<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Monogamy Is Human</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html</link>
	<description>Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Overcoming Bias : Homo Hypocritus</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-488190</link>
		<dc:creator>Overcoming Bias : Homo Hypocritus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-488190</guid>
		<description>[...] that overt dominance is rare, and long distances make war rare (as 4 million year old fossils suggest). Foragers live in tight quarters and use language to express and enforce social norms on food [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] that overt dominance is rare, and long distances make war rare (as 4 million year old fossils suggest). Foragers live in tight quarters and use language to express and enforce social norms on food [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elin Whitney-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-457242</link>
		<dc:creator>Elin Whitney-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-457242</guid>
		<description>just came upon your blog. 

On monogamy It seems based on the representation of variety in our DNA that male vs. female &quot;effective population size,&quot; suggests that  Polygyny was the norm. since that most men throughout human evolution never reproduced and, in strictly genetic terms, had mysteriously vanished without a trace.

see: http://j.mp/aFpxvg 
http://j.mp/doP6mC
http://j.mp/btIHjf

On hunter/gatherer lifestyle see my book in progress being previewed at http://information-revolutions.com  especially chapter 1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just came upon your blog. </p>
<p>On monogamy It seems based on the representation of variety in our DNA that male vs. female &#8220;effective population size,&#8221; suggests that  Polygyny was the norm. since that most men throughout human evolution never reproduced and, in strictly genetic terms, had mysteriously vanished without a trace.</p>
<p>see: <a href="http://j.mp/aFpxvg" rel="nofollow">http://j.mp/aFpxvg</a><br />
<a href="http://j.mp/doP6mC" rel="nofollow">http://j.mp/doP6mC</a><br />
<a href="http://j.mp/btIHjf" rel="nofollow">http://j.mp/btIHjf</a></p>
<p>On hunter/gatherer lifestyle see my book in progress being previewed at <a href="http://information-revolutions.com" rel="nofollow">http://information-revolutions.com</a>  especially chapter 1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shiraz Allidina</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-437420</link>
		<dc:creator>Shiraz Allidina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-437420</guid>
		<description>Bigger brain, smaller jaw, loss of canines - I prefer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?ref=books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this guy&#039;s hypothesis.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bigger brain, smaller jaw, loss of canines &#8211; I prefer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?ref=books" rel="nofollow">this guy&#8217;s hypothesis.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monogamy and Human Success &#171; Incredible Wampum</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436972</link>
		<dc:creator>Monogamy and Human Success &#171; Incredible Wampum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436972</guid>
		<description>[...] Make the Best&#160;Parents    Monogamy and Human&#160;Success November 29, 2009   Robin Hanson comments on Monogamy: It easier to maintain pair bonding in larger primate social groups if males can’t [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Make the Best&nbsp;Parents    Monogamy and Human&nbsp;Success November 29, 2009   Robin Hanson comments on Monogamy: It easier to maintain pair bonding in larger primate social groups if males can’t [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie_NYC</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436660</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie_NYC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436660</guid>
		<description>The difference in average sizes of men and women tells us that human species historically was not completely monogamous. The species that are monogamous (&quot;mate for life&quot;), such as wolves, geese etc., have males and females of nearly identical size. The completely polygamous, where the dominant males appropriate &#039;harems&#039;, have vastly different sizes - gorillas are an example. Humans fall somewhere in between the two extremes of complete monogamy and the &#039;harem&#039; arrangement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The difference in average sizes of men and women tells us that human species historically was not completely monogamous. The species that are monogamous (&#8220;mate for life&#8221;), such as wolves, geese etc., have males and females of nearly identical size. The completely polygamous, where the dominant males appropriate &#8216;harems&#8217;, have vastly different sizes &#8211; gorillas are an example. Humans fall somewhere in between the two extremes of complete monogamy and the &#8216;harem&#8217; arrangement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AA</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436648</link>
		<dc:creator>AA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436648</guid>
		<description>But I did discuss the dependence on the shape of the demographic distribution! In a 50/50 society monogamy always prevails!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But I did discuss the dependence on the shape of the demographic distribution! In a 50/50 society monogamy always prevails!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TruePath</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436642</link>
		<dc:creator>TruePath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436642</guid>
		<description>Uhh, it seems to me this argument is totally backwards.

The reason monogomy is important on your account is because it reduces the level of competition/violence inside a group.  Yet, it seems to be that the reason that (open) non-monogomy is on the rise is largely because the violence has been so effectively controlled.

If we ever start to slide back to a state where men fight duels because someone stole their girlfriend people will return to greater monogomy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uhh, it seems to me this argument is totally backwards.</p>
<p>The reason monogomy is important on your account is because it reduces the level of competition/violence inside a group.  Yet, it seems to be that the reason that (open) non-monogomy is on the rise is largely because the violence has been so effectively controlled.</p>
<p>If we ever start to slide back to a state where men fight duels because someone stole their girlfriend people will return to greater monogomy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Violet</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436616</link>
		<dc:creator>Violet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436616</guid>
		<description>If you are concerned about monogamy and different sexualities than in EEA shouldn&#039;t you be more concerned with contraception? It allows heterosexual sex without babies and thus totally changes the game.

Also don&#039;t most studies point to a direction of monogamous pairing with lots of cheating. Wouldn&#039;t requiring paternity tests also change the game in &quot;unnatural&quot; ways.

If the issue is men ending up single, shouldn&#039;t we promote polyamorous relationships or some form of polyandry?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are concerned about monogamy and different sexualities than in EEA shouldn&#8217;t you be more concerned with contraception? It allows heterosexual sex without babies and thus totally changes the game.</p>
<p>Also don&#8217;t most studies point to a direction of monogamous pairing with lots of cheating. Wouldn&#8217;t requiring paternity tests also change the game in &#8220;unnatural&#8221; ways.</p>
<p>If the issue is men ending up single, shouldn&#8217;t we promote polyamorous relationships or some form of polyandry?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baconbacon</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436601</link>
		<dc:creator>baconbacon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436601</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;But is it monogamy as such or stable families? In a sense, if every male know which females are his and which are his neighbour’s that would also make it so much easier to maintain peace and produce the claimed adaptations.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Its many things, but simply having each male know which females are his leads to disaster in a 50/50 male/female population.  Take an extreme example- our society has decided that only men with a net worth of &gt; 10 million dollars can reproduce.  Women may freely choose any man to mate within this group and every other man works to support this situation.  On the surface this seems like a plausible way to select for the traits that make successful individuals- but you get massive gambling addicts in the future.  What happens is that any steady, hard working lower class person has a near zero chance of passing on his genes while his crazy, compulsive gambling neighbor could win the lottery/go on a hot run in vegas/win the trifecta and get to pass his genes along.  Gambling becomes a far better strategy and it gets passed on into the gene pool.

That sounds like a bizarre and unrealistic example- but in a 50/50 society polygamy automatically leaves explicit losers in the gene leaving race (its even worse when males can reproduce indefinitely but women have a cut off point).  If there are 50 males and 50 females and 1 male has 2 wives then 1 male has to have none.  Then that last male has a huge incentive to steal a wife, or murder another man, and those kinds of activities create conflict.  If 1 man has 10 wives then there are 9 buys out there with tons of sexual energy and all the genetic incentive to start murdering/stealing wives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>But is it monogamy as such or stable families? In a sense, if every male know which females are his and which are his neighbour’s that would also make it so much easier to maintain peace and produce the claimed adaptations.</p></blockquote>
<p>Its many things, but simply having each male know which females are his leads to disaster in a 50/50 male/female population.  Take an extreme example- our society has decided that only men with a net worth of &gt; 10 million dollars can reproduce.  Women may freely choose any man to mate within this group and every other man works to support this situation.  On the surface this seems like a plausible way to select for the traits that make successful individuals- but you get massive gambling addicts in the future.  What happens is that any steady, hard working lower class person has a near zero chance of passing on his genes while his crazy, compulsive gambling neighbor could win the lottery/go on a hot run in vegas/win the trifecta and get to pass his genes along.  Gambling becomes a far better strategy and it gets passed on into the gene pool.</p>
<p>That sounds like a bizarre and unrealistic example- but in a 50/50 society polygamy automatically leaves explicit losers in the gene leaving race (its even worse when males can reproduce indefinitely but women have a cut off point).  If there are 50 males and 50 females and 1 male has 2 wives then 1 male has to have none.  Then that last male has a huge incentive to steal a wife, or murder another man, and those kinds of activities create conflict.  If 1 man has 10 wives then there are 9 buys out there with tons of sexual energy and all the genetic incentive to start murdering/stealing wives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TGGP</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/humans-hide-fertility.html#comment-436599</link>
		<dc:creator>TGGP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=20534#comment-436599</guid>
		<description>Actually, as haplodiploids (which gives rise to greater relatedness) &lt;a href=&quot;http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/does-diversity-only-make-whites-more-opposed-to-welfare/#comment-4318&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;workers can have male offspring&lt;/a&gt; without being fertilized. This is typically done by descendants of a previous queen who aren&#039;t interested in the general welfare of the colony under the new queen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, as haplodiploids (which gives rise to greater relatedness) <a href="http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/does-diversity-only-make-whites-more-opposed-to-welfare/#comment-4318" rel="nofollow">workers can have male offspring</a> without being fertilized. This is typically done by descendants of a previous queen who aren&#8217;t interested in the general welfare of the colony under the new queen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk (enhanced)
Database Caching using disk
Object Caching 429/446 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: overcomingbias-assets.s3.amazonaws.com

Served from: www.overcomingbias.com @ 2012-02-11 21:00:41 -->
