anarchonomicon.com
10,000 word long-take I wrote on the history of female warriors, North European human Sacrifice rituals, Girardian mimetic selection, and the incompatibility of the west's current conceptions of Freedom and women's liberation.
What occured in the forests of Germany and on the Eurasian steppe for 1000s of years was one of the most extreme experiments in selective breeding and selective killing practised anywhere on earth. The Aztec and Maya were the only ones with a ritual breeding/killing program so extreme
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it doesn't. Most of the genes that are activated only in men (e.g. the ones to build testes, or to synthesise dihydrotestosterone) aren't on the Y chromosome. They're switched on either directly by testis-determining factor (the product of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome) or indirectly by various other things downstream of it (e.g. testosterone levels).
Genes for the brain having different activation based on testosterone levels in gestation would be the obvious mechanism.
Ok you've added another mechanism, hypothetically, by which it could happen. That does not mean at all that it does. Many genetically determined values that are more advantageous in men or women are nonetheless determined by the genetics of both parents.
I mean, men are more aggressive and independently courageous than women, generally, and I'm pretty sure that's genetic, although I don't think I've ever seen a good study on that. Not that that's connected to the above argument, which is kinda weird.
More options
Context Copy link
I... think you might be misunderstanding me?
I'm agreeing that such genes would be passed down from both parents. Genes for how to build a penis are present in women, and can be passed down from grandfather through mother to son (or great-grandfather through grandmother and mother to son). It's just that in the mother, those genes aren't active. (There are a few genes relating to spermatogenesis that are directly on the Y chromosome and cannot be inherited through women, but not that many - and obviously, every gene that only affects women is also present in men.)
There are quite a lot of genes that are turned on and off by the sex of the individual they reside in.
(Oh, forgot another plausible means; same structure built, but activated more in men by hormone levels "at runtime".)
And, well, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but "men take more physical risks" is not exactly controversial; there's a reason we're the vast majority of blue-collar criminals.
You hypothesize without proof.
Equally likely is that sex and hormones accentuate a trait in one sex.
Height works this way. A tall mother with both sons and daughters will, cetetis paribus, have sons taller than her daughters. But the sons and daughters of a tall mother will be taller than the sons and daughters of a short mother respectively (ceteris paribus).
Similarly, courage may be more present in the male than in the female offspring of a brave mother, but present in both in greater measure than in the offspring of a cowardly mother.
This would more match the folk wisdom of a Herodotus or a Tacitus, and most folk-genetics as they existed up to modernity.
You're demanding I prove someone else's claim? No, I won't. There is a reason I haven't made positive claims about the central point here, and that's that HBD is not my area of expertise. You said something specific which didn't understand biology well on a level even I could spot, and I pointed that out. I have no obligation to defend others' points about which I'm agnostic myself; go demand proof from them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link