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

Re: [evol-psych] Margaret Mead, as near to a fraud as is possible

Expand Messages
  • Steve Moxon
    No. That s not the case. It is accurate to say that it s duration in essence is only about four years -- assuming Helen Fisher s long years of research have
    Message 1 of 40 , Nov 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      No. That's not the case.
      It is accurate to say that "it's duration in essence is only about four years" -- assuming Helen Fisher's long years of research have provided her with the right conclusion.
      The four year period -- long enough to raise a child through infancy (as Helen states the function to be), or long enough to conceive a second child after the birth and lactation of the first (as I posit the function to be) -- is the adaptive essence of the pair-bond, and why I used the construction "in essence".
      Of course there are other factors that may either extend the adaptation of the pair-bond to morph into 'liminal' love, and/or to reinforce it throughout; but this is not the stuff of the pair-bond in essence.
      And of course even the core adaptation will manifest to an extent as an average duration rather than a rigid four years.
      It's important to understand this because the theories to explain the pair-bond have all been found wanting, and we need to be clear what we're talking about.
      Chris Ryan's theory of the non-universality of the pair-bond is a hazy one in that he's conceded a problem re the definition of the pair-bond in terms of its dursation, but he's not conceded that Helen Fisher is right.
      It maybe that in his book he is going to take Helen Fisher to task, but he's given not even a hint of argument against her position thus far.
      Helen and Chris' positions can be mutually accommodated if Chris modifies his claim re non-universality.
      Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; and 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses 73.].
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:58 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Margaret Mead, as near to a fraud as is possible


      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:01 AM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Margaret Mead, as near to a fraud as is possible

      "With due respect to Chris Ryan, he needs to concede Helen Fisher's conclusion that the pair-bond IS universal, but that it's duration in essence is only about four years."
      This is not correct.  The pair bond has a genetic component that falls away four years after the birth of the youngest child.  The decline is not dramatic but statistically we can see there is a spike in the divorce rate at that time.
      Pair bonds continue for reasons other than genetic predisposition such as for economic reasons, friendship, mutual parenting, convenience and so on.  Friendship bonds can easily be life long and most people have at least some close life-long friendships, but not all couples have this extra dimension to their relationship.

    • Steve Moxon
      Hi Helga Well, I don t see why there can t be input from conscious consideration; that s not control : I wasn t arguing re conscious control . Then again, we
      Message 40 of 40 , Dec 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Helga

        Well, I don't see why there can't be input from conscious consideration;
        that's not 'control': I wasn't arguing re conscious 'control'. Then again,
        we can decide to set aside the whole process and get on with our lives in
        other ways; so we can consciously chose to 'control' the whole process
        overall by vetoing it.

        You're not understanding the sex-difference re the qualities that the sexes
        respectively are attracted to. Those with considerable insight into 'love'
        have pointed out the distinction beteen 'falling in love' and 'falling in

        Of course what sets it in motion is puzzling to us, because the mechanisms
        for applying sexual-attraction criteria are non-conscious.

        And yes, focused sexual-attraction cannot but be what we're discussing


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Helga Vierich-Drever" <helgav@...>
        To: "Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3@...>
        Cc: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 5:24 PM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Margaret Mead, as near to a fraud as is

        > It was the falling in love that I was referring to as not under conscious
        > control. It is a very powerful drive - an obsessive one, akin to
        > addiction. And I do not agree that it would be about respect in one sex
        > and love in the other. I think the exact qualities that set this blasted
        > drive in motion are still sometimes puzzling even to the participants,
        > but one thing that is clear is that focussed sexual attraction is at the
        > bottom of it every time. regards, Helga
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.