= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eneasz comments on Against the standard narrative of human sexual evolution - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
In light of many of the negative comments and downvotes, I wanted to express thanks for this post, and I hope you continue the sequence.
I think people delude themselves as to how monogamous they actually are (monogamous-but-had-a-fling-once is NOT monogamous. Monogamous-except-that-three-month-period-we-were-broken-up is NOT monogamous. Generally, even monogamous-with-first-spouse,then-monogamous-with-the-new-spouse isn't considered ACTUAL monogamy. And certainly monogamous-by-circumstance shouldn't really count )
And furthermore, I suspect that the sort of group-mating/iving outlined by Ryan and Jetha could/did provide a real-world mechanic for actual group-selection.
Considered? Who is the arbiter of such things?
Very well, perhaps that was a bit too strongly worded. Allow me to rephrase that as "there is debate as to whether serial-monogamy constitutes monogamy or is a different form of polyamory"
But is that disagreement about anything more than definitions?
I'm the arbiter of such things.
You shouldn't need group selection to explain that sort of thing. (And I'd be very, very suspicious if you did.) Kin selection should be more than enough.
For what it's worth, anthropologists generally consider relationships to be monogamous if they involve paired-living, long-term association, or joint parenting. Sexual fidelity is not a criterion.