This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not to put words in OP's mouth, but: no, I think he means gays, and if he didn't, then I will certainly bite that bullet.
The logic goes as previously stated:
I.e. it's (relatively) easy to accrue the handful of somatic mutations that flips you from enjoying the taste of the opposite sex's genitals to enjoying the taste of your own sex's gentials, but it would take a complete rewriting of a vast number of the genes for the brain's deep structures, all the way down to the monkey kernel, to make you not yearn in yer bones to be a pater familias reigning over the little kingdom of your own household and offspring.
TL;DR: Hard gays as you describe them - totally homosexual and totally contented at every level, sex + romance + the little nagging voice in their DNA that says breed breed breed breed - do not exist; cannot exist. They are biologically impossible, and any that report to be totally contented on all levels... well, I believe in the logic of evolutionary psychology more than I believe self-reported contentment questionnaires.
As I said to the author of the parent comment, this doesn't really amount to much more than a Just So story. Maybe there are millions of gay people the world over lying about their real preferences, but I am much more inclined to belief in revealed preferences than blind speculation about how I or you reckon people have evolved. 'I believe in evolutionary psychology' unfortunately appears to amount to little more than 'my assertions are unfalsifiable'.
Also, I'm not gay but I've got to say I don't really 'yearn in [my] bones to be a pater familias reigning over the little kingdom of [my] own household and offspring'. So am I just lying, or I don't actually know what my real desires are? In which case, in what way could it reasonably be called a 'yearning' do something if one is not conscious of the yearning themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
Then you believe in something very shaky.
A lot of people find puppies cuter than babies. Hell, on a deeper level, people aren't physically repulsed by condoms. Evolution just isn't capable of psychological engineering that precise: you're not a deeply robustly programmed creature of family, you're a hacked-together mess of impulses and inclinations and psychological systems that boot from the limited information of the genome to a giant mess of crappy wetware compute.
More options
Context Copy link
I think there would be no reason to expect in advance that it would only take a few flips to be sexually attracted to your own gender. Ignoring the evidence, evolutionarily due to sexual selection you would expect that to be exceedingly unlikely. The only reason I think you say "yes of course it's only a few mutations" is because of plentiful contradicting evidence. So why do you accept that in the case of gayness, but not in the other cases? Given the evopsych model has already failed once on the topic, I wouldn't put all that much stock in it anymore.
As far as I can tell, you are arguing here that it should be no more improbable to nullify/flip three heteronormative desires (sex fetishes and romantic notions and DNA breed imperative) than it would be to flip/nullify one heteronormative desire (sex fetish). To which my response is simply: that's not how probability works. Rolling three sixes in a row is less likely than rolling one six.
I'm saying that under an evpsych model not preadjusted for the prevalence of exclusive same-sex attraction in reality, flipping one heteronormative desire is already so implausible that it calls the entire approach into question. Clearly, gay people indicate to me, there's something weird going on with homo/hetero; so maybe if we had a model for that that actually gave ten percent homosexuality high likelihood from the start, it would not treat these three desires as independent. (Or maybe it would! The point is a simple independent model is already insufficient to explain gays at all.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a 'couple genes off' but the pair bonding mechanism isn't on the Y chromosome (iirc almost nothing is, it's very small information wise) and it develops during pregnancy under influence of cross sex hormones.
Best present day theory about gayness is that it happens by improper protection of the brain from cross sex hormones during development due to a failure of an epigenetic mechanism.
Seeing as they often have interests and attitudes and personality traits of the other sex (eg. catty), maybe they want to get pregnant ? I'm just spitballing, I mostly ignore them so I have never inquired about whether they yearn for children.
More options
Context Copy link
People (gay, straight, bi, whatever) who don't want children aren't that rare. Nor are older people who say they would have chosen to not have children if they had ever considered that as a choice. I'd expect wanting children to be a majority view for the obvious evolutionary physiology reasons, but it hardly seems like a universal one. Are you saying all of those people are lying to themselves?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link