Allen Esterson said: > Evidence for the biological basis of incest aversion comes from the > studies of children raised in Israeli kibbutzim and of sim-pua marriages > in Taiwan (see below) <snip>
Allen's dug up interesting stuff on this question. I just wonder (and getting back to Beth's original question) whether it's accurate to classify it as evidence in favour of a biological basis. The evidence Allen provides supports a mechanism in which an inhibition against sex develops if the individuals share early rearing experience. That sounds like a social influence to me, although we may be biologically-prepared to respond in that way. A strict biological hypothesis would instead require that avoidance of sex depend solely on biological relatedness, regardless of social contact. Thus, (i)opposite-sex siblings separated from an early age who later re-establish contact would adhere to the incest taboo, while (ii) an unrelated child adopted into a family at an early age would show no such inhibition against sex with other family members. Evidence on (i) would be difficult to obtain, given the special circumstances required. But I'd think examples of ii) would be rare. To summarize, as close early contact is important but biological relatedness is probably not, the mechanism for the incest taboo is best classified as social, not biological. And I'd be interested in hearing more from Beth about her observation that the deleterious consequences of incest (i.e. reproduction among related individuals) is less harmful than previously believed. Stephen Stephen Black Department of Psychology Bishop's University Lennoxville, Quebec [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
