Ordinarily, I would contest this, pointing out the much stronger relationship of IQ to class than genetics.
However, in this unique case, I must wholeheartedly agree.
So that means if I have no kids, and you have at least two kids…hold on, carry the two…:eek:
Because you claimed that modern human societies having a balanced ration proved that harem style societies would result in men without mates.
But I have already addressed the fact that I am aware that the evidence points towards mild promiscuity so this isn’t what is under discussion at all. This point has already been settled.
Cite!
I can only assume you are using monogamy here in the same sense that I have been: that it means promiscuity.
Can you name one case of cultural promiscuity in a primitive society (and I will not accept Mead for obvious reasons).
I did actually read your post and I did see that. That is why I presented the evidence I saw against it and asked why you believed as you did. I also asked if you could give any specific examples, since all the examples I can think of run contrary to this possibility.
That’s good and all, but defending a position with what appear to me to be unsupportable speculation doesn’t achieve much IMO.
Why would do that? I was asking what led you to believe it was possible that modern industrial warfare tends to kill those people who belong to cultures that value scientific technological development. I can’t see how you came to this conclusion, and wanted to know more.
“I can only assume you are using monogamy here in the same sense that I have been: that it means promiscuity.”
I think you are the only person in the world who uses monogamy as a synomym for promiscuity. I think we have different defintions maiking further debate useless.
Besides, I should be out drinking beer on a Friday night, anyway!
I already covered this. It was an error. I have said so twice. I have asked you to replace polygamy with promiscuity if you wish. By refusing to do so you are perpetrating a strawman.
But you’re right about getting Schindler’s.
Not exactly the fast train to scientific progress, is it?
Tell me, what do you replace the prediction part of the scientific method with?
Tell me why do you assume that anyone is speaking about science?
Oh, right. Genetics, evolution, anthropology, ecology…all completely non-scientific subjects.
It is very easy to argue the antithesis ad-infinitum, using semantic dissection and redefining words at will. However, I for one would like to see you step up, state an actual hypothesis or prediction, and back it up with a well rounded combination of cites and logic.
C’mon. You can do it. 
Premise A, Premise B, Conclusion…or…Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction (no test for this debate)
You have proved that you have knowledge in the topics you participate in. What does that knowledge lead to? What is the logical conclusion of the premises floating around in your brain?
So since you think this is scientific, perhaps you can tell me in what way such a prediction could be falsified. Rememeber simply waiting around doesn’t count.
If it can’t be falsified it isn’t science. It’s just specualtion.
The logical conclusion of my knowledge on this topic is that human evolution contunues apace. That’s the only possible conclusion. Beyond that all is speculation.
As for my arguing antithesis and not making a prediction, I believe this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance not making wild assed guesses. I will make an attempt to argue against what I see as ignorant positions. To my way of thinking that is enough to justify my position within this community. Anything else is cream.
Blake thanks for the info. I’m always willing to learn something new.
If I may plumb your depths further it seems that in some sense we are in agreement. You speculate that evolution in the western world is now primarily memetic in nature, meaning socio-cultural evolution. Correct me if I’m wrong. Placing less importance on genes and biological selection by mortality but more importance on memes, fecundity, and sexual selection. From a site that I just found:
I could be wrong but it seems that you are also arguing against primarily biologic evolution in the western world. Is this correct?
Not exclusively. Memetic evolution and genetic evolution are not mutually exclusive. In fact they reinforce one another.
For example being an orthodox Catholic and not using contraception is memetic. It also has an evolutionary advantage at the moment. It also traditonally tends to run in families as strongly as any genetic trait. Genes can become linked to memes and so have there chances improved. Similarly memes can become linked to genes, and to survive. This synergism of memes and genes can occur even on the national and international level. Tay Sachs is one obvious example.
So, Big Bang, can’t prove it one way or another, so no use talking about it. Anything with a really long timeline, not science. How long will the sun continue to shine? Don’t know, too far in the future. Can’t be falsified, so don’t want to think about it. End of the universe? Oh hell no. Not even close to science.
So, what is the exact cutoff time where science becomes speculation? If I discover a comet, observe its movements, and predict it will pass by the earth 1000 years in the future, is that science? 100 years? 10 years? Can I predict it will pass by in two hours, but until the instant it does, it isn’t science?
Yes, but a debate, which is what you are participating in, is always much more interesting when there are two competing theories vying for logical king instead of one theory being fed to the dogs.
Tyler, where is this site?
Anyway, just to give you all proper terminology:
polygamy: having more than one partner
polyandry: a woman having more than one male partner
polygyny: a man having more than one female partner
There, now you can argue the point to your heart’s content, but this time with exactitude.
By the way, John Mace, monogamy isn’t just a western ideal. Even in cultures that practice polygyny, the majority of men don’t have more than one wife. The ones that do are the more important and wealthier sort: chiefs, sultans, whatnot. However, if you mean that monogamy isn’t necessarily the right and proper way of things, then yes, I agree with you.
Blake, there are plenty of examples of sexually relaxed “primitive” cultures. Off the top of my head, there are the !Kung San, a.k.a. the Dobe Ju’hoansi, where the children often took part in sexplay (i.e. little boys inserting their penises into little girls). This continued on into adolescence.
There are the Trobriand Islanders, where children play similar erotic games. They begin at seven or eight and begin seeking sex partners at 11 or 13 years old. Sexual activity before marriage is common and expected among Trobrianders.
There are also the Sambia of New Guinea, where younger boys fellate older boys, and eventually get fellated themselves. Hey, no one specified heterosexual sex.
However, I doubt these societies are still like this today. The only pristine group of hunter-gatherers are probably the ones in the Amazon, though I don’t think things are going to stay that way.
Maybe you can tell us why you believe that predictions made using the big bang theory can’t be falsified.
When it can’t be falsified in any way except sitting and waiting. Any predictions you make about the trajectory of a comet are not scientific predictions unless there is room in there to falsify them by means other than siting and waiting. If the only way you can test whether a comet will hit the Earth is to let it hit or otherwise, then no, that’s not science. It actually has no predictive value at all.
Simply making a prediction that will must day be proved true or false doesn’t make the prediction scientific. If this were the case then every newspaper astrologer would be a scientist, albeit one with a poor strike rate.
Science involves making predictions and then falsifying those predictions. If you aren’t attempting to falsify them then what you are doing isn’t science, it’s speculation. If there is no way to falsify your prediction then you clearly can’t be attempting to falsify it, and as such the prediction is simply speculation.
[/quote]
…debate, which is what you are participating in, is always much more interesting when there are two competing theories vying for logical king instead of one theory being fed to the dogs.
[/quote]
I’m not all that interested in what you find interesting. I am interested in fighting ignorance in theories.
** Sinungaling** can we have references for these promiscuous societies?
I assume that you are not going to quote Malinowski WRT the Trobrianders, since he himself quite clearly stated that they should not be viewed as promiscuous but rather as a society with extremely stable marriages. Yes there were sexual rituals in preparation for marriage which was the same in almost all cultures. Yes there was ex play amongst children, as is the case in all societies. But promiscuous they were not. Malinowski was in fact one of the first authors to denounce the then common idea of a ‘primitive’ human state in which promiscuity was the norm.
Blake: Please define falsified prediction in the context of unobservable events.
Tastycorn I’m not going to help you hijack this thread. If you want an explanationof the scientific method then ask in GQ.
Blake, I said sexually relaxed, not promiscuous. How do you define that, anyway? I can’t proceed any further until you clarify.
Anyway, my information for the !Kung come from The Dobe Ju/'hoansi (1993) by Richard B. Lee, which is a standard ethnographic reading in anthropology classes. There’s also A !Kung Woman’s Memories of Childhood by Marjorie Shostak in “Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the Kung San and their Neighbours” (1976) pp. 264-277.
The info for the Trobriand Islanders comes from Cultural Anthropology: A Problem-Based Approach (2001) pp.159-160, by Richard H. Robbins. One of his (many) references is Malinowski’s work, The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia (1929). What do you have against Malinowski? He did originate participant observation, after all.
Finally, the information for the Sambia come from Gilbert Herdt’s ethnography, The Sambia: Ritual and Gender in New Guinea (1987).
Like I asked before, how are you defining “promiscuous”? Everyone seems to be working from a dichotomy of sexuality between uptight monogamists and free-loving swingers.
What about your reasons for discarding Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa? I take it you’re taking your cue from Derek Freeman’s attack on her work? Freeman’s name is a bit maligned among anthropologists today. His criticism of Mead’s methodology has caused his critics to point out flaws in his own methodology. For example, he conducted his work 50 years after Mead did, and on another island besides.
Freeman also set out on his research to explicitly discredit Mead. He did this partly by citing Lowell Holmes’ followup to Mead’s research, Quest for the Real Samoa, ignoring the fact that Holmes concluded that Mead’s data was essentially correct. Holmes, unlike Freeman, set out without any preconceived notions of the correctness of Mead’s work.
You’ll note that I did further clarify this. Since the sex ratio is pretty close to 50/50, it would be an odd scenario indeed if most men had more than one “wife”. Just as in the animal world, the successful males are the one that get multiple partners. And this defines the species, since the successful males are the ones that get to pass on their genes disproportionally.
You did? Sorry, a lot of the discussion degenerated into arguments over the word “promiscuity,” so I just scanned through them.
My mistake. I assumed you were addressing the promiscuous/ non promiscuous situation. I that’s not the case then it really doesn’t matter.
What gives you the impression I have anything against him? I simply pointed out that he was quite emphatic that the Trobrianders were not promiscuous.
However you wish to.
My criticisms of Mead come partially from Freeman, partially from a number of other Anthropologists and partially form seeing a TV interview with the girl’s Mead quoted, saying that they lied to Mead repeatedly, and that these lies are what was published.
**John Mace **
I thought we had settled this. At least I provided a heap of evidence showing the flaws in it, and you acknowledged same and indicated you didn’t wish to take it further. You can’t very well bring it up again as though it had some validity.