tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post2969456575956420087..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Why does promiscuity rise when violence levels soar?agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44578151206104024432017-02-10T09:11:36.938-05:002017-02-10T09:11:36.938-05:00r-selected cultures - the correlation exists for s...r-selected cultures - the correlation exists for sure - but you can go the other way as well - promiscuity increases violence. Unrestrained female desire and unrestrained male anger are linked.<br />Chethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16229727444184829454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-20615833616367889102010-11-15T22:03:17.139-05:002010-11-15T22:03:17.139-05:00This is why I make that assumption about trust.<a href="http://pewsocialtrends.org/2007/02/22/americans-and-social-trust-who-where-and-why/" rel="nofollow">This</a> is why I make that assumption about trust.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-81115685688028177002010-11-15T16:15:07.244-05:002010-11-15T16:15:07.244-05:00I guess the best test of your theories would be to...I guess the best test of your theories would be to apply them to Mexico. You would have recent data from the last 15 years which should show huge support for correlations you claim to see. <br />I don't know if anyone is really looking at that, and I don't know how good the underlying data would be, but it sure could be great a case study.gymquiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-13985853696815683032010-11-15T00:55:10.515-05:002010-11-15T00:55:10.515-05:00I would guess that monagamous cultures are more tr...I would guess that monagamous cultures are more trusting than polygynous ones.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-38703448739209949922010-11-14T07:55:48.682-05:002010-11-14T07:55:48.682-05:00Agnostic,
What do you think of Harpending and Coc...Agnostic,<br /><br />What do you think of Harpending and Cochran's contention at http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/?:<br /><br /><i>"The Whitings discussed as one extreme those societies where men and women lived together, slept and ate together, seemed to like each other, and cooperated in households. The called these “intimate” societies and found that a reliable indicator was sleeping arrangements: in these societies men and women slept together, often with their children. In the perspective of evolution and reproductive strategies these are societies where males are putting reproductive effort into parental effort, that is to say they are “dad ” societies. While there may be organized external warfare there is usually not much local raiding and warfare.<br /><br />At the other extreme are societies like those of many gardening groups where males and females don’t like each other very much, where relations between the sexes are, in the Whitings’ terms, “aloof.” Here men may sleep and live in men’s houses rather than in their wives’ houses. The men’s houses usually have some sort of ritual significance such that women are prohibited from entering them. They are low-tech societies’ versions of fraternity houses. While women work hard in these societies, men typically spend a lot of time in subtle and not so subtle male competition like debating, fighting, and planning the next round of fighting with the neighbors."</i><br /><br />Do you think there's any interface between this and your model of decreases in promiscuity driving greater sex separation and "aloofness"?Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-14049452308095192162010-11-14T04:54:22.916-05:002010-11-14T04:54:22.916-05:00A.E.,
Is promiscuity a young male trait? Seems fe...A.E.,<br /><br /><i>Is promiscuity a young male trait? Seems females are almost always the limiting factor among humans.</i><br /><br />Yes, this is the gender and age group that is most likely to desire and seek out short term mating opportunities. Females are a limiting factor, but male and female behavior patterns/mating strategies trend together across time and place. <br /><br /><i>"Latitudinally, evidence for Agnostic's hypothesis abounds--women are more promiscuous in high crime, urban areas than they are in the plusher burbs, and girls who come from more chaotic family situations are generally easier than girls who come from functioning households"</i><br /><br />Remember, Agro and I are mostly seeing the same patterns, so these examples don't help resolve the <i>causal</i> issue, which is where we seem to differ.<br /><br />Taking your latter example, this is one reason I think the mating effort patterns are primarily genetic/biological (as opposed to adaptive/responsive).<br /><br />The classic Harpending/Draper paper about CADS/DADS saw early female sexual behavior as a <i>consequence</i> of father absence, but research since then seems to support the idea that the connection is <a href="http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Mendle%20%282009%29.pdf" rel="nofollow">due to inheritance</a>: high mating effort fathers (who are more likely to abandon their families) are simply more likely to father high mating effort daughters (who are more likely to have sex and get knocked up as teens). The adoption literature, more broadly, disfavors the home environment as a strong environmental influence.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-77212502336782968732010-11-14T00:30:40.343-05:002010-11-14T00:30:40.343-05:00"Looks like violence levels -- the crime wave...<i>"Looks like violence levels -- the crime wave of the 1960s was visible before the sexual revolution. "</i><br /><br />I agree that this would be an illuminating analysis, and it is not an analysis I have done.<br /><br />I would predict that A) Changes of violence over time are almost always due to changing cohorts of young, prime breeding age males (16-25), B) The sexual behaviors of these new cohorts tracks their violent behavior. Men who are violent will report earlier sex and more sex partners. More men who are violent, means more men who are promiscuous, C) the female cohort behavior always trends in the same direction as the male behavior.<br /><br />Early sexual behavior is probably the best indicator. Millineals and late Gen Xrs are more "promiscuous" (cycle through more sexual relationships) in their 20s than previous cohorts, but only because they delay marriage longer (a modern consequence of high future orientation). But they don't display earlier sexual behavior because they are not biologically developed for high mating effort.<br /><br /><br /><i>But the human case doesn't look like that, as though males were getting much more violent in order to protect their harems.</i><br /><br />I think my understanding of violence paradigm shifted when I read David Buss's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/0143037056" rel="nofollow">The Murderer Next Door</a>. <i>Almost all male on male violence (the most common kind) is related to young men competing for women</i>, or trying to "save face" in conflicts where women are observing, by refusing to back down.<br /><br />I started to read my local police blotter after reading this book, and indeed, almost all male violence is related to mate competition. <br /><br />I most easily interpret changes in male violence over time as changes in conflict intensity over women.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-45122205170884664942010-11-13T23:04:29.003-05:002010-11-13T23:04:29.003-05:00Jason,
Is promiscuity a young male trait? Seems f...Jason,<br /><br />Is promiscuity a young male trait? Seems females are almost always the limiting factor among humans. Latitudinally, evidence for Agnostic's hypothesis abounds--women are more promiscuous in high crime, urban areas than they are in the plusher burbs, and girls who come from more chaotic family situations are generally easier than girls who come from functioning households.Audacious Epigonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07495507254628580077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-75251746136170865322010-11-13T15:28:32.063-05:002010-11-13T15:28:32.063-05:00Although there's something to be said for the ...Although there's something to be said for the "all about mating effort" idea, in view of Barry Sinervo's work on the side-blotched lizard.<br /><br />There are three morphs whose prevalence cycles in a paper-rock-scissors way. Each morph has a distinct mating strategy and approach to violence.<br /><br />There it looks like their violence strategies are just serving whatever their mating strategy is -- ultra-violent to guard a polygynous harem, non-confrontational for the fly-by-night "sneaky fuckers," and teaming up against the sneakers for the monogamous good dad morphs.<br /><br />But the human case doesn't look like that, as though males were getting much more violent in order to protect their harems. Or maybe the West of the past 1000 years is a too-new environment, and the "all about mating effort" idea works better when we look at hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and pre-state agriculturalists.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-74641305983394374002010-11-13T15:22:19.211-05:002010-11-13T15:22:19.211-05:00Peter, look it up in the GSS. Fear of walking arou...Peter, look it up in the GSS. Fear of walking around your neighborhood tracks the crime rate.<br /><br />Jason, in a math model we'd use something like differential equations where the variables can all influence each other. But when you look at the initial conditions, which one looks to change first?<br /><br />Looks like violence levels -- the crime wave of the 1960s was visible before the sexual revolution. Same with the flappers of the 1920s, which were evident noticeably after the 1900 surge in violence began.<br /><br />Otherwise you have to ask what suddenly causes people to switch to shorter-term mating strategies, which then drive the other changes. If it's the level of violence, it's straightforward how that would push mating strategies in the shorter-term direction.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-54191719231491630492010-11-13T14:56:44.773-05:002010-11-13T14:56:44.773-05:00I well remember the pre-1992 high crime era. You ...I well remember the pre-1992 high crime era. You may dismiss this as anecdotal, but certainly no one I knew went around worrying that his or her life would be cut short by violence. Outside of some of the very worst neighborhoods the risk of violent death was minimal.<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-15374228366449911042010-11-13T07:04:08.566-05:002010-11-13T07:04:08.566-05:00We see many of the same patterns, but I don't ...We see many of the same patterns, but I don't interpret this web of connections as driven by violence so much as coterminous with it. Violence, creativity, promiscuity, etc (Young Male Traits) all stem from the same hormone mediated drive: mating effort. This is the relative effort invested into finding sex partners vis-à-vis securing a long-term partner (parenting effort).<br /><br />Lower social classes are genetically biased towards mating effort, and violence has declined over the long term thanks in no small part to progressive genetic changes (i.e. the rich outbreeding the poor by being able to support larger families).<br /><br />Shorter term cycles obviously aren't due to genetic changes, and may have obscure and variegated social and biological explanations (e.g. economic conditions, environmental estrogens), which probably also involves many feedback loops. But I think the behavioral patterns themselves are traits that are developmentally linked. There are more violent and less violent <i>people</i>, and less violent people are simply less promiscuous.<br /><br />This means Millennials, on average, are less creative, less promiscuous, less violent, less risk-taking, and are more achievement motivated and future oriented . Contrary to theories of rising narcissism, I would say this also means they are more altruistic.<br /><br />In other words more "Asian".<br /><br />I interpret these developments as positive.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.com