Hi again willsrvu
Haven't been on the site for a few weeks as I've been busy with work etc, etc. Yes, I'd love to get together with you for a ******* to bash out our ideas as we've gone round the block a few times here. Like I said you seem a decent guy and are a credit to this site.
Just to set a few things straight though willsrvu.
I've been lucky enough to have studied psychology, biology and behavioral ecology at university so in no way do I believe in a kind of genetic determinism whereby genes directly control all behaviour. Coming from an ecological as well as genetically trained background I am hugely interested in the effect the environment has upon animals (humans included) and their behaviour. As I stated when I first made my comments getting to the route of cuckoldry probably is an admixture of evolutionary history, social history and cultural history. Sorry if I get a bit boring here but I have a passion for these subjects and can get a bit abstruse and carried away with findings and studies etc!
So now it would appear that you are in agreement with me as you originally stated:
"I'm interested in whether the presence of big black men will actually turn some white men down a path where they get more sexual pleasure from a cuckolding relationship than they would from a standard monogamous relationship.", to which I said: "The simple presence of a big black man would have about the same influence on a white man's genetic make up as the presence of a rock. Neither have a direct interaction with his physiology."
So what I and other behavioral ecologists are interested in is what strategies or behaviours is an ******* using in its natural and social environment to maximise its inclusive fitness. This entails studying the ******* in its environment and also tracing its phylogenetic and evolutionary history. This can be at an individual or species level. So we might ask why do 2 species of monkey have completely different mating strategies - why is one species pair-bonded and another polygynous? What selection pressures have pushed species' down different ecological and behavioural routes? Also within a species what strategies are available to different individuals to maximise their inclusive fitness?
Again, I stated that changes on the genetic level were created by the need to adapt to environment and said that the simple presence of a black man does not create a change in environment that would change the white man's genetic makeup, especially in a way that would effect his sexuality.
Genes unquestionably have an influence on the behaviour and psychology of both humans and animals. At a basic level this can be shown by the web spinning of a spider - this requires no learning or prior experience.
Not true. The spider's first attempts at spinning a web are not as successful as its later work after it has learned through trial and error how to anchor the web to withstand stress and how to space its strands to provide the best ratio of strength to weight.
That it is born with the genetic ability to produce its thread and build a web is one thing, to do it properly it needs to learn. No different that the fact that I was born genetically with a penis and the ability to urinate through it. It still took quite a bit of practice and instruction (at my mom's chagrin) before I learned to successfully pee in the toilet without watering the surrounding walls and floor.
Modern geneticists use a process called 'knockout' whereby they 'knockout' a single gene to see if it has any effect on the *******'s behaviour. To give a few famous examples from knockout experiments:
One gene in female mice can be 'scrambled' so that the females will ignore their pups. Another gene can be 'scrambled' so that the mouse has no desire for social contact. Another gene in male mice can be 'scrambled' so that they no longer remember females who they have interacted with.
Interestingly 2 species of vole differ in their mating behaviour with 1 species being monogamous and the other not. By transferring a gene from the monogamous species to the non-monogamous species changes the latter's mating behaviour to monogamy.
This goes totally against the theory of genetic
evolution. Intentionally modifying a creature's natural genetics to cause changes does not support your argument that such changes would evolve naturally.
Additionally, it supports my argument that unless something has a direct effect on the genes, whether it be natural such as a change in environment or scientific tampering as you describe, the genes have no reason to change. The simple presence of a black man has no effect on the white man's genes.
Regarding humans studies of twins have proved invaluable in getting some idea of genetic influence on personality compared to the environment. Of most interest have been studies of identical (monozygotic) twins raised apart and children adopted by non-biological parents and these give some of the most famous results in psychology.
Identical twins raised in different homes are still more similar in personality traits than are fraternal twins raised in the same household. Adopted children start of being like their adoptive parents on cognitive abilities but as they grow older they become more like their biological parents - basically the more time they spend with their adoptive parents the less they become like them!
Absolutely fascinating studies, none of which have shown any conclusive predictability of behavior.
One field of study has looked at identical twins to try to determine if there is a genetic difference between them that caused one to identify as homosexual, while the other was heterosexual. The search for the "Gay" gene. Hasn't been found yet.
That identical twins would develop similar traits, even when grown up apart, isn't all that astonishing. What should be of more interest is why chi ldren, regardless of being twins (identical or fraternal) or just regular born a year apart, can be so different from each other even though they are brought up in the same environment, share the same basic gene pool (assuming they have the same parents), go to the same schools, etc. etc.
I don't find adoptive ki ds growing up less like their adoptive parents to be out of the ordinary as it is clear that many chi ldren within the same family upbringing with their own biological parents will be so different from them. I would seriously question any study that indicates adopted chi ldren consistently mirror their biological parent's behavioral traits without having been in direct contact with them growing up as, clearly, this is not true of all ch ildren who grow up with their biological parents.
My sister and I are like night and day, yet we both grew up in the same home with the same biological parents. Many people that knew him, say that I remind them a lot of my ******* as far as the way I act and speak even though I don't look all that much like him, but while my sister physically resembles our mom greatly, she shows little behavioral similarities to either of our parents, especially Mom.
OK, in truth, I always thought my parents were abducted by aliens just before my sister was born. There's your genetic manipulation.
Of the main personality traits there is on average a variance for heritability of 0.5 meaning that 50% of the variance is due to genetic effects. That genes have an effect on behaviour and learning is without doubt! The selective breeding of dogs for specific behaviours and temperaments shows that these traits have a genetic influence. Down's Syndrome is a genetic disorder that causes major behavioural and learning disabilities - you would never try to explain the differential with 'normal' people by learning alone.
Again, you are talking about genetic
engineering, not
evolution.
Even though breeders selectively mate their dogs, this does not guarantee that all of the dogs will have the same temperament or behave the same. You will always find there is a 'runt' of the litter, a bright one, a friendly one, a bashful one and so on. Worse is when you find the one that snaps and become vicious. Their natural behaviors are different from one another, yet they share the same genetics.
Of course, Downs Syndrome ch ildren have a genetic disorder, but it is one that creates a different set of physical abilities and level of mental development and ability to learn. This is apples to oranges when comparing sexual obsession without a physical catalyst to affect a genetic mutation.
Like I say in no way do I believe in genetic determinism but it's rather about how a specific genotype interacts with the environment. And the environment starts influencing the genes as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg - after that it's gene-environment interaction all the way. In fact behavioural ecologists are not necessarily interested in disentangling the two, nor are we always interested in the proximate mechanisms that underlie a behaviour, rather we are interested in whether the behaviour is adaptive or not. Is it optimal in terms of inclusive fitness? Is it maladaptive and a consequence of the modern environment exploiting our evolutionary predispositions etc.
Often different strategies are available and effective for different individuals based on their genotype and the environment and this is what I'm interested in exploring here. Whenever you see something that seems to be working against maximising inclusive fitness (an individual's own genetic contribution to the next generation or helping relatives' genetic contribution) then the first thought is it's maladaptive but this is not always the case. Makes exploring the cuckolding (and especially interracial) phenomenon incredibly interesting.
OK, so here again, it appears that you are agreeing with me that there must be active environmental effect acting to affect physical change genetically.
Will some behavior be learned? Most definitely as it explores its environment and learns to adapt itself to it.
Will some behavior be natural? Yes, as this is what differentiates it from its peers.
Will some behavior be due to genetic ability? Yes, but only to the degree that the ability is in harmony with how it evolved to fit physically within its environment.
Does the simple presence of something which creates no physical change in environment have an effect on something's genetic makeup which can cause a behavioral change? Not likely.
