Allen Esterson said, in reference to my comment that the evidence he cited supports what is better termed a social, not biological hypothesis: > 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.
Well, we're pretty much in agreement. It's just the terminology that's the problem. I think the difficulty is that we're using the word "biological" to refer to different aspects of the issue. We seem to agree that the evidence supports the position that the necessary and sufficient condition for incest avoidance is to be reared together, regardless of biological relatedness. It seems to me that this would be most accurately termed a social explanation. If, on the other hand, what counted was biological relatedness, that would be a biological explanation. But Allen seems to focus on the mechanism by which the social experience works, and calls that biological. I agree, and that's why I used the phrase "biologically-prepared" to indicate that I also believed that the reason we respond to shared rearing by developing an incest taboo is biological, selected for during evolution. But ultimately everything is biological in that sense, even operant conditioning. Where the two hypotheses differ is that one says that shared social experience is necessary while the other says that shared genes are necessary. So I think it's less confusing to label the former a social hypothesis and the latter a biological one. BTW, I think I've discovered how our posts are leaking to the outside world. It's not through the TIPS archive, which I doubt is accessible to Google. It's through the Mail Archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40acsun.frostburg.edu/ I actually don't mind this, as lots more people get to read us, and the Mail Archive does suppress our e-mail addresses (nice touch). But I think we do have to be careful. The whole world is now watching (or could be). Stephen Stephen Black Bishop's University Lennoxville, Quebec J1M 1Z7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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]
