Stephen Black wrote: > 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.
Stephen is right, I should have been more careful with my language. So let�s try again and see how close we can get to agreement. In my view the evidence of the studies I cited points to a genetic propensity for siblings to be averse to incest in the normal circumstances in which siblings are raised together from birth. Pseudo-siblings (if I may coin the expression, as I don�t know the correct term) tend to experience the same aversion to sexual relations in adulthood. Given the apparent mechanism (shall we say genetic programming?), siblings separated at birth who meet in adulthood do not experience the same aversion to mutual sexual relations. > 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. I think we can agree that there are be well-documented cases of (i), and the cited studies indicate that (ii) is generally not the case. > To summarize, as close early contact is important but biological relatedness > is probably not, the mechanism for the incest taboo I doubt that anyone would suggest otherwise. > the incest taboo is best classified as social, not biological. This is where we disagree. I think it is just as erroneous for Stephen label it �social� as I was to call it �biological�. Virtually any human genetic propensity (perhaps no qualification is required) occurs in a social context, and therefore has to have both genetic and social components. To take the example of language, it seems that the human brain is programmed to have the capacity to learn languages (though not, of course, any specific language), but if children do not learn one before the age of about eight (?), they have considerable difficulty doing so, and may possibly not be able to communicate with other humans by spoken language at all. So humans have a genetic propensity to learn languages, but do not do so in the unlikely event that social circumstances preclude its happening. So is the capacity to learn languages social or genetic? The answer, surely, is both. So it is neither �genetic�, nor �social�. I think that saying that humans have a strong genetic propensity (or innate propensity) to learn languages is fine. The social factor is self-evident � as I said, human behaviour does not take place in a social vacuum, so (virtually) all behaviour, no matter how strong the genetic propensity, is also social. Over and out. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 > 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]
