Go back
is chess a bloke thing?

is chess a bloke thing?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

I once tried to nail a raw egg onto a tree. Why am i having so much trouble with my chess game? Maybe i should have left the egg in it's shell.

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, they're wrong. Evolution selects behaviour that benefits the reproductive success of gene carriers.
It's not that clean. The whole point is that we as organisms look for the characteristics which help perpetuate the species. And therefor our concepts of beauty, behavior, everything is geared towards that purpose, simply because those attractions which would be directed towards detrimental characteristics and behaviors would be selected against. Everything about us is about the perpetuation of the species, and our sexual instincts are probably the most complicated of all.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Even the "dumb blonde" thing is misleading. To put on the act, the blonde requires intelligence.
It doesn't matter whether she is dumb or not. It is clear that some men are attracted to girls that they believe are lacking in intelligence. This attraction is so strong that girls even go to the extent of faking a lack of intelligence to attract guys. They even change their hair colour to blond in order to feed off the fact that it is associated with poor intelligence.
This clearly contradicts your claim that guys generally look for intelligence.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
The whole point is that we as organisms look for the characteristics which help perpetuate the species. ..... Everything about us is about the perpetuation of the species, and our sexual instincts are probably the most complicated of all.
As KazetNagorra has said, it is not the species, but the individuals genes that are the focus of perpetuation. A very large proportion of sexual behaviour has to do with competition within a species and not to do with perpetuation of the species.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
It's not that clean. The whole point is that we as organisms look for the characteristics which help perpetuate the species. And therefor our concepts of beauty, behavior, everything is geared towards that purpose, simply because those attractions which would be directed towards detrimental characteristics and behaviors would be selected against. Everythin ...[text shortened]... perpetuation of the species, and our sexual instincts are probably the most complicated of all.
No, it's about perpetuating our own genes, not necessarily the species. It's an important distinction, because evolution can in fact select behaviour that is bad for the survival of the species. Xenophobia, for example, is an evolutionarily beneficial trait that is bad for the species as a whole.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, it's about perpetuating our own genes, not necessarily the species. It's an important distinction, because evolution can in fact select behaviour that is bad for the survival of the species. Xenophobia, for example, is an evolutionarily beneficial trait that is bad for the species as a whole.
Leaving aside the fact that your statement at the end is wholly rhetorical with no basis in biology whatsoever (it sounds more like you don't like xenophobia and can't imagine how it might be evolutionarily useful, which says more about you than genetics) and the fact that quite evidently evolution can select behaviour (homosexuality, celibacy, infertility, genetic conditions that kill before sexual maturity is reached, etc.) that does not favour individual reproduction, you're both wrong. (Although, because each of the above can be explained in a group dynamic, you are more wrong.) A gene - insofar as the anthropomorphism of goal-orientation applies to this, which it does not - acts to reproduce itself - extrapolation from that to a mass of genes, the abstraction of the individual or the abstraction of the species is pure narrative.

What is interesting is how biology, like its pseudo-scientific cousins economics and psychology/psychiatry, has entered the mainstream of discourse in the way it has, the value we attach to it and the way it is deployed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DrKF
Leaving aside the fact that your statement at the end is wholly rhetorical with no basis in biology whatsoever (it sounds more like you don't like xenophobia and can't imagine how it might be evolutionarily useful, which says more about you than genetics) and the fact that quite evidently evolution can select behaviour (homosexuality, celibacy, infertili ...[text shortened]... nstream of discourse in the way it has, the value we attach to it and the way it is deployed.
Homosexuality could be beneficial - I don't see how evolution selects celibacy, infertility and genetic disease, could you elaborate? That something exists doesn't mean it exists because it has been selected for; things can also exist despite being selected against.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Homosexuality could be beneficial - I don't see how evolution selects celibacy, infertility and genetic disease, could you elaborate? That something exists doesn't mean it exists because it has been selected for; things can also exist despite being selected against.
How could homosexuality - as a strong genetic predisposition which results in the organism failing to procreate - possibly be beneficial to that organism in terms of its own reproduction?

As a simple matter of definition, 'genetic disease' must be selected by evolution (although 'genetic disorder' makes more sense, strictly speaking; it may be the slippage in your mind between the two notions that has confused you, although even that term is overly anthropomorphic). Certain forms of infertility fall under the category of genetic disorders, and I suppose that is what I meant.

Celibacy I threw in to see whether or not you were abusing the notion of genetic selection in some pop manner, but your closing statement answered that anyway.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DrKF
How could homosexuality - as a strong genetic predisposition which results in the organism failing to procreate - possibly be beneficial to that organism in terms of its own reproduction?

As a simple matter of definition, 'genetic disease' must be selected by evolution (although 'genetic disorder' makes more sense, strictly speaking; it may be the sli ...[text shortened]... on of genetic selection in some pop manner, but your closing statement answered that anyway.
There are a number of theories as to why homosexuality evolved (see the other thread).

Genetic disorders can exist mainly because evolution is a slow process.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't matter whether she is dumb or not. It is clear that some men are attracted to girls that they believe are lacking in intelligence. This attraction is so strong that girls even go to the extent of faking a lack of intelligence to attract guys. They even change their hair colour to blond in order to feed off the fact that it is associated with po ...[text shortened]... r intelligence.
This clearly contradicts your claim that guys generally look for intelligence.
Well it does matter, because if the dumb act requires intelligence, and the men are attracted to the dumb act, then intelligence will be selected for.

This is of course all based upon a premise I am accepting for the sake of argument. Most men I know are actually turned off by the dumb act. Dumb men are attracted to it because of psychological insecurity, and civilization allows the dumb men to survive whereas they would have died off 50 thousand years ago, along with the (truly) dumb women.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There are a number of theories as to why homosexuality evolved (see the other thread).

Genetic disorders can exist mainly because evolution is a slow process.
Which theory do you adhere to which states how homosexuality is beneficial to that homosexual organism in terms of its own reproduction?

But one that moves towards perfection, implicitly? Or what?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
As KazetNagorra has said, it is not the species, but the individuals genes that are the focus of perpetuation. A very large proportion of sexual behaviour has to do with competition within a species and not to do with perpetuation of the species.
It has to relate, otherwise the species does not survive.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DrKF
Which theory do you adhere to which states how homosexuality is beneficial to that homosexual organism in terms of its own reproduction?

But one that moves towards perfection, implicitly? Or what?
Everybody always assumes that homosexuality and gender identity are genetic issues. There is much more consensus that it's a hormonal issue - simply that in utero the egg of a particular sex is drenched with the hormonal combination intended for the opposite sex. Sometimes the woman's body gets mixed signals and the combinations are changed in mid-stream of pregnancy. Some transexuals are xx when they should be xy, and sometimes they are xxy or xyy or some other combination. One transexual acquaintance of mine went in for sex change surgery and they discovered atrophied ovaries, precisely because shortly after conception the hormones delivered caused the growth of the male organ instead.

In the face of the balances being altered, sex drive is probably one of the first to be altered.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DrKF
How could homosexuality - as a strong genetic predisposition which results in the organism failing to procreate - possibly be beneficial to that organism in terms of its own reproduction?

As a simple matter of definition, 'genetic disease' must be selected by evolution (although 'genetic disorder' makes more sense, strictly speaking; it may be the sli ...[text shortened]... on of genetic selection in some pop manner, but your closing statement answered that anyway.
Oh, to answer the first question, it may be that social species benefit from a certain number of individuals whose function would be impaired if distracted by offspring. Take the example of wolves and lions, only one male of the group reproduces with the females, and actually I think with wolves only one female mates. If all of the males challenge the alpha, they could be injured or killed. Maybe nature figures it's good to have a few males (and females with wolves) whose sex drive can be satisfied without jeopardizing the social order.

I'm not saying that's the case. I have no idea what happens. But that is one possible explanation. Canceling out the sex drive in social animals might be more difficult than simply redirecting it.

It could also be an intraspecies response to overpopulation.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Everybody always assumes that homosexuality and gender identity are genetic issues. There is much more consensus that it's a hormonal issue - simply that in utero the egg of a particular sex is drenched with the hormonal combination intended for the opposite sex. Sometimes the woman's body gets mixed signals and the combinations are changed in mid-stream of ...[text shortened]... the face of the balances being altered, sex drive is probably one of the first to be altered.
I didn't say that I thought them to be genetic issues...

*bump*

"What is interesting is how biology, like its pseudo-scientific cousins economics and psychology/psychiatry, has entered the mainstream of discourse in the way it has, the value we attach to it and the way it is deployed."

Still true, obviously, but your narrative was interesting.