What's wrong with women's taste in men? (Darwinian Edition)

[Mijin]

@brazil84

Let me ask you this: Suppose somebody asked “What’s the purpose of adrenalin?” Which is a better answer: (a) To give you an extra boost in physical performance when you are in an emergency situation; or (b) there is no purpose at all.

In philosophical circles, it’s common to distinguish between the function of something and its purpose.

Usually the function follows directly from the characteristics of the thing being examined. What you’ve described above is the function of adrenaline.

But if we were to talk about the purpose of adrenaline, there’s a bit of a value judgement there because it doesn’t follow directly from adrenaline’s properties. Is it to cause us to escape dangerous situations, or fight, or both? Are there other times and other ways that adrenaline is used?

What exactly is the difference?

The difference here is clearly function vs purpose. The function of a gene is to code for the production of a protein.

And please, let’s stick with the actual statement I made, which is basically that birth control and abortions can potentially pervert (actually frustrate would be a better word) the purpose of a man’s instinctual sex drive.

I don’t really disagree here – depending on context, it is perfectly fine to talk of the purpose of an instinct. But I think it’s important to recognise the value judgement that underpins such statements.

Consider this hypothetical:
Due to random mutations there exists two kinds of organisms in a population, initially in equal number: randy organisms, that constantly try to get laid, and curious organisms that don’t care too much about getting laid and spend most of their time investigating the world.

After a few generations, the randies outnumber the curious by 10 to 1.

Now, a human looking at the situation might say that being randy was better than being curious. But this begs the question: why is being represented in the next generation ‘better’ than not being? Who said that this is the ultimate objective?
We might also say that the purpose of the randy gene is to increase the chance of reproduction. But when was this purpose set? It was just a random mutation, that in the current environment the species is exposed to, happens to increase the chance of reproduction, among probably other effects. It wasn’t ‘designed’ for any purpose.

---

Anyway, returning to your point, is the purpose of a man’s sex drive to reproduce, or is the purpose simply to have sex and the babies that result is merely a side-effect (and the side-effect is responsible for the instinct’s persistence)?

If instincts were ‘designed’ with a particular end in mind, why don’t we simply have an instinct to reproduce, and get an equal buzz from IVF as we would from sex?

[brazil84]

@Mijin

In philosophical circles, it’s common to distinguish between the function of something and its purpose.

That may be, but I note that you didn’t answer my question.

Anyway, if somebody asks Cecil Adams “what is the purpose of pubic hair,” it’s completely obvious what they mean with the word “purpose.” So obvious that anyone who criticizes the word choice is simply nitpicking, in my opinion.

Anyway, returning to your point, is the purpose of a man’s sex drive to reproduce, or is the purpose simply to have sex and the babies that result is merely a side-effect (and the side-effect is responsible for the instinct’s persistence)?

Using the meaning of “purpose” that I have been using, clearly the purpose is to reproduce.

If instincts were ‘designed’ with a particular end in mind, why don’t we simply have an instinct to reproduce, and get an equal buzz from IVF as we would from sex?

Who says that instincts were “designed”? Certainly not me. Now, you may say that my use of the word “purpose” or “point” implies that some intelligent agency designed the feature in question. But that’s simply not how I’m using those words.

Anyway, it’s just a matter of semantics. As noted above, when somebody asks Cecil “what is the purpose of pubic hair,” every reasonable person understands what the question is asking.

And by the way, would you mind providing a cite for your claim about philosophers distinguishing between purpose and function?

[Mijin]

@brazil84

I note that you didn’t answer my question.

Actually I did, but perhaps I did so too subtely.

When I said “What you’ve described above is the function of adrenaline”; I was referring to the definition of “To give you an extra boost in physical performance when you are in an emergency situation”, rather than the null definition.

Anyway, if somebody asks Cecil Adams “what is the purpose of pubic hair,” it’s completely obvious what they mean with the word “purpose.”

It’s not always obvious.
But here I’d take it as genuinely looking for the purpose, rather than function. e.g. an answer of “The purpose of pubic hair is to retain certain glandular secretions” would be seen as incomplete or inadequate.

So obvious that anyone who criticizes the word choice is simply nitpicking, in my opinion.

No, I’m not nitpicking. I’m pointing out the difference because you seem to use examples of things with obvious function as proof that the argument that some things might not have a clear purpose is nonsensical.

Again, let’s go back to genes. Their function is to code for the production of a protein. Their purpose kinda depends on the context: we could say it’s to code for phenotypes, to ensure the genes themselves persist in the gene pool, to ensure their host organism’s survival and so on.

Using the meaning of “purpose” that I have been using, clearly the purpose is to reproduce.

I disagree. Clearly the purpose of a sex drive is to act upon that desire and have sex. Whether we consider reproduction a side effect, or ultimate purpose of that instinct just depends on context and the biases of the person making the judgement.

Let me give you another example. The gene for sickle cell anaemia. Is it’s “purpose” to guard against malaria in carriers of the trait, to cause the illnesses associated with full-blown SCA, or none of the above?

Who says that instincts were “designed”? Certainly not me.

I was careful not to accuse you of saying this.

And by the way, would you mind providing a cite for your claim about philosophers distinguishing between purpose and function?

I’ll retract what I previously said. Put it this way: people who use the English language often distinguish between function and purpose.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

Actually I did, but perhaps I did so too subtely.

When I said “What you’ve described above is the function of adrenaline”; I was referring to the definition of “To give you an extra boost in physical performance when you are in an emergency situation”, rather than the null definition.

The question was very simple: Which answer is better - “A” or “B”?

It’s not always obvious.

Is the meaning of that particular question (“Dear Cecil: What is the Purpose of Pubic Hair”) obvious or not? No need for a subtle answer. Yes or no will do.

No, I’m not nitpicking.

Then what exactly is your point, besides the fact that you don’t like the way that I and Cecil have used the word “purpose”?

I disagree. Clearly the purpose of a sex drive is to act upon that desire and have sex.

Let’s see if I have this straight: If somebody asks Cecil “What is the purpose of having a strong sex drive”; and Cecil’s response is “to act on that desire and have sex”; you think that’s a good answer?

No subtlety necessary. Yes or no will do.

Let me give you another example. The gene for sickle cell anaemia. Is it’s “purpose” to guard against malaria in carriers of the trait, to cause the illnesses associated with full-blown SCA, or none of the above?

Again, using the definition of “purpose” that I have been using, clearly the purpose of the sickle cell gene is to protect against malaria.

I was careful not to accuse you of saying this.

Fine, then who exactly is claiming that “instincts are ‘designed’ with a particular end in mind”? Or was that just a strawman you erected for rhetorical purposes?

I’ll retract what I previously said. Put it this way: people who use the English language often distinguish between function and purpose.

Whatever. And people who use the English language frequently use the word “purpose” in the sense that I have used it here.

[Mijin]

First of all brazil84, let me say what a brilliant response your last post was. :rolleyes:
Multiple bifurcations, ignoring points that I made, accusing me of not answering questions that I clearly did. You must be proud.

@brazil84

The question was very simple: Which answer is better - “A” or “B”?

Bifurcation number 1.
The answer is neither.
The function of adrenaline is what you’ve presented as option A, and I’ve already said this multiple times.
As for its purpose, I’ve given some options, but neither of us have suggested what it is yet.

Is the meaning of that particular question (“Dear Cecil: What is the Purpose of Pubic Hair”) obvious or not? No need for a subtle answer. Yes or no will do.

Bifurcation number 2.
The answer, would you believe, is in my previous post. I said “It’s not always obvious. But here…”. Obviously implying that in this case the answer is obvious (and the answer, surprisingly, follows the words “But here…”).

In any case, why this digression into whether the interpretation of a given question is obvious or not?

Mijin: “No, I’m not nitpicking”
Then what exactly is your point, besides the fact that you don’t like the way that I and Cecil have used the word “purpose”?

Hmm, I wonder what my point was…?

Perhaps I’ll find the answer by looking at the sentence that follows the line you’ve quoted.
Ah yes, here it is: “I’m pointing out the difference because you seem to use examples of things with obvious function as proof that the argument that some things might not have a clear purpose is nonsensical”.

Mystery solved!

If somebody asks Cecil “What is the purpose of having a strong sex drive”; and Cecil’s response is “to act on that desire and have sex”; you think that’s a good answer?

No subtlety necessary. Yes or no will do.

Bifurcation number 3.

Before I answer let me point out that the word strong here changes the meaning of the question and I’m presuming you didn’t mean to include it.

My answer is, of course, if Cecil were to respond in that way it would not be a good answer. But nor would “to have sex and so to reproduce oneself”. If Cecil were to respond in that way, and not allude to the fact that giving “purposes” to instincts in this way is rather artificial and open to philosophical debate, then I wouldn’t hesitate to create a thread in Comments on Cecil’s Column.

Again, using the definition of “purpose” that I have been using, clearly the purpose of the sickle cell gene is to protect against malaria.

I’m surprised you took this bait.
Let’s say someone were to disagree, and say that it’s purpose is to cause red blood cells to be misshapen, and that the resistance to malaria is a side-effect (and the side-effect causes the gene to persist in the environment). What would you say to put them right? Where’s the proof of what its purpose really is?

Fine, then who exactly is claiming that “instincts are ‘designed’ with a particular end in mind”? Or was that just a strawman you erected for rhetorical purposes?

I accused nobody of making that claim. I was simply reminding everyone that genes aren’t designed: they are random mutations that either persist in the genepool or don’t.
Talk of a gene’s purpose though, hints at design, because it implies each gene has a raison d’etre.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think maybe a better word than “purpose” or “function” would be “benefit.” Certain traits remain in certain species because they provide an incidental benefit. Therefore we can ask, “what is the evolutionary benefit of pubic hair ,” without implying that the presence of a genetic trait has an intended “point.”

Metaphorically (I guess) we might say that the “reason” for trait X is benefit Y, but it’s more precisely correct to say that Y is the reason a species retains X, not that X exists in order tp provide Y.

Even we metaphorically use the word “purpose,” that’s still not something which is capable of being “perverted,” only changed and, as a matter of fact, genetic traits change their “purpose” all the time within species.

[Ludovic]

@Cosmic Relief

That isn’t to say that their instincts don’t help to protect animals against cuckolding, but male contests of strength for sexual access are no match for a female slipping off to the bushes for some clandestine copulation with the young stud who shows leadership potential.

It could be a statistically bad strategy for each individual one-bush-stand but a viable strategy to ensure the survival of her genes.

Even if we assume that likely her progeny resulting from this clandestine pairing would be less fit, selecting temporarily-suboptimal mates would keep the gene pool diverse, and allow pregnancy even if you have an infertile mate.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

First of all brazil84, let me say what a brilliant response your last post was. :rolleyes:
Multiple bifurcations, ignoring points that I made, accusing me of not answering questions that I clearly did. You must be proud.

Lol. You continue to dodge extremely simple questions. I wonder why.

The answer is neither.

So both answers are equally good?

The answer, would you believe, is in my previous post. I said “It’s not always obvious. But here…”. Obviously implying that in this case the answer is obvious (and the answer, surprisingly, follows the words “But here…”).

Lol. I have no idea what your point was. Why not just give me a simple “yes” or “no”? Is it so hard?

In any case, why this digression into whether the interpretation of a given question is obvious or not?

Because if it’s obvious what Cecil meant by the word “purpose,” and yet you continue to insist on your own definition, it shows that you are nitpicking.

Ah yes, here it is: “I’m pointing out the difference because you seem to use examples of things with obvious function as proof that the argument that some things might not have a clear purpose is nonsensical”.

I have no idea what that means.

My answer is, of course, if Cecil were to respond in that way it would not be a good answer.

Of course it wouldn’t be. But keep in mind what you said earlier:

Clearly the purpose of a sex drive is to act upon that desire and have sex.

So what you presented as “clearly” the purpose, is not a good answer. Why is that? Obviously it’s because the word “purpose” is used differently in common parlance than by members of the Elite Philosopher Club.

Let’s say someone were to disagree, and say that it’s purpose is to cause red blood cells to be misshapen, and that the resistance to malaria is a side-effect (and the side-effect causes the gene to persist in the environment). What would you say to put them right? Where’s the proof of what its purpose really is?

For one thing, I would point out that there is a strong relationship between carrying the sickle cell gene and descending from an area where malaria was a problem.

I accused nobody of making that claim. I was simply reminding everyone that genes aren’t designed: they are random mutations that either persist in the genepool or don’t.

Thank you for the Revealed Wisdom of the Elite Philosopher’s Club.

:rolleyes:

[brazil84]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think maybe a better word than “purpose” or “function” would be “benefit.” Certain traits remain in certain species because they provide an incidental benefit. Therefore we can ask, “what is the evolutionary benefit of pubic hair ,” without implying that the presence of a genetic trait has an intended “point.”

That’s fine with me. If you like, you can replace the words “purpose” and “point” with “benefit, from an evolutionary perspective” in my earlier posts.

[lobotomyboy63]

Oy, the semantic debating…

I think it’s hard to generalize a lot about genetics. Take for instance mating: it depends on the specie. A program I saw on TV said that snakes (all or just some? don’t remember) mate indiscriminately. The females store the sperm after each copulation for days or weeks and when she’s ready to ovulate, she releases the sperm internally. I couldn’t help but wondering if the sperm slammed heads like bighorn sheep in there. It’s an interesting strategy: no male snakes are harmed and the healthiest sperm are likely to get the prize.

Ethologists et al talk about inherent differences in groups of organisms (primates vs. ungulates vs. whatever). Some, like humans, produce small numbers of offspring that require an awful lot of tending. On the other end of the spectrum, you have turtles laying a zillion eggs, and they’re gone…zero upbringing.

So the mate selection process (e.g. snakes vs. humans) and parental roles (e.g. turtles vs. humans) vary considerably among species. The farther we get from talking about humans, the more potential error we introduce IMO.

Here’s one for the board: Why do babies smile? Is it genetic or learned?

Answer: it’s genetic. Ethology is a pretty nifty branch of science because they observe behaviors in the organism’s natural environment. Rather than devise some experiment with a control group and an experimental group, they simply observed babies who were born blind. Since they couldn’t see people smiling, yet they began smiling at the same age as babies with normal sight, the conclusion is obviously that it’s a hard-wired, instinctive behavior. Put it in the innate repertoire with the sucking and grasping reflexes.

Why did nature see fit to encode this? It seems obvious that babies are pretty helpless and any bond they can make with their caretakers will pay off.

And finally, when I read this it just fascinated me. There are cicadas that only reproduce every 13 (south) or 17 (north) years. Members of the south all reproduce in the same year, as do the northern. 13 and 17 are significant in that they’re prime numbers. So if they have a predator that reproduces every two or three or four (or…) years, they’re rarely in sync. It just wouldn’t do to have a surplus of predators the same year as a surplus of offspring and mathematically, it won’t happen often. E.g. A 13 year cicada and a 4 year predator cycle will only coincide 1 in every 52 (13 x 4) years.

“We don’t need no stinking mate selection…say hello to my little prime frien’!”

[Mijin]

brazil84: The question was very simple: Which answer is better - “A” or “B”?

Mijin: The answer is neither.
The function of adrenaline is what you’ve presented as option A, and I’ve already said this multiple times.
As for its purpose, I’ve given some options, but neither of us have suggested what it is yet.

brazil84: So both answers are equally good?

<slow claps>
Great debating style, you the man.

I could respond to this and your other ‘points’ but it’s a waste of my time, and of anyone else’s time who’s reading these posts. I’m done.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

<slow claps>
Great debating style, you the man.

i.e. you have no good answer to my question. Because you know perfectly well which answer is better, but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

I could respond to this and your other ‘points’ but it’s a waste of my time, and of anyone else’s time who’s reading these posts. I’m done.

Of course it’s a waste of time. Because you are just pursuing a semantic nitpick, nothing more.

[Gozu]

@Zoe

The age range and wealth has never been important to me. I was nine years older than my first husband and earned more. And I never asked my second husband about his finances before we married.

Did you read the replies I made after the OP to clarify it? I wrote a lengthy reply but I think you have misconstrued my premise. It’s partly my fault for using an emotionally loaded topic title…“what’s wrong with women’s […]”.

[Gozu]

@Mijin

Still, a lot of the language in this thread, and the OP itself, have generalised and made it sound as though women are all of one mind. This (at least in my case) was not the intention.

I miscalculated and figured people would assume I’m not stupid enough to believe that 3 billion women are of one mind on anything.

Heck, some women can’t* even agree with themselves
*Just teasing ladies. You rock in all possible ways.