Comments on: A New Theory For Homosexuality: A Lot Like The Old Ones http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/ The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Rob http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-665 Rob Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:25:40 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-665 Kuhle & Radtke have an interesting suggestion on page 316 ("Implications") connected with alloparenting: http://www.epjournal.net/articles/born-both-ways-the-alloparenting-hypothesis-for-sexual-fluidity-in-women/ Kuhle & Radtke have an interesting suggestion on page 316 (“Implications”) connected with alloparenting:
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/born-both-ways-the-alloparenting-hypothesis-for-sexual-fluidity-in-women/

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-662 Jesse Marczyk Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:42:45 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-662 I imagine the reason men get turned on by the thought of two receptive women is much the same reason they turned on by one. I imagine the reason men get turned on by the thought of two receptive women is much the same reason they turned on by one.

]]> By: Nuclear Wheelchair http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-655 Nuclear Wheelchair Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:58:13 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-655 So why do I want them to be bisexual? Is there some evolutionary reason men get turned on by women having sex? So why do I want them to be bisexual? Is there some evolutionary reason men get turned on by women having sex?

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-651 Jesse Marczyk Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:48:39 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-651 The vast majority do not seem to be, no. More women are bisexual than men, percentage wise, but most of both are not. The vast majority do not seem to be, no. More women are bisexual than men, percentage wise, but most of both are not.

]]> By: Nuclear Wheelchair http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-650 Nuclear Wheelchair Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:47:39 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-650 Aren't most women basically bisexual? Please say yes, please say yes... Aren’t most women basically bisexual?

Please say yes, please say yes…

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-587 Jesse Marczyk Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:58:59 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-587 So long as those intuitions map well on reality, they can be exceedingly useful. Reality, however, can be quite the complicated thing, and even seemingly minor changes can have huge downstream consequences in terms of the conclusions that one reaches. While I would certainly agree that mathematical modeling can help to make this intuitions more <em>explicit</em>, both in terms of precise values and general ideas, it doesn't do anything to make them more accurate. There appear to be people who get caught up in the model without bothering to empirically check and see if it's supported or complete. So long as those intuitions map well on reality, they can be exceedingly useful. Reality, however, can be quite the complicated thing, and even seemingly minor changes can have huge downstream consequences in terms of the conclusions that one reaches. While I would certainly agree that mathematical modeling can help to make this intuitions more explicit, both in terms of precise values and general ideas, it doesn’t do anything to make them more accurate. There appear to be people who get caught up in the model without bothering to empirically check and see if it’s supported or complete.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-586 Jesse Marczyk Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:55:26 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-586 The thing about non-human homosexual preferences is that they don't seem to really exist (or at the very least haven't been conclusively demonstrated). The one notable exception would be rams, who have a history of close association with humans, which is pretty neat to think about. What other people have found have been occasional homosexual sexual <em>behaviors</em>, which, while interesting in their own right, aren't that big of a deal from an evolutionary perspective. Still other research has focused on same-sex, but non-sexual, interactions that have been labeled as homosexuality, though the connection there is tenuous indeed. The thing about non-human homosexual preferences is that they don’t seem to really exist (or at the very least haven’t been conclusively demonstrated). The one notable exception would be rams, who have a history of close association with humans, which is pretty neat to think about. What other people have found have been occasional homosexual sexual behaviors, which, while interesting in their own right, aren’t that big of a deal from an evolutionary perspective. Still other research has focused on same-sex, but non-sexual, interactions that have been labeled as homosexuality, though the connection there is tenuous indeed.

]]> By: Alberto http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-584 Alberto Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:48:23 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-584 Great post. On a side theme: I do mathematical models and computer simulations of cultural evolution. I completely agree with you on the skepticism about some usages of models. "Models are philosophical intuitions written in the form of math, rather than English". True. However it is exactly the fact that they are written in the form of math, rather than English, that makes possible a series of things. One is that other researchers may understand (more) clearly the assumptions and conclusions of your "intuitions". Natural language is inherently ambiguous: this is good e.g. for gossip and humor, but not for science. With models ambiguity is (at least) strongly limited (I come from social sciences and I know how people can debate incessantly what *really* the great scholar X meant with the concept of Y). Another one is that sometimes it is very difficult to derive predictions from theories expressed verbally because they are not obvious. Simulation and mathematical models have been called "opaque thought experiments" (see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ezequiel/opaque.pdf) and I agree. So maybe "Models are philosophical intuitions written in the form of math, rather than English, [which makes them better]"... Great post. On a side theme: I do mathematical models and computer simulations of cultural evolution. I completely agree with you on the skepticism about some usages of models. “Models are philosophical intuitions written in the form of math, rather than English”. True. However it is exactly the fact that they are written in the form of math, rather than English, that makes possible a series of things.
One is that other researchers may understand (more) clearly the assumptions and conclusions of your “intuitions”. Natural language is inherently ambiguous: this is good e.g. for gossip and humor, but not for science. With models ambiguity is (at least) strongly limited (I come from social sciences and I know how people can debate incessantly what *really* the great scholar X meant with the concept of Y).
Another one is that sometimes it is very difficult to derive predictions from theories expressed verbally because they are not obvious. Simulation and mathematical models have been called “opaque thought experiments” (see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ezequiel/opaque.pdf) and I agree.
So maybe “Models are philosophical intuitions written in the form of math, rather than English, [which makes them better]“…

]]> By: Dei http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-583 Dei Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:19:45 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-583 And why are we approaching this question from such a human-centric position? Are any studies of homosexuality in other species so totally unhelpful that we must rely on Bayesian models based off of philosophical speculation? Surely we haven't exhausted observational studies in nature. And why are we approaching this question from such a human-centric position? Are any studies of homosexuality in other species so totally unhelpful that we must rely on Bayesian models based off of philosophical speculation? Surely we haven’t exhausted observational studies in nature.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/a-new-theory-for-homosexuality-a-lot-like-the-old-ones/#comment-580 Jesse Marczyk Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:11:14 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1627#comment-580 The emphasis on gay males is, I think, largely due to the following factors: male, but not female, arousal being required for successfully heterosexual intercourse, women's sexuality being far more fluid in that regard, relative to males (in that lesbians tend to have many male partners as well as female ones), and men making up a slightly higher percentage of the homosexual population (though this last point is probably less important). The emphasis on gay males is, I think, largely due to the following factors: male, but not female, arousal being required for successfully heterosexual intercourse, women’s sexuality being far more fluid in that regard, relative to males (in that lesbians tend to have many male partners as well as female ones), and men making up a slightly higher percentage of the homosexual population (though this last point is probably less important).

]]>