Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 69

Thread: George Is Wrong

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default George Is Wrong

    Debate the proposition at will here, to preserve the integrity of other threads.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    From the other thread George hijacked:

    "sexual disgust" doesn't mean what you think it does.

    Sexual disgust is an emotion hypothesized to deter individuals from engaging in sexual activities that are probabilistically detrimental to fitness.

    Same-sex activity obviously means less or none opposite-sex activity, which is clearly detrimental to fitness.


    Ah, so that must be why:

    Same-sex behaviour ranging from co-parenting to sex has been observed in over 1,000 species with likely many more as researchers begin to look for the behaviour explicitly. Homosexuality is widespread, with bisexuality even more prevalent across species.


    Right?

    Tom


    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Frankly, reading your 'header', I was a touch alarmed! Although, as it happens, I have been 'wrong' a time or two.....

    I do believe you mean Gdot.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    George was shown to be wrong in his thesis on this thread as well.
    http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...-is-who-we-are
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Frankly, reading your 'header', I was a touch alarmed! Although, as it happens, I have been 'wrong' a time or two.....

    I do believe you mean Gdot.
    Sorry for the confusion. But fess up, man--you're probably wrong about something too!

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Every day. It's a journey....
    Last edited by George Jung; 06-28-2022 at 08:37 AM. Reason: that's why I come here - so my 'betters' can set me straight!
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    None of you were too worried about preserving the integrity of my evolution thread...

    But actually, I am not wrong. You haven't falsified my hypothesis.

    Ah, so that must be why:


    Same-sex behaviour ranging from co-parenting to sex has been observed in over 1,000 species with likely many more as researchers begin to look for the behaviour explicitly. Homosexuality is widespread, with bisexuality even more prevalent across species.



    Homosexuality is widespread, yes. That does not mean that there is no genetic aversion to it among non-homosexuals. In fact, bisexuality may simply be individuals who are born without this aversion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    It looks as though Downthecreek really did nail it.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It looks as though Downthecreek really did nail it.
    ??? I missed something.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,996

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    .

    Homosexuality is widespread, yes. That does not mean that there is no genetic aversion to it among non-homosexuals. In fact, bisexuality may simply be individuals who are born without this aversion.
    the ignorance, it burns

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Guys? Really? It's a hypothesis, a plausible one, but damnably difficult to confirm or falsify. I understand you think it's wrong, and that some think it might be socially-politically awkward were it to turn out be true, but none of us have enough evidence to say much more than that.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    I recall a rather pithy remark, dead-center, but - 'I'm at that age'...

    How's about a refresher, Nick?
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    81,815

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Yes, George is wrong. He is frequently wrong. But I do like that he's workin' it. He's exercising his brain, and not always to poor result. He's an iconoclast... which is sometimes good, sometimes bad.

    But he does need to work on the intellectual rigor. And on the practice of taking his brainstorms as hypotheses to be examined. He gets too attached to his first drafts...
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,996

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    i do like how you've retreated from "innate disgust reaction" to "aversion". as if such were synonymous.

    i am not disgusted watching a bull mount a cow. i'm not going to accidentally shtupp a cow.

    sexual attraction is all that is required for mating.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    A 'disgust reaction' is just a stronger aversion, an unbroken continuum from indifference to slight dislike to totally repulsed. People fall at different places on the continuum.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Since this still has legs (my fault to some degree):

    Let's look at the "hypothesis" (if I'm generous) that any sexual activity that doesn't lead to reproductive opportunities is going to cause evolution to select for an aversion to that activity. But as I've shown repeatedly, there are loads of non-reproductive sexual activities that persist throughout the animal kingdom. Unless natural selection is driving the creation of a new attraction to non-reproductive sexual activity, we might assume that such activities have been around a long, long time. And that successful natural selection would have weeded non-reproductive activity out of the genome by now.

    But, it hasn't.

    Nor has it reduced this non-reproductive sexual behavior much, apparently:

    78 percent of adults in the world masturbate, including: 96 percent of British men, 93 percent of German men, and 92 percent of American men; 78 percent of British women, 76 percent of German women, and 76 percent of American women.


    Evidence does indeed exist. It just points in a direction opposite to where George would like to go.

    Not to mention, George's "hypothesis" takes for granted that the drive toward sexual reproduction trumps all other instincts. But non-reproductive sexual activity brings many other benefits (social bonding, increased capacity for cooperation, etc.), any one of which might prove more valuable to the species as a whole than one individual's successful reproduction. And if that's the case--as is certainly plausible, perhaps even likely--then no "aversion" would be selected for, because the lost opportunities resulting from an aversion would outweigh the gains that would be possible if the aversion didn't exist.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 06-28-2022 at 09:55 AM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,996

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Guys? Really? It's a hypothesis.
    you mean in the colloquial sense.

    in the sense that we can all have a "hypothesis".

    i appreciate that you have backed off from your certitude, keith. but george hasn't. why do you hate science, keith?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Yeah. I can see why gdot has gone this route - imo, simply a means to stirring the stuff up!

    But KW..... a bit of an atypical hill to die on.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,996

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    A 'disgust reaction' is just a stronger aversion, an unbroken continuum from indifference to slight dislike to totally repulsed. People fall at different places on the continuum.
    not in my experience.

    but insofar as you are right semantically, keith, it has nothing to do with proving genetics over culture.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    ??? I missed something.

    Tom
    Forum History, some here will recognize the reference.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Guys? Really? It's a hypothesis, a plausible one, but damnably difficult to confirm or falsify. I understand you think it's wrong, and that some think it might be socially-politically awkward were it to turn out be true, but none of us have enough evidence to say much more than that.
    I wish that you would tell us to what you refer.
    If it is the disgust reflex, G. is wedded to it being genetic, and refusing to accept the more plausible proposal that it is cultural, a meme, learned from your parents.
    Is that it?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I wish that you would tell us to what you refer.
    If it is the disgust reflex, G. is wedded to it being genetic, and refusing to accept the more plausible proposal that it is cultural, a meme, learned from your parents.
    Is that it?
    Let's say 'has a genetic component'. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that it's entirely genetic, like eye color (I was going to say hair color, but hair dye is big business); much of it is indeed learned. People are obviously going to behave definitely in Copenhagen and Alabama and rural Uganda, and that difference is cultural. But the idea that many people have an innate aversion to gay sex, that part of the aversion is hard-wired, and that it's one origin of nasty cultural practices is not nearly as implausible as you guys are claiming.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Got any science lit to substantiate?

    I tried a literature search, came up with nada.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Since this still has legs (my fault to some degree):

    Let's look at the "hypothesis" (if I'm generous) that any sexual activity that doesn't lead to reproductive opportunities is going to cause evolution to select for an aversion to that activity. But as I've shown repeatedly, there are loads of non-reproductive sexual activities that persist throughout the animal kingdom. Unless natural selection is driving the creation of a new attraction to non-reproductive sexual activity, we might assume that such activities have been around a long, long time. And that successful natural selection would have weeded non-reproductive activity out of the genome by now.

    But, it hasn't.
    It's so nice when people respond objectively like this instead of copping out with knee-jerk microaggressions...

    OK, here is my response:

    First of all, loads of stuff that actually causes death or inability to reproduce persists throughout the animal kingdom. The idea that all genes that decrease fitness are immediately weeded out is a fallacy. Even sterility is widespread, and who will argue that it doesn't decrease fitness?

    Let's imagine a population with no aversion at all to homosexual sex. The heteros in that population will have same-sex friends, close friends. With no aversion, they are as likely to find sexual satisfaction with a same-sex partner as with an opposite-sex one. But if they do, they are not reproducing for as long as that pair bond lasts. That obviously decreases their chances of reproducing before they die. If you spend 30% of your life in homosexual pair bonds you will produce 30% less offspring.

    No, masturbation doesn't count. No one is satisfied with masturbation to the point of passing up on actual sexual opportunities, and no one (I hope!) forms a pair bond with their own hand.

    Bonobos don't count either, for a simple reason: they have huge balls. Unlike us, they can have lots of social sex and still have plenty left for reproductive sex.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Got any science lit to substantiate?

    I tried a literature search, came up with nada.
    I don't mind when LW and PM keep parroting this, because they have no credibility, but you, Dr. Jung, should be more rigorous:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26436990/

    Twin modeling revealed that approximately half of the variation in pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust is due to genetic effects. An independent pathways twin model also revealed that sexual and pathogen disgust sensitivity were influenced by unique sources of genetic variation, while also being significantly affected by a general genetic factor underlying all 3 disgust domains. Moral disgust sensitivity, in contrast, did not exhibit domain-specific genetic variation.
    https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/file...spective-1.pdf

    We identified six core dimensions ofsexual disgust: (1) Hygiene, (2) Oral sex, (3)Promiscuity, (4) Same-sex attraction, (5) BDSM, and (6)Taboo (Crosby, Durkee, Meston, & Buss, 2020). Each dimension represents partially distinct1/7subcomponents of sexual disgust that, together, provide more nuanced insight into thecomplexity of human sexual behavior. Sexual disgust towards the behaviors subsumed bythese six factors represents hypothesized solutions to somewhat distinct adaptive problemsthat our ancestors faced within the realm of sexuality
    There are plenty more. It's not even controversial, except among the woke.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Let's say 'has a genetic component'. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that it's entirely genetic, like eye color (I was going to say hair color, but hair dye is big business); much of it is indeed learned. People are obviously going to behave definitely in Copenhagen and Alabama and rural Uganda, and that difference is cultural. But the idea that many people have an innate aversion to gay sex, that part of the aversion is hard-wired, and that it's one origin of nasty cultural practices is not nearly as implausible as you guys are claiming.
    I have pointed out before that if there were a genetic component, gay sex would not have been a social norm, as it was ain many cultures.
    If it were hard-wired, the aversion would be distributed, in varying degrees, everywhere and every when.
    A there were significant gaps in the distribution, it suggests that it is a meme, probably a Religious imperative, Onan and all that.

    Why does it have to be genetic (the aversion offers no benefit to the Selfish Gene) when cultural aversion can still trigger an extreme response?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    . . . as it was in many cultures.
    I would say a very few cultures. Many more have strong sanctions against it, or are OK with it as something done by a small minority.

    It doesn't have to be genetic, but I think it probably is to some degree.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Infanticide has also been "the norm" in many cultures. According to PM's logic, that means that love for your own children cannot be genetic.

    Of course "the norm" is misleading. Even in those rare and unusual cultures, infanticide or homosexual sex among heteros were actually far from "the norm". Only a minority engaged, and only in special circumstances - like a bunch of guys off to war with no women around.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    OK, here is my response:

    First of all, loads of stuff that actually causes death or inability to reproduce persists throughout the animal kingdom. The idea that all genes that decrease fitness are immediately weeded out is a fallacy. Even sterility is widespread, and who will argue that it doesn't decrease fitness?
    Fair enough--but who is claiming an "immediate" weeding out? Not me. The point is, sexual behavior has been going on a very very long time, even on an evolutionary scale. There has been ample time to weed out behaviors.

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Let's imagine a population with no aversion at all to homosexual sex. The heteros in that population will have same-sex friends, close friends. With no aversion, they are as likely to find sexual satisfaction with a same-sex partner as with an opposite-sex one. But if they do, they are not reproducing for as long as that pair bond lasts. That obviously decreases their chances of reproducing before they die. If you spend 30% of your life in homosexual pair bonds you will produce 30% less offspring.
    Well, no. Obviously the bolded bits are wrong. You're assuming perfectly monogamous behavior, when males particularly do not value monogamy--quite the opposite. The more mates (for males), the more opportunities to reproduce. And you are assuming that a person engaging in same-sex activity is looking for the same benefits they would get from opposite-sex activity. Sorry, that's arguing facts not in evidence. They may want one thing available only from a same-sex partner, and seek something very different from an opposite-sex partner.

    So, it may be the case that being open to both sexes for sexual activity actually creates a net increase in sexual activity. There's absolutely no reason to believe that it's the zero-sum game you are claiming here.

    Edit to add: Another crucial nuance you've missed--perhaps the crucial nuance--is that the lack of an aversion does not necessarily imply an attraction. It might be that some people have neither an attraction nor an aversion to same-sex partners. So, in that case, a same-sex partner will not be chosen, even when an opposite-sex partner isn't available.

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Bonobos don't count either, for a simple reason: they have huge balls. Unlike us, they can have lots of social sex and still have plenty left for reproductive sex.
    Well, that's just complete nonsense. An average of 250 million sperm are released per sexual event, George. That's 500+ billion sperm in the average lifetime. And it's not a finite resource--the body continually renews the supply.

    So, I'll stick with "George is wrong" for now.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 06-28-2022 at 02:33 PM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Even in those rare and unusual cultures, infanticide or homosexual sex among heteros were actually far from "the norm". Only a minority engaged, and only in special circumstances - like a bunch of guys off to war with no women around.
    I don't think that's exactly true. From my reading, the older man-youth relationship was prevalent, and widely accepted, throughout the Greek world (i.e. not just Greece, but all the territory that came under the influence of Greek culture).

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    I would say a very few cultures. Many more have strong sanctions against it, or are OK with it as something done by a small minority.

    It doesn't have to be genetic, but I think it probably is to some degree.
    Why are you so wedded to the genetic hypothesis, when the cultural alternative has a far better fit to the data and has an equal standing in the literature.?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    More accurately, I think genetic + cultural is accurate. I think it fits the evidence better that culture alone.

    An analogy on a larger scale might be language. Languages vary a great deal, and which one(s) you learn depends on what the people around you are saying. But humans almost certainly have a language instinct.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    More accurately, I think genetic + cultural is accurate. I think it fits the evidence better that culture alone.

    An analogy on a larger scale might be language. Languages vary a great deal, and which one(s) you learn depends on what the people around you are saying. But humans almost certainly have a language instinct.
    What evidence, Keith? So far I haven't seen anything beyond anecdote from you, and I'd argue George has been cherrypicking fiercely, and ignoring what doesn't suit him.

    Given the number of sperm generated by a single male over the course of his adult life, and the absence of a zero-sum game as far as sex goes, Occam's razor would suggest no need for innate aversion to same-sex activity of any kind.

    Meanwhile, as has been repeatedly pointed out, "hypothesizing" outside the context of actual science (as you and George have been doing) carries real risks for the people who are the targets of an allegedly "innate" disgust.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,996

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    they have huge balls
    i understand now why this conversation is happening on the woodenboat forum.

    it was a fascination for sea men all along.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    More accurately, I think genetic + cultural is accurate. I think it fits the evidence better that culture alone.
    Nah, genetics are not necessary, and does not fit all the anthropological gaps. If it were genetic, even only a little bit if that were possible, there should have been no gaps.
    An analogy on a larger scale might be language. Languages vary a great deal, and which one(s) you learn depends on what the people around you are saying. But humans almost certainly have a language instinct.
    Now that is an interesting drift.
    Chimps and gorillas can learn (sign) language, but the rules of grammar and our vocabulary are learned and wired in during the first seven or so years after birth. So we have genetic potential, but actual true grammatical language is only hard-wired in as the brain constantly cuts and reforms neural networks as it grows and develops.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •