Take it up with three separate professors at my uni and several scholarly sources. Though I warn you, they are either dead or capable of screaming far louder and more eloquently than you. Here’s a Wikipedia article
Well yeah, but that is still “biologically ingrained to avoid incest”, since being raised separately and then reintroduced as adults is an edge case. The effect is biological even if what it’s directly testing for isn’t genetics.
In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relations. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only 14 were between children from the same peer group. Of those 14, none had been reared together during the first six years of life.
And lots of other examples across different cultures that would be consistent with this being an instinctual reaction of humans, rather than a cultural thing that is taught.
That quoted paragraph is a pretty clear indication that the “instinctual reaction” only happens with people you’ve lived with up to the age 6, which isn’t exclusive to people you’re related by blood. Hell, the following wiki paragraph makes that clear:
In Shim-pua marriages, a girl would be adopted into a family as the future wife of a son, often an infant at that time. These marriages often failed, as would be expected according to the Westermarck hypothesis.
So, if you don’t grow up with your siblings during those formative years, or see them only on occasion, it is expected to be attracted to them, as per that hypothesis. It’s also important to note that marriages aren’t a simple matter of choosing whoever you like most, there are social and economic considerations to be accounted for.
You’re talking past each other: Chicken is saying that we have a biologically ingrained aversion to mating with those we lived closely with up to the age of 6, and is suggesting that this is a result of evolutionary pressure making it preferable to avoid having kids with your nearest relatives.
Their point is that this is not “taught” behaviour in the sense that it is imprinted from culture (such as “what hairstyle is attractive” or “what music is pleasant”), but appears to be biologically grounded.
How on Earth do you think that reflects a biological imperative? If anything doesn’t it suggest the opposite? A biological connection resulting in an aversion to coupling would mean the absence of a biological connection should not result in aversion. Yet your example showed that the biological connection was not a factor at all.
I think you’re talking past each other. What they’re saying is that we have a biologically based aversion to mating with those we have been raised with, and that this aversion has arisen due to evolutionary pressure to avoid incest.
Of course, our body has no way of telling whether someone is a close relative or not, and evolution doesn’t “care” why we change our behaviour, as long as the new behaviour gives a higher chance of propagating our genes. Because of the historically high overlap of “people you grew up with” and “people you share a lot of genes with”, creating a biological aversion towards mating with those you grew up with serves as a good proxy for creating an aversion to incest (which is pretty much impossible to recognise without gene testing).
Their point is that it’s not “taught” behaviour in the sense of being culturally dependent, like we are taught that “everyone should have equal rights”, and “being naked in public is not ok”. Both of those are cases where there is a massive variation between cultures and through history, indicating that they are things we are taught, rather than being biologically ingrained.
Take it up with three separate professors at my uni and several scholarly sources. Though I warn you, they are either dead or capable of screaming far louder and more eloquently than you. Here’s a Wikipedia article
That article doesn’t support your argument. The effect isn’t based on relation but on being raised together before the age of 6.
Well yeah, but that is still “biologically ingrained to avoid incest”, since being raised separately and then reintroduced as adults is an edge case. The effect is biological even if what it’s directly testing for isn’t genetics.
No, your arguments about cultural and learned behavior not biologically ingrained Behavior.
From the above linked article:
And lots of other examples across different cultures that would be consistent with this being an instinctual reaction of humans, rather than a cultural thing that is taught.
That quoted paragraph is a pretty clear indication that the “instinctual reaction” only happens with people you’ve lived with up to the age 6, which isn’t exclusive to people you’re related by blood. Hell, the following wiki paragraph makes that clear:
So, if you don’t grow up with your siblings during those formative years, or see them only on occasion, it is expected to be attracted to them, as per that hypothesis. It’s also important to note that marriages aren’t a simple matter of choosing whoever you like most, there are social and economic considerations to be accounted for.
You’re talking past each other: Chicken is saying that we have a biologically ingrained aversion to mating with those we lived closely with up to the age of 6, and is suggesting that this is a result of evolutionary pressure making it preferable to avoid having kids with your nearest relatives.
Their point is that this is not “taught” behaviour in the sense that it is imprinted from culture (such as “what hairstyle is attractive” or “what music is pleasant”), but appears to be biologically grounded.
How on Earth do you think that reflects a biological imperative? If anything doesn’t it suggest the opposite? A biological connection resulting in an aversion to coupling would mean the absence of a biological connection should not result in aversion. Yet your example showed that the biological connection was not a factor at all.
I think you’re talking past each other. What they’re saying is that we have a biologically based aversion to mating with those we have been raised with, and that this aversion has arisen due to evolutionary pressure to avoid incest.
Of course, our body has no way of telling whether someone is a close relative or not, and evolution doesn’t “care” why we change our behaviour, as long as the new behaviour gives a higher chance of propagating our genes. Because of the historically high overlap of “people you grew up with” and “people you share a lot of genes with”, creating a biological aversion towards mating with those you grew up with serves as a good proxy for creating an aversion to incest (which is pretty much impossible to recognise without gene testing).
Their point is that it’s not “taught” behaviour in the sense of being culturally dependent, like we are taught that “everyone should have equal rights”, and “being naked in public is not ok”. Both of those are cases where there is a massive variation between cultures and through history, indicating that they are things we are taught, rather than being biologically ingrained.
Are instincts not biological?
The aversion often didn’t work for royalty, since they weren’t raised with their siblings.
/>hypothesis
/>Therefore not proven