SueMermaid:
Who cares? As long as my buddy stays monogamous long enough to finish the dive - it's fine by me!
Humans not designed for monogomy
- Thread starter G.Guptal
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Who cares? As long as my buddy stays monogamous long enough to finish the dive - it's fine by me!
SueMermaid
Guest
You don't? Well, I certainly do.
SueMermaid
Guest
This, for instance.G.Guptal:
Listen, I really don't want to get into an argument with you, especially
a) over a subject so inane and puerile as this, and
b) on a scuba forum that has nothing to do with this subject.
I do not believe any of this "research", as I have stated before. It's all a buncha hooey to me.
SueMermaid
Guest
Sheesh, why do I get myself worked up over stoopid stuff like this?
H2Andy
Contributor
well, i don't know about you guys, but my life is certainly better now that
i've spent half an hour reading through this thread
i've spent half an hour reading through this thread
baltimoron
Contributor
hmmm, I think this whole ARGUEMENT is puerile and inane.
Don't like it? Then don't read it. Don't respond to it. Don't insist it be removed. Plain and simple. Have something to possible add for discussion, by all means add it. Let it die if you don't like it.
Yall remind me of my mother, god bless her soul, picking a fight with me just so we can have an arguement.
Don't like it? Then don't read it. Don't respond to it. Don't insist it be removed. Plain and simple. Have something to possible add for discussion, by all means add it. Let it die if you don't like it.
Yall remind me of my mother, god bless her soul, picking a fight with me just so we can have an arguement.
No one has to believe the results of the research Gupta posted links to, but this is "standard fare" type stuff for the field. A lot of these folks are psychologists, and interpretations tend to be more subjective. It has to be, being behavioral-linked. For scientists not accustomed to "soft science" like this, it is commonly viewed as quackery or pseudo-science. But once one looks into the measurement constraints these folks operate with, that view tends to disappear.
Both sociobiology and its more specifc sub-discipline, reproductive socio-biology, have a quite undisputed tally showing monogamy in nature to be in a very distinct minority. For the few that do seem to display it (mostly restricted to certain birds and mammals), more careful species-specific studies have in fact discerned many previously believed monogamous fauna to er, not be. Butterflyfishes are a good example that pops into immediate mind.
Regarding humans, that's a far more contentious topic, as everyone suddenly feels they're an expert, and arguments get heated. Generally those of us that operate on the fringes of sociobiology (i.e. me) leave this stuff to the psychologists and primate specialists. In fact that's why I'm late posting to this thread... outside the classroom these discussions tend to get squirrely.
As an interesting aside, scientific poll results often show a distinct difference of opinion between the sexes when asked about human monogamy. Females typically support the monogamy theory significantly more than males. There's entire lines of research trying to rationalize just that. Makes up whole chapters in some texts. Lord knows I had to read enough of it in college.
This particular forum (non-diving related stuff) is in place specifically for non-scuba postings such as these. As long as the topic isn't offensive to the TOS, it's fine to post. Ideally it should go in a biological discussion forum, but we don't have any that "fit".
Both sociobiology and its more specifc sub-discipline, reproductive socio-biology, have a quite undisputed tally showing monogamy in nature to be in a very distinct minority. For the few that do seem to display it (mostly restricted to certain birds and mammals), more careful species-specific studies have in fact discerned many previously believed monogamous fauna to er, not be. Butterflyfishes are a good example that pops into immediate mind.
Regarding humans, that's a far more contentious topic, as everyone suddenly feels they're an expert, and arguments get heated. Generally those of us that operate on the fringes of sociobiology (i.e. me) leave this stuff to the psychologists and primate specialists. In fact that's why I'm late posting to this thread... outside the classroom these discussions tend to get squirrely.
As an interesting aside, scientific poll results often show a distinct difference of opinion between the sexes when asked about human monogamy. Females typically support the monogamy theory significantly more than males. There's entire lines of research trying to rationalize just that. Makes up whole chapters in some texts. Lord knows I had to read enough of it in college.
This particular forum (non-diving related stuff) is in place specifically for non-scuba postings such as these. As long as the topic isn't offensive to the TOS, it's fine to post. Ideally it should go in a biological discussion forum, but we don't have any that "fit".
All I know is my own inclinations. As a scientist, I'm quite aware that I could easily be polygamous or at best a serial monogamist. As a human being with certain values that overcome my instincts (most of the time), I know that if I commit myself to a relationship, it will be monogamous for its duration.
Dr. Bill
Dr. Bill
Similar threads
