Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Yeah, I'm familiar with the what's-his-name effect, though I never remember the name, and the issues in the kibbutzim. But that has a very clear evolutionary benefit, whereas attraction to people similar to one's parents seems to me to be a potentially bad thing; if they share many traits, they might share many genes, so mating with them could be a bad thing. So I really don't understand how the attraction to people similar to one's parents thing worked out evolutionarily, I would have expected it to work out like the what's-his-name thing if I had been theorising this stuff while studying primates a few hundred thousand years back. Slight tangent now, looks likes.
I think it's at least partly like this:
You know, by virtue of the fact that you exist, that your parents were successful at reproduction. What you want (evolutionarily speaking) is a mate that will be successful at reproduction. Thus you use your parents - who you know are successful reproducers - as your model for what sort of a mate should be a successful reproducer.
Now, it's also worth pointing out that "like your parents" isn't
necessarily going to mean "genetically extremely similar to your parents and therefore to yourself". We have other mechanisms (smell, for example) to make sure we're mostly attracted to people
genetically different to us, especially in the areas it matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Well obviously the participants have to be informed, consenting adults, so they know they might receive placebo. But also obviously you're not trying to convince them all that they have the placebo or things get skewed.
I read an article just yesterday about the "nocebo" effect and thought of this discussion. Apparently doctors are going to have to think carefully about how they word things like warnings about side-effects, because the placebo effect also works in the direction of "if I think this will make me get sick, it will".
On the causes of sexuality, my opinion based on all the evidence I've seen and heard about is that 1. there's a whole mess of causes, and 2. the exact nature and combination will differ from person to person. I believe that, very generally speaking, it goes something like this:
Genetics: There is a genetic component, not in the sense of "a gay gene", but rather a variety of genes that produce a range of different effects, personality types, hormone production, etc., that can be found in varying concentrations in all sorts of people but that, when they turn up in a particular density and particular composition in an individual happen to give that individual a predisposition (maybe very strong, maybe weakish) to a particular sexuality.
Pre-birth non-genetic stuff: hormones from the mother - you know, all that birth order stuff - coincidences of gene expression, maybe even environmental factors* may further reinforce or weaken/oppose the genetic predisposition.
Post-birth influences: the main evidence I've seen of this is, sadly, sexual abuse (contrary to claims from certain quarters, I don't think I've seen any evidence to back up fears of "sissification" by supposedly too-soft parents), but there could be all sorts of other factors. I, personally, think this is the weakest source of sexuality: I think that to make a biologically heterosexually-predisposed person gay (as opposed to, say, making them bisexual or heteroflexible or into certain types of sexual activity) would almost always require some seriously extreme traumatic experiences which would leave many deep psychological scars. On the other hand, imprinting is a pretty powerful process, so it's not inconceivable to me.
I don't believe there is any "one cause" - I've generally found that if there's a choice of several reasons for something, chances are the reality is some combination of all or several of them.
There is one thing I'd like to point out - not that I'd expect anyone here to need to be told, but there certainly are people who do - that even if something isn't genetic doesn't mean it's a choice, and even if something is hormonal or even environmental doesn't mean it can be prevented or reversed - "cured", if you will. If someone's raised with a relative lack of nutrients and that causes them to not grow as tall as they would otherwise, stuffing them when they're older isn't going to suddenly make them shoot up when they've stopped growing and it's unlikely that they
chose to be short. If I child's parents have to live near a rail road and the kid ends up being a passionate ferroequinologist^, it's hardly in any way their fault, nor something they could or should have prevented.
...I really wish I had a neutral, non-preventable analogy for that :/ But you get the idea. And in any case, as I said, I don't think that's the way it works anyway. I don't think it's likely that environmental/upbringing factors can cause someone to have a sexuality opposite to that which they're biologically predisposed to without it consisting of extreme, traumatic events, and I don't believe there's much, if any, evidence that there's no biological factor at all. Moreover, none of these possible influences are mutually exclusive.
*I don't think I've seen any studies on this bit specifically relating to sexuality, but some recent evidence on the effect of a mother's life history on their offspring and even descendants is fascinating.
^I checked, that's really what they're called. Reina found it for me.