Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 1, 2010
Sex Did Megan McArdle Read Sex At Dawn?
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM
But still, every party has the red-faced, humorless, easily-offended type. Yesterday, at The Atlantic web site, Megan McArdle provided a stellar example. Her comments begin strangely, with the admission that she's "in the middle" of the book. Note the urgency to condemn it publicly, even before reading the damned thing! And boy, does she lash out:• "It reads like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis,"
• "breathless rather than scientific"
• "cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory,"
• "they don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory."Ouch! And that's just the first paragraph. But wait, it gets worse. The second paragraph is worth quoting in full, as it's really a perfect expression of the bug-eyed panic the book provokes in some people:
"For example, like a lot of evolutionary biology critiques, this one leans heavily on bonobos (at least so far). Here's the thing: humans aren't like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we're not like bonobos. There's no way observed human societies grew out of a species organized along the lines of a bonobo tribe." (emphasis in original)
Got that? Humans aren't like bonobos because we're not like bonobos. No way! So there! Case closed.
In addition to this somewhat embarassing "reasoning," it's pretty clear Ms. McArdle hasn't read even the first half of the book very closely. Pages 77 and 78 contain a table listing some of the major similarities between humans and bonobos, many of them unique to these two species. Hard to imagine how she managed to miss that. In the discussion of her article, she flatly states that chimps are genetically more closely related to humans than bonobos are, which is not only just plain wrong, it's something we explain very early in the book (along with a graph, no less, on p. 62). Agree with our thesis or disagree with it, nobody who knows anything about primatology would argue that chimps are genetically closer to us than bonobos are (they're equidistant) or that humans and bonobos don't have a great deal in common—particularly in terms of our sexual behavior and anatomy. (The table appears below.)
Later in her comments, she writes, "If you're going to use evolutionary psychology, you need to deal with human jealousy, which is indeed pervasive. You can't leave it out just because it doesn't fit your model."
Chapter 10 of the book is called: Jealousy, A Beginner's Guide to Coveting Thy Neighbor's Spouse. How does one miss an entire chapter in a book you're writing about publicly?
I'm not familiar with Ms. McArdle's work, but if she's got a gig at The Atlantic, which is one of the most respected magazines in the country, presumably this is far below her usual intellectual standard.
Wonderful as it would be if Ms. McArdle's opinion of our book were to change when/if she gets around to actually reading it, I'm not holding my breath because I don't think she's responding to the substance of the book at all; she's responding to what it makes her feel, which is something entirely different.
The rest of Sex At Dawn co-author Christopher Ryan's response—including the table comparing humans to bonobos—is here.
1
I love the table comparing humans and bonobos but I was also curious about the genetics. People like McArdle give away their anti-evolution agenda when they ignore the facts.
2
Frankly, Ms. McArdle's reaction is unsurprising. There's so many people who, out of social conditioning, will reject many of the theories and conclusions the book has made. I've tried to get some friends to read the book and the concept alone makes some of them cringe. This is going to be an uphill battle, Dan & Christopher.
4
To provide an example, here's a takedown of McArdle's jaw-droppingly awful attack on Elizabeth Warren. Facts? What facts?
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/2…
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/2…
5
and another example of McArdle's intellectual standard can be found here:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/08/16/a-…
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/08/16/a-…
7
Megan McArdle is horrible and it's a shame she occupies a senior position at The Atlantic (she's the Business Editor). Every one of her columns is a right-wing libertarian contrarian hack job that doesn't even pretend to take whatever she decides to attack that day seriously.
Check out this amazing piece she tossed off recently on music downloading and see if you can find a point or a clue that she has any understanding of the modern music industry, other than a thinly veiled contempt for "kids these days": http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch…
Check out this amazing piece she tossed off recently on music downloading and see if you can find a point or a clue that she has any understanding of the modern music industry, other than a thinly veiled contempt for "kids these days": http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch…
8
Well, at least the authors actually address McCardle's arguments rather than attacking her personally like commenters 1-3, or attacking a straw man argument that she never made, as Dan did previously.
Setting aside bonobos, chimps, and the ever-monogamous orangutans for a moment, the conclusion that monogamy isn't natural is inconsistent with the behavior of large numbers of human beings. Monogamy is perfectly natural for nearly every happily married woman in my demographic, and a good portion of the men as well. These folks may struggle with various marital issues, but they aren't struggling not to fuck other people. They're just conditioned by culture, you say? Perhaps, but please tell me when in human history that people were not conditioned by culture.
Listening to Dan deny these people's existence (which is very strange, since he literally lives among them), I can imagine what it feels like to be gay and listen to some Christian asshole tell you that your sexual orientation is unnatural and can be unlearned.
Setting aside bonobos, chimps, and the ever-monogamous orangutans for a moment, the conclusion that monogamy isn't natural is inconsistent with the behavior of large numbers of human beings. Monogamy is perfectly natural for nearly every happily married woman in my demographic, and a good portion of the men as well. These folks may struggle with various marital issues, but they aren't struggling not to fuck other people. They're just conditioned by culture, you say? Perhaps, but please tell me when in human history that people were not conditioned by culture.
Listening to Dan deny these people's existence (which is very strange, since he literally lives among them), I can imagine what it feels like to be gay and listen to some Christian asshole tell you that your sexual orientation is unnatural and can be unlearned.
9
Yes, she shoulda' read the whole thing before panning it, but I have to actually agree with McArdle on this one (a rarity!). I thought the book was bogus as well. It really doesn't prove anything. It just points out that humans and bonobos share some similarities when it comes to sexual behavior (ooh, humans and bonobos both looking into their partner's eyes during sex, how amazing!). This all makes for some interesting conversation and perhaps an even more interesting nature documentary, but it doesn't lead to any firm conclusions.
Not to be all snooty, but to me, the book reads like another mass-produced work of pop-science fluff, marketed to the masses like its the next Origin of the Species. I get the idea that the authors seized upon a few scientific observations as a way to score some major royalty checks. Seems like one of these books comes out about every month, only to be forgotten by the next month.
The fact that McArdle and I and plenty of others thought the book was pretty much bunk doesn't mean we're anti-evolutionists or a bunch of repressed, narrow-minded sexophobes. The fact that so many supporters of the book seem to think that about her says more about them and their need to believe this stuff than it does her.
Not to be all snooty, but to me, the book reads like another mass-produced work of pop-science fluff, marketed to the masses like its the next Origin of the Species. I get the idea that the authors seized upon a few scientific observations as a way to score some major royalty checks. Seems like one of these books comes out about every month, only to be forgotten by the next month.
The fact that McArdle and I and plenty of others thought the book was pretty much bunk doesn't mean we're anti-evolutionists or a bunch of repressed, narrow-minded sexophobes. The fact that so many supporters of the book seem to think that about her says more about them and their need to believe this stuff than it does her.
12
I'm currently reading the book (after hearing about it on Slog), and it's a fantastic breath of fresh air in a room that reeks of bullshit. My wife read it before me and I've reccomended it to numerous friends, all of whom are intrigued and plan on getting copies of their own. Thank you for writing it, thank you for keeping it on Slog, and McArdle gets a yawn from me.
13
This issue and book Dan insists on bringing up looks so much like the Teabaggers who just repeat things they've been told, along with spurious character attacks. Thinking needed? No. Knee jerk reactions galore....
Monogamy is as "natural" as non-monogamy. And that book is NOT science no matter how often you say it is.
Monogamy is as "natural" as non-monogamy. And that book is NOT science no matter how often you say it is.
14
I haven't read the book yet and don't know whether I will, but every time I hear about some woman's boyfriend or husband murdering her kids that aren't biologically his, I become convinced we're pure chimpanzee.
In any case, glad to see the author call McArdle out on the bonobo bit, that's the point where I decided her logic was faulty and stopped reading her review.
In any case, glad to see the author call McArdle out on the bonobo bit, that's the point where I decided her logic was faulty and stopped reading her review.
15
Dan, I know you're excited to find something that looks like scientific evidence to support the knowledge you've acquired through observation. I happen to agree with you that there doesn't seem to be anything "natural" about monogamy. But you are misreading this article, or at least you're giving voice to the authors' misreading of it (and of course, they have everything to gain from the controversy!).
McArdle is not so much rejecting the book's theories and conclusions, she's pointing out its lack of scientific rigor. She addresses a lot of this stuff in the comments to her piece, where she makes it clear that she has no problem with polyamory:
Again, she is not objecting to the book's conclusions, but to the value of its contribution to the debate.
Also in the comments, McArdle acknowledges the chapter on jealousy (I think she should have included this in the piece itself):
I'm not saying McArdle's article was great, but I do think the authors of SAD sound a little desperate when they claim that she's not responding to the substance of the book but "what it makes her feel." I don't see any evidence of that at all.
More...
McArdle is not so much rejecting the book's theories and conclusions, she's pointing out its lack of scientific rigor. She addresses a lot of this stuff in the comments to her piece, where she makes it clear that she has no problem with polyamory:
I don't know how you took this as a critique of polyamory; I am myself in a monogamous relationship, but if it works for you, I'm glad. This is a critique of a specific way of supporting polyamory as a "natural" behavior based on not-very-convincing analyses of bonobos.
I said that knowing something is "natural" doesn't tell you anything about it [...] That doesn't mean that we shouldn't adjust to polyamory (I think we should, actually). It merely tells you that arguments about the relative naturalness or not don't actually add much to that debate.
If all you want to say is that human institutions need to acknowledge the human instinct to stray, then this book doesn't add much; the notion that humans like to have sex with more than one person is well explored in both the standard ev psych model, and vast swathes of other writing on human society, fiction and non.
Again, she is not objecting to the book's conclusions, but to the value of its contribution to the debate.
Also in the comments, McArdle acknowledges the chapter on jealousy (I think she should have included this in the piece itself):
The chapter is terrible; it consists of saying "If parents can pretend to love siblings equally, why doesn't that work for sexual partners?" In fact, parents don't usually manage to conceal their favoritism, and there is enormous competition between siblings as a result. This is not a serious treatment. Nor does the chapter refute the notion of sexual jealousy as a universal; it simply posits that some societies have managed very stringent social mores to control it. Indeed, the fact that they emphasize these social mores implies that jealousy is a universal, hard-to-deal-with force.
I'm not saying McArdle's article was great, but I do think the authors of SAD sound a little desperate when they claim that she's not responding to the substance of the book but "what it makes her feel." I don't see any evidence of that at all.
16
The book is a theory. It is very interesting theory. It is not telling any single person that what they are doing is wrong or unnatural. If you like your monogamy and find it easy, more power to you, but the book is saying is that for the MAJORITY it is not easy - not impossible, not wrong, just not easy. Dan is saying the same thing. You guys take this stuff WAY to personally.
17
The fact that there are monogamous people in the world (at least, a lot who SAY they are) doesn't mean that there may be evolutionary history behind human sexual IMPULSES. Our civilized, cultured minds have found creative ways to fulfill those impulses at a symbolic level, but they have never been able to dismiss them.
Sure, men may not truly act on that 'harem' impulse, but those urges are still very much present - they've just found more practical ways to blow off steam, like fantasizing about women on the street or looking through a porn site and wacking off (a 'virtual' harem). It gets it out of your system without having to be totally horrible to your wife. Or, you can marry multiple wives. Or, you can fuck around on the side. I don't think there are many men in the world who haven't taken one of these approaches.
And sure, women may not solely base their selection of a mate based on his ability to provide long-term, but somehow they remain impressed by characteristics of the same behavior. To this very day, a lot of women find promiscuous guys kinda hot but would never settle down with one (the old 'cads and dads' behavior). Is it really because they are only worried about STDs? Or is it a little more visceral than that?
As far as bonobos go - the only thing there existence proves is that human sexual behavior, as erratic and senseless and non-reproductive as it can be, COULD be something we inherited and not an entirely social construct. After all, it occurs in the natural state of this non-human animal. I suppose you could argue that bonobos have social constructs, but then you can't turn around and then say that bonobos are profoundly different from humans, can you?
Sure, men may not truly act on that 'harem' impulse, but those urges are still very much present - they've just found more practical ways to blow off steam, like fantasizing about women on the street or looking through a porn site and wacking off (a 'virtual' harem). It gets it out of your system without having to be totally horrible to your wife. Or, you can marry multiple wives. Or, you can fuck around on the side. I don't think there are many men in the world who haven't taken one of these approaches.
And sure, women may not solely base their selection of a mate based on his ability to provide long-term, but somehow they remain impressed by characteristics of the same behavior. To this very day, a lot of women find promiscuous guys kinda hot but would never settle down with one (the old 'cads and dads' behavior). Is it really because they are only worried about STDs? Or is it a little more visceral than that?
As far as bonobos go - the only thing there existence proves is that human sexual behavior, as erratic and senseless and non-reproductive as it can be, COULD be something we inherited and not an entirely social construct. After all, it occurs in the natural state of this non-human animal. I suppose you could argue that bonobos have social constructs, but then you can't turn around and then say that bonobos are profoundly different from humans, can you?
18
Just a couple of facts for those who think monogamy is natural to humans. Men produce sperm daily all year. Women produce on pregnancy every nine months. And men produce viable sperm many years longer than women produce eggs.
19
We didn't "inherit" anything from chimps or bonobos. Humans may have a common ancestor with these animals, which may explain why we seem so similar. It could be that humans are so much more successful as a species because we got the best of both worlds: the violent, tribal tendencies AND a predilection for relying on fucking each other like crazy to keep from killing each other on sight.
20
Haven't read the book, but after having spent my entire 34 years of life living with multiple dogs (and perhaps the past 25 actively training them), I can assure you that jealousy is not unique to humans. It's an outgrowth of the primal territorial urge to safeguard one's territory or resources (including sources of love/affection/pleasure). I don't think this is a particularly complex concept...
21
The book does kinda read a lot like an undergraduate thesis. It could have been a fifth as long and five times more persuasive if he had just presented the evidence for his argument and let the reader form their own opinion.
22
@10: Cool. Just read your comment @9, and it's spot on.
I'm actually a psychology PhD (research, not clinical), so this stuff hits close to home. I went through an evolutionary psychology phase way back in college, having been swept up by the illusions of scientific understanding and insight it gives the reader. A few books and classes later, it became obvious that evolutionary psychology is mostly a big Rorschach test with people projecting their pet theories onto ambiguous data, while those who share their pet theories cheer them on.
Perhaps the most telling example is how the field has treated homosexuality. Back before the gays were fashionable, evolutionary psychologists argued that being gay was, like impotence or cerebral palsy, maladaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, since gays are less likely to pass on their genes (boo!). Once gay became cool, it was argued that gays were adaptive because they helped raise their nephews and nieces (hooray!). Meanwhile, the data that might confirm or disconfirm either theory does not exist. In fact, it's hard to imagine what such data might possibly look like. I can say for sure, however, that it does not look like bonobos.
I'm actually a psychology PhD (research, not clinical), so this stuff hits close to home. I went through an evolutionary psychology phase way back in college, having been swept up by the illusions of scientific understanding and insight it gives the reader. A few books and classes later, it became obvious that evolutionary psychology is mostly a big Rorschach test with people projecting their pet theories onto ambiguous data, while those who share their pet theories cheer them on.
Perhaps the most telling example is how the field has treated homosexuality. Back before the gays were fashionable, evolutionary psychologists argued that being gay was, like impotence or cerebral palsy, maladaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, since gays are less likely to pass on their genes (boo!). Once gay became cool, it was argued that gays were adaptive because they helped raise their nephews and nieces (hooray!). Meanwhile, the data that might confirm or disconfirm either theory does not exist. In fact, it's hard to imagine what such data might possibly look like. I can say for sure, however, that it does not look like bonobos.
23
One of the problems with the "hey, we're just like bonobos!" idea is that we don't really know anything about bonobos. The major work on them was done by a guy who has literally never seen a bonobo in the wild, and the research on bonobos in the wild is just barely getting started. So all this "looking each other in the eyes" business is, possibly, not even true, let alone indicative of anything.
And we're not bonobos, just as we're not chimps or gorillas. An incredibly various range of sexual behavior is observable in all sorts of animals, with many very closely related species behaving quite differently. You should look into the freaky bowerbirds some time (especially the next time you see somebody's elaborately landscaped yard).
And we're not bonobos, just as we're not chimps or gorillas. An incredibly various range of sexual behavior is observable in all sorts of animals, with many very closely related species behaving quite differently. You should look into the freaky bowerbirds some time (especially the next time you see somebody's elaborately landscaped yard).
25
@22 "A few books and classes later, it became obvious that evolutionary psychology is mostly a big Rorschach test with people projecting their pet theories onto ambiguous data, while those who share their pet theories cheer them on."
Replace biology with psychology and you're me. The more I learned about evolution and genetics, the more evolutionary psychology looked like bullshit.
I don't criticize this book because of hatred of polyamory or fear that it will de-legitimize monogamous relationships. I criticize it because it's bad science. If people want to educate themselves on these matters, more power to them. But they need to do it with a critical mind, an understanding of how evolution works, and with the willingness to leave their personal baggage at the door. This book doesn't promote any of those things.
There's nothing wrong with being polyamorus, but stop abusing science to try to support it.
Replace biology with psychology and you're me. The more I learned about evolution and genetics, the more evolutionary psychology looked like bullshit.
I don't criticize this book because of hatred of polyamory or fear that it will de-legitimize monogamous relationships. I criticize it because it's bad science. If people want to educate themselves on these matters, more power to them. But they need to do it with a critical mind, an understanding of how evolution works, and with the willingness to leave their personal baggage at the door. This book doesn't promote any of those things.
There's nothing wrong with being polyamorus, but stop abusing science to try to support it.
26
Evolutionary psychology is not science. It's a really poorly drawn analogy, at best. I'm all for non-monogamy, but not because bonobos do it. There is in fact a large range of sexual and mating patterns amongst primates alone... and so many differences between humans and the monkeys... and, most importantly, absolutely no way to verify which traits are "natural" and which traits are learned and which traits we simply evolved out of. Our societies, language, and brain power are so much more complex that to compare our interactions on a 1:1 scale with bonobos seems irresponsible. And completely unverifiable. I can't stress that enough.
27
@18: Vince, if you are saying that men really really really like to fuck, you'll get no argument from me.
I'll just point out that for many straight guys, a long term monogamous relationship will get them laid with much more frequency (and much better quality) then would daily visits to the meat market.
I'll just point out that for many straight guys, a long term monogamous relationship will get them laid with much more frequency (and much better quality) then would daily visits to the meat market.
28
@23: Bowerbirds are fascinating! Here are some photos from National Geographic if anyone who wants to take a look:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/0…
The one with the pink paperclip won my heart.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/0…
The one with the pink paperclip won my heart.
31
@26 x2. evolutionary psychology is not science. it starts at a conclusion and back-fills with whatever evidence suits it. you don't need to read and ev psych book to know it's bullshit.
32
- "It reads like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis" - check
- "cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory," - check
- "don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory." - check
I don't understand the controversy. Sounds like
a sober assessment of McMegan's work.
Oh, wait. . .
- "cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory," - check
- "don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory." - check
I don't understand the controversy. Sounds like
a sober assessment of McMegan's work.
Oh, wait. . .
33
Djeph is correct, this is pretty much par for the course regarding McArdle. I really don't understand how she got a job writing at the Atlantic; surely there are better young libertarian writers out there.
I seem to recall her writing a particularly absurd anti-Krugman spiel at one point...
I seem to recall her writing a particularly absurd anti-Krugman spiel at one point...
34
@23, you have no idea what you're talking about. Frans de Waal is one of the premier bonobo researchers. He's spent decades with them in Holland, San Diego, and now Atlanta, where he head the Yerkes Primate Center. There are teams of primatologists who have been in Congo for decades observing bonobos in the wild. Get a clue, man.
@26 agreed on evolutionary psychology. Our book is a critique of a lot of the mainstream EP you've probably read. I'm not saying you'd necessarily like our book, but if you're thinking Pinker, Buss, Fisher, and that crowd, you'll find that we don't shy from criticizing their methodology and, as you say, back-filled reasoning process.
@26 agreed on evolutionary psychology. Our book is a critique of a lot of the mainstream EP you've probably read. I'm not saying you'd necessarily like our book, but if you're thinking Pinker, Buss, Fisher, and that crowd, you'll find that we don't shy from criticizing their methodology and, as you say, back-filled reasoning process.
35
@34, I assume you've read http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/…
De Waal has never seen a wild bonobo. That's a simple fact. If you were from Mars would you accept an anthropology of humans based only on what was observed in Folsom Prison?
The teams of primatologists in DR Congo weren't there during the war -- the worst war on earth since WWII, more killed than Vietnam. There was no observation going on then. And much of Congo is still completely off-limits to white people, or even most Congolese; a million displaced soldiers, cannibals, and assorted murders are still at large there, to say nothing of the non-human threats. And most bonobo "observers" rarely see the animals. So, yeah, some observation, here and there, but hardly comparable to other species like chimps. It's very difficult work, just begun.
I note that not all bonobo observers agree with de Waal's more extravagant claims. In fact, the ones who actually observe the animals in the wild report quite a different story -- very little sex, and almost entirely among adolescents, for instance.
Gottfried Hohmann is quoted in that article as saying "No, Frans, you should go to Lomako or Lui Kotal, and watch bonobos, and then you’d know better" and "This big picture of the bonobo is a puzzle, with a few pieces filled, and these big white patches." Gottfried Hohmann knows more about bonobos than you, me, and a dozen de Waals put together.
De Waal has never seen a wild bonobo. That's a simple fact. If you were from Mars would you accept an anthropology of humans based only on what was observed in Folsom Prison?
The teams of primatologists in DR Congo weren't there during the war -- the worst war on earth since WWII, more killed than Vietnam. There was no observation going on then. And much of Congo is still completely off-limits to white people, or even most Congolese; a million displaced soldiers, cannibals, and assorted murders are still at large there, to say nothing of the non-human threats. And most bonobo "observers" rarely see the animals. So, yeah, some observation, here and there, but hardly comparable to other species like chimps. It's very difficult work, just begun.
I note that not all bonobo observers agree with de Waal's more extravagant claims. In fact, the ones who actually observe the animals in the wild report quite a different story -- very little sex, and almost entirely among adolescents, for instance.
Gottfried Hohmann is quoted in that article as saying "No, Frans, you should go to Lomako or Lui Kotal, and watch bonobos, and then you’d know better" and "This big picture of the bonobo is a puzzle, with a few pieces filled, and these big white patches." Gottfried Hohmann knows more about bonobos than you, me, and a dozen de Waals put together.
36
@ 26 Some of it is, some of it isn't. Since it's an empirical fact that the human mind is as much a product of evolutionary pressures as our bodies and physiology, there's nothing unscientific about trying to make arguments about that evolutionary history. Granted evolutionary psych hasn't reached the same stage of knowledge and certainty as other elements of evolutionary biology, but every science has to start somewhere. What would be really unscientific is assuming that the human mind is somehow too mysterious or ineffable to be subject to scientific inquiry.
Anyway, arguments like McArdle's that go "people are jealous, so non-monogamy can't be real" make me laugh. I'm a woman who doesn't get jealous, and finds it hot when my boyfriend sleeps with other women. So I guess I've disproven McArdle's theory just by existing. And what about the male cuckold fetishists that write in to Dan all the time?
Anyway, arguments like McArdle's that go "people are jealous, so non-monogamy can't be real" make me laugh. I'm a woman who doesn't get jealous, and finds it hot when my boyfriend sleeps with other women. So I guess I've disproven McArdle's theory just by existing. And what about the male cuckold fetishists that write in to Dan all the time?
37
I'm reading Sex at Dawn currently and its pretty interesting and thought provoking. I can see where that might upset a fundi. You know how they hate to have their thoughts provoked.
38
Anyway, arguments like McArdle's that go "people are jealous, so non-monogamy can't be real" make me laugh.
From the article:
Lifetime monogamy may not be the evolved human template. But I'm pretty sure that carefree polyamory isn't either.
Not sure how you go from "not the evolved human template" to "not real"?
You (& @37) might want to check out the Scientific American column she links to re: jealousy. It's by (gasp!) an ev psychologist who's also (gasp!) a gay man, and (gasp!) he disagrees with Dan. Can you handle having your thoughts provoked that much?
39
@36 -- I'm pretty sure you are operating under a misunderstanding of what "science" means. I'm not trying to be a dick, but statements like "there's nothing unscientific about trying to make arguments about that evolutionary history" suggest a significant ignorance that "science" generally refers to a specific, rigorous methodology. Simply making arguments (about anything) is the realm of philosophy, not science.
Here's a quiz. Which is more scientific? 1) "The brain is complicated and can only be figured out through scientific inquiry." 2) "The brain is complicated and can only be known through God."
The answer: Neither. They're both just statements, silly, not evidence.
Here's a quiz. Which is more scientific? 1) "The brain is complicated and can only be figured out through scientific inquiry." 2) "The brain is complicated and can only be known through God."
The answer: Neither. They're both just statements, silly, not evidence.
40
@34 - I have nothing against your book, to be sure. I'm just one gal in the world and make no bones about my ability to choose what the mass public should have access to. Your book exists in a realm full of books that provide supporting, opposing, and alternate theories. Dan, on the other hand, is delivering this to people as the only "scientific" discussion. Some of his readers are educated, well-read, and knowledgeable in psychology and biology. Many are not, and I feel a disservice is done when only one viewpoint is heralded as the truth. Particularly a viewpoint that so many of his educated, well-read, knowledgeable readers disagree with.
41
Dan, I love you, your column, and your podcast. But I'm reading Sex at Dawn -- because you suggested it -- and speaking as an academic, I'm not impressed. I'm having a hard time even finishing it, because on every single page there's an unsupported assertion, straw-man argument, or cherry-picked example that makes me want to throw it at the wall.
If you're looking for scientific support for your anti-monogamy position, you can find it in the *traditional* account in evolutionary psychology -- the one that Sex at Dawn tries so hard to debunk. The traditional account does not say that monogamy is easy. On the contrary, the traditional account says that cheating (in the sense of straying from monogamous relationships) is to be expected for evolutionary reasons. It is, as you say so often on your show, perfectly natural for people to want to have sex with people other than their primary partner.
Of course, it's also perfectly natural for people to get jealous. There are good evolutionary reasons for that, as well. It may seem hypocritical to be a jealous cheater, but natural selection does not breed for consistency -- it breeds for reproductive advantage. When the authors of "Sex at Dawn" say their story is more parsimonious, what they mean is that it paints a simple picture of human psychology that requires no hypocrisy. But we are hypocritical, so their explanation doesn't fit with the messy psychological reality. And that's an insight that will actually help your advice-giving career. People make a lot more sense when you understand their built-in contradictions.
When you're giving people advice on sex and relationships, you have a very critical eye. You should cast that same critical eye on the books you're pimping.
If you're looking for scientific support for your anti-monogamy position, you can find it in the *traditional* account in evolutionary psychology -- the one that Sex at Dawn tries so hard to debunk. The traditional account does not say that monogamy is easy. On the contrary, the traditional account says that cheating (in the sense of straying from monogamous relationships) is to be expected for evolutionary reasons. It is, as you say so often on your show, perfectly natural for people to want to have sex with people other than their primary partner.
Of course, it's also perfectly natural for people to get jealous. There are good evolutionary reasons for that, as well. It may seem hypocritical to be a jealous cheater, but natural selection does not breed for consistency -- it breeds for reproductive advantage. When the authors of "Sex at Dawn" say their story is more parsimonious, what they mean is that it paints a simple picture of human psychology that requires no hypocrisy. But we are hypocritical, so their explanation doesn't fit with the messy psychological reality. And that's an insight that will actually help your advice-giving career. People make a lot more sense when you understand their built-in contradictions.
When you're giving people advice on sex and relationships, you have a very critical eye. You should cast that same critical eye on the books you're pimping.
42
@35 Brings up a misleading article by a journalist, Ian Parker, who spent three days in Africa to see a few bonobos hanging out in a tree eating food and then published thirteen well-crafted pages about this experience in The New Yorker. His piece was based on the premise that bonobos must be more like chimpanzees than we think.
For an antidote to this article, see below a) my direct reply in Skeptic, and b) a careful analysis by Eric M. Johnson of what Hohmann, the fieldworker cited by Parker, really thinks, which is not so different from the standard view of bonobos as remarkably sexy and peaceful.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-08…
http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2…
In fact, most of the claims about bonobos have remained unchanged over the last two decades, and it is only now that the DRC is opening up again so that we can expect new findings. The species remains inconvenient for some, especially those who like our ancestors to be aggressive and domineering, but there is only one scientist who has extensively studied *both* bonobos and chimpanzees in the field: Takeshi Furuichi has typified bonobos by saying “with bonobos everything is peaceful. When I see bonobos they seem to be enjoying their lives."
-- Frans de Waal
For an antidote to this article, see below a) my direct reply in Skeptic, and b) a careful analysis by Eric M. Johnson of what Hohmann, the fieldworker cited by Parker, really thinks, which is not so different from the standard view of bonobos as remarkably sexy and peaceful.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-08…
http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2…
In fact, most of the claims about bonobos have remained unchanged over the last two decades, and it is only now that the DRC is opening up again so that we can expect new findings. The species remains inconvenient for some, especially those who like our ancestors to be aggressive and domineering, but there is only one scientist who has extensively studied *both* bonobos and chimpanzees in the field: Takeshi Furuichi has typified bonobos by saying “with bonobos everything is peaceful. When I see bonobos they seem to be enjoying their lives."
-- Frans de Waal
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS