Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Evolutionary benefit of schizophrenia?

Expand Messages
  • Joao Sousa
    Pierre, ... Our thread was about schizophrenia, which is clearly maladaptive. Homosexuality is not obviously so; the only behaviour of modern male homosexuals
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Pierre,

      >Many have looked at homosexuality and considered it to be a major riddle
      >in evolution: it should
      >have died out! And something similar is also being said about
      >schizophrenia! Well, maybe the
      >problem is related to our likely gross lack of understanding related to
      >the human categories in
      >question, and even about their 'kinship'!
      >
      >Maybe many on the list should have taken Frank Mucarella's work on male
      >homosexuality seriously,
      >and especially his suggestion that the modern/present male homosexuality
      >'entity' being talked
      >about in evolutionary discourses - a very recent invention: male
      >homosexuality of the socially
      >constructed "gay" identity kind - is NOT the male homosexuality that has
      >existed historically...
      >that is a homosexuality that may also have been the rule for males (as I
      >experienced growing up).

      Our thread was about schizophrenia, which is clearly maladaptive.
      Homosexuality is not obviously so; the only behaviour of modern male
      homosexuals which is clearly and tremendously maladaptive is the absence of
      heterosexuality seen in plenty of them. I agree with you that the "gay
      identity" and modern gay behaviours are very detached from historical
      homosexuality. I don't agree when you say that it was a rule for all males,
      at least in most societies it wasn't. My educated guess is as follows:
      homosexuals were a minority in the past, as they are today, but they simply
      had as much heterosexual relations, and thus fathered as much children, as
      the average male, and so there is not a (great) evolutionary paradox in
      homosexuality. Another hypothesis is that they had lower reproductive
      success than average males, but this was compensated by extra fitness of
      female possessors of the underlying genes - and there is actually evidence.
      Also, the X chromossome is a good candidate to harbor genes of this kind:
      genes that benefit females and have a small detriment in males, and there
      is evidence that male homosexuality runs in the maternal lineages.
    • Pierre Tremblay
      Hi Joao! ... should ... seriously, ... historically... that is a homosexuality that may also have been the rule for males (as I experienced growing up). ...
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Joao!

        .....

        --- Joao Sousa <j.d.sousa@...> wrote:
        > Pierre,
        >
        > >Many have looked at homosexuality and considered it to be a major riddle in evolution: it
        should
        > >have died out! And something similar is also being said about schizophrenia! Well, maybe the
        > >problem is related to our likely gross lack of understanding related to the human categories in
        > >question, and even about their 'kinship'!
        > >
        > >Maybe many on the list should have taken Frank Mucarella's work on male homosexuality
        seriously,
        > >and especially his suggestion that the modern/present male homosexuality 'entity' being talked
        > >about in evolutionary discourses - a very recent invention: male homosexuality of the socially
        > >constructed "gay" identity kind - is NOT the male homosexuality that has existed
        historically... that is a homosexuality that may also have been the rule for males (as I
        experienced growing up).
        >
        > Our thread was about schizophrenia, which is clearly maladaptive.
        > Homosexuality is not obviously so;

        *** Not for some: e.g. "Maternal inheritance, sexual conflict and the maladapted male" by Jeanne
        A. Zeh and David W. Zeh - TRENDS in Genetics Vol.21 No.5 May 2005 - available at Sciencedirect.com
        but also here: http://unr.edu/homepage/zehd/courses/bio191/ZehTIG.pdf

        From Abstract: "..for the relatively high frequency in males of such apparently maladaptive traits
        as infertility, homosexuality and baldness."

        > the only behaviour of modern male homosexuals which is clearly and tremendously maladaptive is
        the absence of heterosexuality seen in plenty of them. I agree with you that the "gay identity"
        and modern gay behaviours are very detached from historical homosexuality. I don't agree when you
        say that it was a rule for all males, at least in most societies it wasn't.

        *** what many have said when looking at homosexuality historically or crossculturally... is that
        we are talking about bisexuality... which was also what Mucarella postulated... and also what I
        experienced while growing up, the great majority of us being homosexually active.

        > My educated guess is as follows: homosexuals were a minority in the past, as they are today,
        but they simply had as much heterosexual relations, and thus fathered as much children, as the
        average male, and so there is not a (great) evolutionary paradox in homosexuality.

        *** Note the problem here... you beginning by postulating that "homosexuals" existed in our
        evolutionary past. If you were looking at male homosexuality in Ancient Greece, what would be the
        most common form of homosexuality to be observed? How about in the Sambia tribe that Gilbert Herdt
        and others studied (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/1812.html)? I hope you can see that to talk
        about male homosexuality from the perspective of what had NOT been the norm for male homosexuality
        - but the exception - can be problematic. Also meaning that what has been "the norm for male
        homosexuality" is being ignored and also erased from consciousness - or from consideration....
        maybe because many have a great investment in erasing the possibility that we may be all bisexual,
        at least in terms of potential.

        > Another hypothesis is that they had lower reproductive success than average males, but this was
        compensated by extra fitness of female possessors of the underlying genes - and there is actually
        evidence. Also, the X chromossome is a good candidate to harbor genes of this kind: genes that
        benefit females and have a small detriment in males, and there is evidence that male homosexuality
        runs in the maternal lineages.
        >
        *** Notice again that you are speaking to the male anomaly with respect to male homosexuality. The
        100% male homosexual activity does not affect reproductive success. Ditto in any culture where
        male homosexualy would have been a majority practice highly enjoyed... that could have many forms.
        I and the majority of males where I grew up experienced the male bonding form. In Ancient Greece,
        another form existed, even often including romantic love responses. And still other forms of 100%
        homosexuality were documented in Melanesia tribes. Conclusion from the evidence... Maybe all males
        are genetically predisposed to enjoy relating sexually with other males... and this is likely what
        we should be studying to understand male homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.

        But doing this would prove "very problematic" given the present western social construction of
        male homosexuality... Many have noted that the present minority form of male homosexuality in the
        west - often denoted by the words "gay" or "homosexual" - is a minority form of male homosexuality
        on this planet, even at this time. However, "gay" is the form of male homosexuality being studied
        the west and it is also being projected back into our evolutionary past. Muscarella criticized
        these 'scientific' highly flawed perceptions as likely producing fruitless "understanding"
        outcomes. I would say more like producing: "Ridiculous So-Stories!"

        As I have stated before on this list in other words, the day will likely come when almost all in
        evolutionary psychology who have spoken about male homosexuality from an evolutionary
        perspective... will be responded to with side-splitting laughter... with the recognition that
        almost all of it was 'politically' motivated, as also was the "mental disorder" for male reporting
        to be sexually desiring of other males... only 40 year before by all who claimed to be 'experts'
        on homosexuality. Maybe, we have continued to be totally wrong about male homosexuality. :-) Just
        food for though given that humans have proven themselves notorious for not learning anything from
        their history.... as a homosexually oriented philosopher is often credited for having noted.

        Cheers!

        Pierre

        PS. I noted that male schizophrenic individuals in present North America were manifesting more
        homosexuality that the average male - about 20% - but males in Sri Lanka also have about the same
        incidence, and not long ago it was 100% in some Melesesian tribes. My point, however, was that
        North American schizophrenic males, although homosexually active, were not coding themselves to be
        "homosexual" or "gay", and this led be to consider them to be wiser - or more enlightened - than
        almost all 'scientists' in the west who have been studying homosexuality, including those in
        evolutionary psychology. Sadly, however, these homosexually oriented schizophrenic males are
        likely perceived to be even more sick because they are apparently not accepting the socially
        constructed pigeon holes into which the 'experts' would want to place them.


        J Homosex. 1999;37(3):1-18. The homoerotic behavior that never evolved. Muscarella F.

        Abstract: The emerging field of evolutionary psychology provides fascinating new insights into
        many salient human behaviors, but homosexual behavior is not among these. The new field
        perpetuates old stereotypes, and useful evolutionary analysis of homosexual behavior is largely
        nonexistent. In this article, the treatment of homosexual behavior in the field of evolutionary
        psychology is reviewed, and the factors contributing to this treatment are identified.
        Recommendations are made to help foster the development of alternative evolutionary models of
        homosexual behavior.

        Here is an interesting variation of male homosexuality that could lead you to ask interesting
        questions about "homosexual orientation" or even "heterosexual orientations"....

        http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Suck%20My%20Nation%20%20%20%20Masculinity,%20Ethnicity%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20(Homo)sex%20.pdf

        It is also good to detect the attitude of the author, as in: these men are not apparently like
        'normal' western gay males and they are therefore somewhat defective!

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • H.M. Hubey
        ... From http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html The doctrine of the noble savage has been undermined by a revolution in our
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment


          Pierre Tremblay wrote:

          *** Notice again that you are speaking to the male anomaly with respect to male homosexuality. The
          100% male homosexual activity does not affect reproductive success. Ditto in any culture where
          male homosexualy would have been a majority practice highly enjoyed... that could have many forms.
          I and the majority of males where I grew up experienced the male bonding form. In Ancient Greece,
          another form existed, even often including romantic love responses. And still other forms of 100%
          homosexuality were documented in Melanesia tribes. Conclusion from the evidence... Maybe all males
          are genetically predisposed to enjoy relating sexually with other males... and this is likely what
          we should be studying to understand male homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
          
          But doing this would prove "very problematic" given the present western social construction of
          male homosexuality... Many have noted that the present minority form of male homosexuality in the
          west - often denoted by the words "gay" or "homosexual" - is a minority form of male homosexuality
          on this planet, even at this time. However, "gay" is the form of male homosexuality being studied
          the west and it is also being projected back into our evolutionary past. Muscarella criticized
          these 'scientific' highly flawed perceptions as likely producing fruitless "understanding"
          outcomes. I would say more like producing: "Ridiculous So-Stories!"
          
          As I have stated before on this list in other words, the day will likely come when almost all in
          evolutionary psychology who have spoken about male homosexuality from an evolutionary
          perspective... will be responded to with side-splitting laughter... with the recognition that
          almost all of it was 'politically' motivated, as also was the "mental disorder" for male reporting
          to be sexually desiring of other males... only 40 year before by all who claimed to be 'experts'
          on homosexuality. Maybe, we have continued to be totally wrong about male homosexuality. :-) Just
          food for though given that humans have proven themselves notorious for not learning anything from
          their history.... as a homosexually oriented philosopher is often credited for having noted.
            
          From
          http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html
          The doctrine of the noble savage has been undermined by a revolution in our understanding of non-state societies. Many intellectuals believe that violence and war among hunter-gatherers is rare or ritualistic, and that the battle is called to a halt as soon as the first man falls. But studies that actually count the dead bodies have shown that the homicide rates among prehistoric peoples are orders of magnitude higher than the ones in modern societies—even taking into account the statistics from two world wars! We also have evidence that nasty traits such as psychopathy, violent tendencies, a lack of conscientiousness, and an antagonistic personality, are to a large extent heritable. And there are mechanisms in the brain, probably shared across primates, that underlie violence. All these suggest that what we don't like about ourselves can't just be blamed on the institutions of a particular society.
          ---------------------

          I am sure most people have read Pinker. It seems from above that murder is natural and organic, or
          at least, it used to be. Or maybe we should say that our natural feelings are being suppressed and
          oppressed by civilization. Maybe we should rescind the laws against murder and then we can all go
          natural and organic.

          Is this the right way to do things? Is this "moral"? Is this "ethical"? Why should we suppress
          our "nature"?








        • Ligesh
          ... I think Jay has agreed that schizophrenia-like-symptoms--voices in the head, and bizzare perception of reality--are actually adaptive. The only point of
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:18:03AM +0100, Joao Sousa wrote:
            > Our thread was about schizophrenia, which is clearly maladaptive.

            I think Jay has agreed that schizophrenia-like-symptoms--voices in the head, and bizzare perception of reality--are actually adaptive. The only point of contention is whether these symptoms have the same aetiology as pathological/clinical schizophrenia.

            --
            :: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com
          • Pierre Tremblay
            Greetings Mark! Well, to apparently be more moral , we could maybe begin to encourage the Bonobo chimps to restrict as much as possible their sexuality to
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Greetings Mark!

              Well, to apparently be more 'moral', we could maybe begin to 'encourage' the Bonobo chimps to
              restrict as much as possible their sexuality to male-female sexual intercourse only for
              reproduction... so that they become more like we and the other chimps have been when it comes to
              the murder of others and war.

              There are also good reasons why the Nazis or the American military have not liked males who
              engaged in homosexual activity. Maybe such males are very dangerous to those who have grandiose
              visions of ruling the world, or those believing that they do.

              There are, of coorse, different forms of male homosexuality....

              Cheers!

              Pierre


              --- "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:

              > From
              > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html
              > The doctrine of the noble savage has been undermined by a revolution in
              > our understanding of* *non-state societies. Many intellectuals believe
              > that violence and war among hunter-gatherers is rare or ritualistic, and
              > that the battle is called to a halt as soon as the first man falls. But
              > studies that actually count the dead bodies have shown that the homicide
              > rates among prehistoric peoples are orders of magnitude higher than the
              > ones in modern societies---even taking into account the statistics from
              > two world wars! We also have evidence that nasty traits such as
              > psychopathy, violent tendencies, a lack of conscientiousness, and an
              > antagonistic personality, are to a large extent heritable. And there are
              > mechanisms in the brain, probably shared across primates, that underlie
              > violence. All these suggest that what we don't like about ourselves
              > can't just be blamed on the institutions of a particular society.
              > ---------------------
              >
              > I am sure most people have read Pinker. It seems from above that murder
              > is natural and organic, or
              > at least, it used to be. Or maybe we should say that our natural
              > feelings are being suppressed and
              > oppressed by civilization. Maybe we should rescind the laws against
              > murder and then we can all go
              > natural and organic.
              >
              > Is this the right way to do things? Is this "moral"? Is this "ethical"?
              > Why should we suppress
              > our "nature"?
            • H.M. Hubey
              ... I think we should go further. In order to be more moral we should convince rocks not to fall down on top of people s heads.
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment


                Pierre Tremblay wrote:
                Greetings Mark!
                
                Well, to apparently be more 'moral', we could maybe begin to 'encourage' the Bonobo chimps to
                restrict as much as possible their sexuality to male-female sexual intercourse only for
                reproduction... so that they become more like we and the other chimps have been when it comes to
                the murder of others and war.
                  
                I think we should go further. In order to be more "moral" we should convince rocks not to fall down on top of people's heads.

                There are also good reasons why the Nazis or the American military have not liked males who
                engaged in homosexual activity. Maybe such males are very dangerous to those who have grandiose
                visions of ruling the world, or those believing that they do.
                
                There are, of coorse, different forms of male homosexuality....
                
                Cheers!
                
                Pierre
                
                
                --- "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:
                
                  
                Pierre Tremblay wrote:
                    
                *** Notice again that you are speaking to the male anomaly with respect to male homosexuality.
                      
                The
                    
                100% male homosexual activity does not affect reproductive success. Ditto in any culture where
                male homosexualy would have been a majority practice highly enjoyed... that could have many
                      
                forms.
                    
                I and the majority of males where I grew up experienced the male bonding form. In Ancient
                      
                Greece,
                    
                another form existed, even often including romantic love responses. And still other forms of
                      
                100%
                    
                homosexuality were documented in Melanesia tribes. Conclusion from the evidence... Maybe all
                      
                males
                    
                are genetically predisposed to enjoy relating sexually with other males... and this is likely
                      
                what
                    
                we should be studying to understand male homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
                
                But doing this would prove "very problematic" given the present western social construction of
                male homosexuality... Many have noted that the present minority form of male homosexuality in
                      
                the
                    
                west - often denoted by the words "gay" or "homosexual" - is a minority form of male
                      
                homosexuality
                    
                on this planet, even at this time. However, "gay" is the form of male homosexuality being
                      
                studied
                    
                the west and it is also being projected back into our evolutionary past. Muscarella criticized
                these 'scientific' highly flawed perceptions as likely producing fruitless "understanding"
                outcomes. I would say more like producing: "Ridiculous So-Stories!"
                
                As I have stated before on this list in other words, the day will likely come when almost all
                      
                in
                    
                evolutionary psychology who have spoken about male homosexuality from an evolutionary
                perspective... will be responded to with side-splitting laughter... with the recognition that
                almost all of it was 'politically' motivated, as also was the "mental disorder" for male
                      
                reporting
                    
                to be sexually desiring of other males... only 40 year before by all who claimed to be
                      
                'experts'
                    
                on homosexuality. Maybe, we have continued to be totally wrong about male homosexuality. :-)
                      
                Just
                    
                food for though given that humans have proven themselves notorious for not learning anything
                      
                from
                    
                their history.... as a homosexually oriented philosopher is often credited for having noted.
                  
                      
                From
                http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html
                The doctrine of the noble savage has been undermined by a revolution in 
                our understanding of* *non-state societies. Many intellectuals believe 
                that violence and war among hunter-gatherers is rare or ritualistic, and 
                that the battle is called to a halt as soon as the first man falls. But 
                studies that actually count the dead bodies have shown that the homicide 
                rates among prehistoric peoples are orders of magnitude higher than the 
                ones in modern societies---even taking into account the statistics from 
                two world wars! We also have evidence that nasty traits such as 
                psychopathy, violent tendencies, a lack of conscientiousness, and an 
                antagonistic personality, are to a large extent heritable. And there are 
                mechanisms in the brain, probably shared across primates, that underlie 
                violence. All these suggest that what we don't like about ourselves 
                can't just be blamed on the institutions of a particular society.
                ---------------------
                
                I am sure most people have read Pinker. It seems from above that murder 
                is natural and organic, or
                at least, it used to be. Or maybe we should say that our natural 
                feelings are being suppressed and
                oppressed by civilization. Maybe we should rescind the laws against 
                murder and then we can all go
                natural and organic.
                
                Is this the right way to do things? Is this "moral"? Is this "ethical"? 
                Why should we suppress
                our "nature"?
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                    
                begin:vcard
                      
                fn:H.M. Hubey
                n:Hubey;H.M.
                org:Montclair State University;Computer Science
                adr;dom:;;Normal Avenue;Upper Montclair;NJ;07043
                email;internet:Mark.Hubey@...
                title:Professor
                x-mozilla-html:TRUE
                url:http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubeyh
                version:2.1
                end:vcard
                
                
                    
                
                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
                http://mail.yahoo.com 
                  
              • H.M. Hubey
                It seems to me that this is like arguing that fever is adaptive. Fever is either a symptom of a disease or an effort to kill of bacteria that have invaded the
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  It seems to me that this is like arguing that fever is adaptive. Fever is either a symptom
                  of a disease or an effort to kill of bacteria that have invaded the body. Voices in the head
                  are most likely a healing process of a damaged brain. A part of the brain is trying to get
                  some information to another part of the brain and for some reason the normal communication
                  channels are not working, and there is no way for the brain to make this information known
                  to the conscious part of the brain except via hijacking the speech part of the brain to get
                  the message across instead of the usual instant unconscious memory response.

                  Ligesh wrote:
                  On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:18:03AM +0100, Joao Sousa wrote:
                    
                  Our thread was about schizophrenia, which is clearly maladaptive. 
                      
                   I think Jay has agreed that schizophrenia-like-symptoms--voices in the head, and bizzare perception of reality--are actually adaptive. The only point of contention is whether these symptoms have the same aetiology as pathological/clinical schizophrenia.
                  
                  --
                  :: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com 
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                   
                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                  
                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/
                  
                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      evolutionary-psychology-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  
                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                   
                  
                  
                  
                    
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.