women to fly away and she running covering with her hand her boobs trying to catch the lose shirt.

Men, who were walking and others traveling in a car turned their faces away in signal of respect. >>>

Today, it is totally the contrary. If a similar situation happens, lots of people -men and women- will use their cell phones to make an improvised video and publish it online.

In the past, there was respect.

Forget about fallacies like "evolution" and similar, because if there is a change between those former years and today, then the mind of people in this aspect has degenerated rather than evolved.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

With a more rigorous understanding of early religious thought most people realize that a lot of the rules had real biological value, even if they were shrouded in theology. For instance, calling homosexuality abnormal was probably done to promote reproduction. Disavowing adultery was meant to increase the integrity of the nuclear family.

But chastity was one that never really made sense to me (although I never thought about it much), until recently I had a 'duh' moment and realized that for the entirety of history birth control didn't exist, and sex often meant you had a baby. The extension of that is that pre-marital sex could, and often did lead to bad situations for people, which would be why chastity was such a prominent concept throughout history.

So a few questions:

1) Does my explanation for this phenomenon seem about right?
2) Was chastity, historically, common throughout most cultures of the world?
3) What elements are similar among unchaste social groups?
4) What elements are similar among chaste social group?

I will mention stds as i did in the other thread. Perhaps some religions interpreted stds as curses from the gods. The whole of society may benefit somewhat by having limited promiscuity, including the ancient rituals of checking virginity of the woman, marrying virgins together, followed by moving on to another chaste person after a divorce. I do not advocate for religions but i think there could be some explanatory power of stds just like say trichonosis might explain ancient laws on eating pork.