Wednesday, January 18, 2006
ever wonder why gay people are gay? scientists totally don't know
ok, well, basically the scientific answer is "we don't know." the ultimate constraint on any theory is that the evolutionary explanation has to help get the genes of that individual or his close relatives into the next generation by having kids. so unfortunately, the idea that we have plenty of people on the earth so we evolve non-procreating ones doesn't hold up because evolutionary theory doesn't support group selection.
standard idea based on kin selection is that by having gay children, you have what are biologically known as "helpers at the nest" other people who can increase the fitness of thier siblings or neices by bringing in extra resources. (Wilson 1975) (And yes, that is E.O. Wilson...we kiss his ass for being tenured at harvard making up this field of half-truths). this is an interesting idea as far as there being lots of unused money lying around from these folks (e.g. Jonathon Edwards College) but are gay people really noticably more altruistic or likely to care for their siblings and/or sibling's kids? not really.
an idea I found very interesting is that there is an allele that is maintain in the population through heterosity--active selection for heterozygosity. same way that sickle cell anemia works. because individuals with one copy of sickle cell recessive allele and one non sickle cell are more fit (malarial resistance) the allele for this terrible maladaptive recessive condition is maintained in the population. this idea applies to gay people that if there is some reason that people wtih one recessive "gay" allele and one dominant "straight" allele are more fit than homozygote straights, it would explain maintanance of seeming maladaptive gay behavior. perhaps homozygotes straights are "too aggressive." or heterozygotes are "more charming." this is also kindof a silly idea on the surface, and no one has found a gay gene (well, this one dude Hamer did but no one has been able to replicate his results. But they have found on in flies (Gill 1963).) but i am attracted to it because of its defensible explanation of the seemingly genetically maladaptive behavior of exclusive homosexuality. It does give rise to the interesting offshoot that we are all a bit gay.
The most likely explanation is borrowed from bonobos that, much like morrissey, we are pansexual and use sexuality to form alliances. Bonobos also use it to greet one another, introduce themselves, and alleviate social stress. it is thought that we don't do this because we are able to communicate verbally with more sophistication to explain ourselves, but the roots of this behavior trace to our common ancestor. because you can have sex with as many men as you want, but as long as you have kids with someone at some point, your genes are totally viable in evolutionary terms. This is the general explanation of female homsexuality. so basically, bisexuality has hominid evolutionary support. Exclusive homosexuality is still kindof a mystery.
The absurd blending of robust evolutionary theory and flimsy social conjection about the behavior of modern gays is why people think sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are silly disciplines. and they are to some degree, but they are also dealing with questions that are a lot more interesting to the world at large than "do guillemots switch prey when confronting with shifting foraging range composition?"
standard idea based on kin selection is that by having gay children, you have what are biologically known as "helpers at the nest" other people who can increase the fitness of thier siblings or neices by bringing in extra resources. (Wilson 1975) (And yes, that is E.O. Wilson...we kiss his ass for being tenured at harvard making up this field of half-truths). this is an interesting idea as far as there being lots of unused money lying around from these folks (e.g. Jonathon Edwards College) but are gay people really noticably more altruistic or likely to care for their siblings and/or sibling's kids? not really.
an idea I found very interesting is that there is an allele that is maintain in the population through heterosity--active selection for heterozygosity. same way that sickle cell anemia works. because individuals with one copy of sickle cell recessive allele and one non sickle cell are more fit (malarial resistance) the allele for this terrible maladaptive recessive condition is maintained in the population. this idea applies to gay people that if there is some reason that people wtih one recessive "gay" allele and one dominant "straight" allele are more fit than homozygote straights, it would explain maintanance of seeming maladaptive gay behavior. perhaps homozygotes straights are "too aggressive." or heterozygotes are "more charming." this is also kindof a silly idea on the surface, and no one has found a gay gene (well, this one dude Hamer did but no one has been able to replicate his results. But they have found on in flies (Gill 1963).) but i am attracted to it because of its defensible explanation of the seemingly genetically maladaptive behavior of exclusive homosexuality. It does give rise to the interesting offshoot that we are all a bit gay.
The most likely explanation is borrowed from bonobos that, much like morrissey, we are pansexual and use sexuality to form alliances. Bonobos also use it to greet one another, introduce themselves, and alleviate social stress. it is thought that we don't do this because we are able to communicate verbally with more sophistication to explain ourselves, but the roots of this behavior trace to our common ancestor. because you can have sex with as many men as you want, but as long as you have kids with someone at some point, your genes are totally viable in evolutionary terms. This is the general explanation of female homsexuality. so basically, bisexuality has hominid evolutionary support. Exclusive homosexuality is still kindof a mystery.
The absurd blending of robust evolutionary theory and flimsy social conjection about the behavior of modern gays is why people think sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are silly disciplines. and they are to some degree, but they are also dealing with questions that are a lot more interesting to the world at large than "do guillemots switch prey when confronting with shifting foraging range composition?"
# posted by 8yearoldsdude @ 5:54 PM 
