/sci/ - Science & Math

biproduct of our advanced brains.

>>3100149
>so common among humankind?
They aren't.

>>3100163
Compared to every other species in recorded history, they are.

You are truly naive if you believe that a statistically significant portion of the human population does not have a sexual preference outside of "an opposite gendered individual capable of breeding and helping to raise healthy children"

bonobos fuck for food

>>3100175

>>3100149

this monkey is taking a metal tube up his ass and he is just enjoying it

>>3100149
i don't care if that is a dude, i still want to tonguefuck that ass.

>>3100185

is just a paint dude

>>3100182
bonobos are not humans.

And that's...only tangentially related to the question.

>why are "deviant" sexual tendencies that confer no benefit to procreation so common among humankind?
Curiosity.
Ultimately, it's all a social construct.

>>3100204

they are humans but they don't have so much abstraction

I don't think sadomasochism is very common. Could think some benefits for homosexuality from the top of my head.

For example helping to protect the children of your siblings while not having the effort diluted in having your own children to protect. By ensuring the survival of your siblings children you will still effectively take care of some of your genes.

mammals in captivity tend to do it much more frequently than in the wild

homosexuality really isnt that common

>>3100198
Here, have a (verified) female one of similar construction.

boredom.
humans will do anything as long as it gives them endorphines.. or something like that

>>3100162

WRONG FAGGOT

Animals are just as sexually deviant as we

Dolphins show signs as having the same paraphilias as sexual murderers

There's cases of animals engaging in necrophilia, homosexuality etc etc

There's a species of bug where the male thinks it's smart to stab the female with their dick and shoot sperm directly into their abdomen despite the fact most of the female bugs end up dying

Advanced intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with sexually deviant behavior

But then again is this sexual behavior even deviant if all animals participate in it in some way shape or form, wouldn't that make it normal behavior?

>>3100149

product of evolution.

some say it makes humans a super species.
as in its makes us eusocial.
as in non-heteronormatives dont typically reproduce.
as in humans become like ants.
eh.

Animals are mostly concerned with procreation.
Humans are not. We have brains capable of thinking outside the box. Many of us think up new ways to enjoy sex.
We're so advanced and our species so widespread and adaptable that we can pretty much do whatever we want.

Aside from procreation, individuals seek pleasure in whatever form they define it.

>>3100197
you are not prepared.

>>3100214
sadomasochism allows altruistic punishment

>>3100149

Also I should probably note we're not perfectly evolved machines designed to survive and reproduce

No animals are there's fucking sheep who walk off cliffs for no reason

What's the evolutionary explanation for killing yourself

>>3100240

Correction it's cows not sheep

But I'm sure sheep do stupid shit as well

>Homosexuality
It's caused by a complex interplay of genetic factors, in addition to the very early inhabitance of the fetus in the womb. It's a very clear and significant genetic basis and evolutionary benefit in regards to not only our own species, but a variety of others. In layman's terms, it allows the opposite sex (to the organism that possesses homosexual traits) to become more masculine/feminine. The hormones released and associated genetically are simply a byproduct of this process, and, occasionally, a homosexual individual is produced 'accidentally' by Darwinism.

>Fetishes
This is a widely controversial subject matter. One theory is that as the brain develops during childhood, it gathers information about its surroundings for primordial analysis of society and how to interact to achieve reproductive goals. Things that are socially considered nonsexual/odd are occasionally misinterpreted early on as an attractive aspect of the opposite sex, or somehow correlated to the opposite sex/reproduction, and a sexual anomaly is produced.

Another theory is that it is purely genetic, and more of a randomly genetic trait that chooses some physical aspect/characteristic of the opposite sex that the brain achieves dopamine release from, either for the sole purpose of satisfaction and willpower to get sexual intercourse, or as an experimental natural selection-like tactic by our species to see what genetic traits liked by the opposite sex are superior.

>>3100246
>(continued)
Another is that fetishes are purely a byproduct of evolution, and a mutation in the process in which socially unfavorable traits are somehow deemed to be sexual. In this regard, Darwinism will eventually kick in and these individuals will eventually be wiped off the gene pool as no women likes sick fucks who find her biological waste attractive, or her depicted as a little kid in diapers.

And, finally, it can also be seen as a purely psychological defect from our consciousness, and that people who like girls with giant dicks and lolis are just 'insane'/'fucked up' on their brains' own concluding-factor.

Or, a combination of all of these, which is highly likely, IMHO.

>>3100244
baaa?

Well the rhino's clearly enjoying this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

>>3100246
>>3100250
Necrophilia? Admittedly, there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's actually a side effect of another social disfunction disorder.

Coprophilia?
Mutilation fetish?
Castration fetish?
Zoophilia?
Xenophilia?(in both meanings. That is, humans other than one's own race, or creatures with bizarre, alien morphologies)
An actual masochist derives sexual pleasure from very real pain. Sometimes regardless of context. Where is the evolutionary advantage in such a thing?

>>3100286
there is no evolutionary advantage...end of story.
if there was some sort of advantage the majority of humans would be fucking corpses and other species.

oh my god...
lol

HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU EXPLAIN JAPAN!?

I have a smoking fetish, as in I get ultra har seeing hot women smoking a cigarette or cigar.
Explain that one.

>>3100286
>>3100293
I'd agree with both of you with the vast majority of fetishes, and it is most likely a genetic byproduct/social disorder. But, fetishes that are less severe and involve physical traits of the opposite sex, I'd say, at the very least, are genetically beneficial somewhat.

The part of our brain responsible for sexual attraction evolved millions of years before the more advanced rational part of our brain. It operates on a really basic association algorithm. If at a young age you randomly pop a boner while looking at or thinking about X your brain will sometimes associate X with sex for the rest of you life, resulting in what is known as sexual deviancy.

>>3100303
i do not want to live in this configuration of space time any longer

>>3100303

nation wide subconcious shame and guilt over world war 2 + getting nuked + now being americas bitch

>>3100315
Many people experiment sexually at very young ages with others of their own age group. Most of them do not end up pedophiles.

Morning wood through my ENTIRE LIFE has not caused a urine fetish.

I can recall no situation in my younger life in which I was exposed to the sort of thing that gets me off now, much less popped a boner at it.

I'm about as deviant as they get.

>>3100256
Fucking brown-nosing elephants.

>>3100303

>>3100333

>>3100362
why

>implying evolutionary biology is a science

>>3100317
What a faggot.

That's fucking HOT.

Nobody's born with fetishes. Fetishes are like drugs. Your start little, then it doesn't give you that much effect. So you go a little weirder than before.

Then eventually you are a pedophile that's into beastiality. Of course, this only happens to individuals with nothing better to do. Most normal people with lots going on in their lives don't have the time or need to explore fetishes.

>>3100303
>We get our perspective of another country from /b/

FULL RETARD.jpeg
and
Theres your problem.jpeg

>>3100387
because dog anuses are yummy.

>>3100391


huuurr

>>3100391
>implying psychology is science

>>3100395
>So you go a little weirder than before.
then you'll get into the slippery slope towards cannibalism

OP it appears you misunderstand evolution. I suspect you are a victim of the american education system

>>3100395
>sissy detected

>>3100149

> That is, it's not genetic, but environmental?

Derp....evolution isn't talking about learned tendencies or lifetime environmental influences dude. Learn to science please.

I'm guessing this guy is definitely correct in his assumption >>3100424

>>3100416

It's not like anything in nature is accidental or anything. Nope.

>>3100437
I didn't state it clearly.

The question is, ARE deviant sexual preferences a product of evolutionary adaptation or not.

>>3100454

How would that be proven either way?

>>3100454

I haven't researched the topic very much, but, in my humble opinion, the evidence suggests that the answer is "yes".

I will just use homosexuality as an example since there has been a lot of research done to understand homosexuality (as opposed to Donald Duck fetishes).

The dude here gives a fairly thorough explanation of how homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224022448AAsMAhT

He cites these sources:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf

http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/sakaluk/BSC%20304/BSC%20304%20PDFs/Camperio-Ciani%202004%20P%20Roy%20Soc%20
homosexuality.pdf

I would also like to add that twin adoption studies show that homosexual preferences are approximately 50% nature and 50% nurture. In other words, there are significant genetic factors in sexual preferences, and genetics are heavily influenced by evolution...I'll let you connect those dots.

PURELY REASON AN CONJECTURE:

What if:
-A family has 3 males. they share genetic material, so hypothetically one male procreating profusely will be better than all middling along, fucking ugly broads when they get the chance.
-One comes out as a clear alpha (I think it doesn't matter what species we are talking about, but make it paleo-humans, or arguments sake).
-The other brothers, realizing their beta status, instead make use of themselves as both:
-Placeholders, they take other viable (I guess on a macro scale this has flaws, but bear with me) males out of the running, leaving their brother more itches to bang.
-Matchmakers. girls love the gays.

also

-Reduces in-fighting in family.
-stronger male bonds (maybe the two brothers go gay TOGETHER)

alrighty, it's just a theory, any takers?

>>3100395
>Nobody's born with fetishes.
Actually for most people fetishes develop early in childhood (7-9 years old) before they ever have normal sexual desires or start puberty. So guess again.
>Fetishes are like drugs. Your start little, then it doesn't give you that much effect. So you go a little weirder than before.
This goes for all sexual interests but, as always, there's a limit. People only get more severe in the fetishes they're predisposed to.

>>3100454
>The question is, ARE deviant sexual preferences a product of evolutionary adaptation or not.
No one knows, but I'd be very surprised if they were. It's most likely just a side-effect of some other evolutionary adaptation, such as the trait of humans to derive so much pleasure from sex that they engage in it recreationally. It's also worth noting that just because something exists doesn't mean it's a result of evolution. There's no evolutionary benefit to childhood cancer, for example, yet it still crops up thanks to chance and other factors.

Regardless, virtually everyone seems to engage in some sort of sexual activity that has nothing to do with procreation (blowjobs and anal sex for example). A lot of people even incorporate odd rituals into foreplay (play spanking, dirty talk, etc). The difference between these "normal" people and paraphiles though is that paraphiles fixate on those odd rituals just as much, if not more than (or even in exclusivity to) actual sex. They also tend to take it a hell of a lot of further. For example, a normal couple may do some very light play spanking as foreplay, but a couple into BDSM would treat spanking as the main event and go at it until the other person has a black and blue butt, probably using some sort of implement like a paddle or riding crop.

>>3100509
Fails to explain why you find homosexuality in non-social animals, and in the same proportions that you find homosexuality in humans.

>>3100509

So beta brother 1 and 2 go gay to help Alpha brother get laid more?

Nope wouldn't work even in the wild two brothers would fight each other for the right to bond

Blood only runs so deep

it may be useful for population control.

>>3100547
>>3100547
>doesn't understand evolution
or
>doesn't understand logic

think about it for a second. my post was trying to explain gayness, and I said that it could (help) prevent intra-familial violence.
this would be a heritable, beneficial characteristic.
This would explain why they would not fight for the right to procreate.

>>3100570

But even homosexual animals fight for mates or territory or food or whatever

They'll fight their brother, mother, father it doesn't matter

Freemartin.

Look it up.

Mind = Blown.

Hey Zink, you in here?

>>3100610

Nah. Google scholar kin-selection and homosexuality.

>>3100610
net positive

>>3100570
What you're not taking into account is that evolution only favors individuals, not groups. Reason being that even if an individual's actions help the rest of the species, if said actions do nothing to help the individual then it has no impact on whether or not it manages to create offspring and thus is not influenced by natural selection. In the case of your "hypothesis", the individual would actually be sacrificing their ability to procreate which would actually be selected AGAINST by evolution (the genes for that altruism can't get passed on if the individual never has offspring).

Hence why siblicide and sibling rivalry are so common among animals. Evolution DOES favor killing the shit out of your siblings to grant a reproductive advantage to yourself. It doesn't matter if you killed members of your species in a bid to fuck more. You fuck more than your dead siblings, and hence your genes for sibling violence get passed on whereas the genes of your passive siblings don't.

And to think you accused that other guy of not understand evolution...

>>3100645

>What you're not taking into account is that evolution only favors individuals, not groups.

Stopped reading there. Open up a damn biology book please.

>>3100645
>also doesn't understand evolution

>>3100629

I'm too lazy

Copy paste it

How common is a spanking fetish?

>>3100678

I'm guessing spanking is a version of BDSM

>>3100629
wow, I guess I came up with an already existing theory.
I love reason.

>>3100678

Google "spanking", and you'll see how common it is...or, even easier, you could just visit /b

>>3100656
>>3100659
I took a fucking class on it, unlike you two obviously. It's a common misconception among people who don't know much about evolution yet to think that evolution favors groups, and in my evolution class it was probably the most common way kids missed questions and failed exams.

And before you try to bring up social animals as proof that evolution can favor groups, I'll let you know that social behavior can be explained by population genetics and family trees. For example, in the case of bees the reason the workers tend to never reproduce and instead let the queen reproduce is because they actually manage to pass on their genes more through indirect offspring than they could by making their own offspring.

Damn, we all stop at the reason that these things can be explained as evolutionary adaptation for the survival of the species, but why the hell are we wired to prioritize survival?

>>3100704

>but why the hell are we wired to prioritize survival?

Because dying sucks

>>3100570

Why would it need to be homosexuality you could just inherit passiveness as a trait instead?

>>3100703
>because they actually manage to pass on their genes more through indirect offspring than they could by making their own offspring.
.........
read what you wrote
READ WHAT YOU WROTE.

>>3100711
The gays are generally limp wristed. maybe they would raise your children while you were out hunting?

>>3100703
>I took a single class on one of the most complex and controversial subjects in biology
>I am obviously an expert now

>>3100719

Fuck no

I knew this gay MMA guy he'd beat the shit out of anyone

Wait

>Gay
>MMA
>Rolling around on the ground with men
>Just realized why he took up MMA

He's still beat the shit out of anyone

>>3100712
I'm too tired to explain it more clearly. Basically the gist is that a daughter bee shares 50% of her genes with the queen. Those same genes are shared by all sister bees for the same reason. If she were to have offspring of her own, the offspring would also share 50% of her genes. Since it takes a ton of energy to produce your own offspring (especially relative to just letting another bee do it all for you), it becomes disadvantageous for the worker bee to try to have her own offspring, and even moreso when you take into account the fact that any offspring she tries to create will be destroyed by other worker bees (since niece bees would only share 25% of genetic material with other bees this doesn't really interfere with altruism to the queen).

>homosexuality
happens a lot more than one would think in the animal kingdom
>pedophillia
is a social construct (for the most part). in the animal kingdom, as soon as you are sexually mature, you get fucked
>fetishes, sadomasochism

S&M is fetish, so we'll lump those together. Fetishes are a by-product of culture (and environment I suppose) which are a result of our highly developed brains.

>>3100730
kind of unrelated, but what if sociopathy is also a beneficial trait? like an ultraviolent person who could protect the family, a few gays to raise kids and do the decorating, and me (alpha of course) to fuck bitches and kill giant short faced bears (pliestocene mega-fauna, look it up if you don't know, SHITS BADASS).

>>3100729
We're talking about a pretty basic concept in evolution here, it doesn't take a PhD to figure this shit out.

>>3100748
>but what if sociopathy is also a beneficial trait? like an ultraviolent person who could protect the family
Depends, if he could kill more than he can efficiently defend or protect.

You people sure have a lot of kinky pics of animals...

>>3100737
YES I KNOW I WASN'T ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION I WAS POINTING OUT YOUR IDIOCY. OH MY GOD ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED.
read this carefully PLEASE.
the first thing you disagreed with me on was that families have no reason to help each other. then you went on to explain to me how families can be benefited by helping each other.
seriously: stop posting and reread the last 20 posts. you are directly contradicting what you said 3 posts ago

>>3100740
>pedophillia
>is a social construct (for the most part). in the animal kingdom, as soon as you are sexually mature, you get fucked

Yeah but pedophilia would be the desire to fuck someone who is NOT sexually mature.

>>3100770
Helping your sibling: Pass on 25% of your genes
Help yourself: Pass on 50% of your genes

There's no reason to help your sibling at a cost that would preclude you from having offspring.

It's late, I'm done here, have fun thinking you've explained homosexuality, something 100+ years of psychological and biological research has been unable to do, using facts you learned from newspaper and magazine science articles and documentaries.

> we're all individuals! :D
> as long as we all act the same! >:(

failogic

>>3100703

> It's a common misconception among people who don't know much about evolution yet to think that evolution favors groups

That's the FUCKING DEFINITION MORON! It's change in POPULATION!!!! Ever wonder where ALTRUISM COMES FROM????? WTH?

/sci used to be full of people who actually KNEW SOMETHING!

Try getting a degree before claiming that you are an expert because you took an intro. to biology class.

>>3100753

You would think that, right???? BUT I GUESS NOT!

>>3100785
scenario 1
Gay 1--- "help" yourself and have 1 child
Gay 2 ---"help" yourself and have 0 children
alpha --- 2 children

scenario 2
gay 1 --- help brother find mates, remove rival males from running
gay 2 ---- "
alpha ---- 10 children

oversimplified, but you get the point

I was thinking this the other day. I was baked and watching some chick on redtube get her mouth fucked, then I thought what if I were an alien studying mating among humans, this would be fucked up.

>>3100817
And that got me off more.

>>3100808

See. This anon knows how to logic. Learn from him.

>>3100808
scenario 3:
In other situations, the mechanisms that lead to gayness confer a competitive advantage, but when they manifest as gayness, it's a minus to gene fitness.

>>3100878

> In other situations, the mechanisms that lead to gayness confer a competitive advantage, but when they manifest as gayness, it's a minus to gene fitness.

No...

kin selection, homosexuality, google scholar

Can you do that? Do you have fingers? Do you have a computer? Good.....

>>3100822

>>3100915
Last I heard, there was no particular theory substantiated by evidence, and that is from actual respected biologists instead of the layman me. If you have citations, I would appreciate that, but otherwise I have better things to do than comb through articles.

>>3100924

Well, then, don't bother talking about it if you don't want to learn about it.

I have better things to do than look up articles for you.

>>3100932
>I have better things to do than look up articles for you.
I believe the usual reply is: "Citations please".

I have stated a plausible hypothesis. Put up or shut up.

I sometimes have a fantasy that I put my dick in a babies mouth and have it eat the cum, I imagine that it has the same nutrients as breast milk and that it's a routine method of feeding a baby.

Explain this

>>3100943

I gave you the names of the things that you need to look up. It's called kin selection and homosexuality.

It's as if you entered a physics equation and were outraged that someone said that Newtonian physics was only an approximation. After getting outraged, they say, "Oh, well you need to look into Einstein's theory of relativity." And you were like, "Put up or shut up dude!"

I'm not going to walk you through physics or biology.

you morons are implying that homosexuals in history didn't just marry a woman, knocked her up as much as he had to, and then fucked guys on the side?

exclusive homosexuality being an option as it is today was only ever true for the few privileged, for the others there was social pressure from family/friends/society, and there still is. So from an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't really matter. We still reproduce, we just like to fuck other things too.

bump

>>3100966
Hmm... interesting point. Still, there is a behavior, homosexuality, that does not apparently readily immediately increase the fitness of the genes, so a Darwinian explanation is required for this behavior.

I have an oversized clitoris, about 7 inches when aroused, and my ovaries rest under it in a skin sack.
Also my breasts don't fill out the smallest bra and I am unable to get pregnant

>>3100968

Don't try to speak. You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You are like a Newtonian n00b trying to join a conversation on relativity.

If you haven't studied biology, don't pretend. You look like a dumbass pretending.

>>3100988
[Citations please]

>>3100975
Impressive.

In the case of male homosexuality, some headway has been made. In 1993, Dean Hamer and his team
discovered that genes in an area of the X chromosome denoted by the marker Xq28 predisposed men to
homosexuality. Several other markers have since been found [24]. Hamer’s book, The Science of Desire,
describes an unpublished (and non-peer-reviewed) hypothesis formulated by the evolutionists R. Trivers and
W. Rice: Genes on the X chromosome (such as Xq28) are passed on maternally. If such genes incline carriers to attraction to men without discriminating the carriers’ genders, the genes may produce women who bear
enough offspring for the genes to propagate, and men who are non-procreative workers and aides in child-
raising [25]. This novel reproductive strategy could only work if the genes were restricted to a minority of the
population, but it carries the dual advantages of preventing inbreeding and not relying upon the original
father‘s continued support. Though the theory is unproven, new evidence continues to mount that “female
heterosexual relatives of male homosexuals have higher reproductive success" [26]. This may be true, but
twin studies suggest that the X chromosome only holds a fraction of the heritability of male sexual
orientation [24].
Female homosexuality has seen less penetration. No genetic markers have been found, however, polygyny
(marriage of one man to multiple women), mildly inherent in humans throughout evolutionary history [2, p.
34], can render conditions in which women are better off sharing a man: If societal resource inequality is
large enough, a wealthy man with many wives can nonetheless provide greater resources for each child than can a poor man with one wife [27]. In this case, bisexuality may aid a woman’s decision pick the option
conducive towards reproductive success, and may limit group conflict. This argument cannot be made for
homosexuality.

Erm... University lecturer on biology, interesting thread but the mistakes in your knowledge of evolution appall me.

Evolution always favours individuals, i.e. an individuals ability to pass on its DNA/RNA. Any 'group' effects, such as bacteria gaining an immunity to an anitbiotic, is purely a byproduct of the way all the individuals that have the advantage survive and the rest don't.

For example if there is a predator species that is running out of deer to kill or something and their population is dwindling, the more greedy and aggresive wolves wtill come out top, even though it dooms thier species to extinction.

Jesus, fucking maths/ physics cocks that know nothing about the way life works..

This is a Shitty, Horrific, Disgusting and so /b/ thread.
I'm disappointed of you all.

>>3101007

> For example if there is a predator species that is running out of deer to kill or something and their population is dwindling, the more greedy and aggresive wolves wtill come out top, even though it dooms thier species to extinction.


LOL! Yeah, RIGHT! If you are actually a lecturer, you would realize that altruism didn't just magically poof into existence.

>>3101016
And if you were a sane human being you would realise I said the exact opposite of what you stated. In my statement, the greedy wolves become dominant in the wolf packs, even though it will make thier species extinct..

>>3101019
And before you start arguing about semantics, I genetically dominant, as in there is higher frequency of 'greedy' alleles than not.

>>3101016
He's right, the guy about the wolves hunting themselves to extinction. Altruism wouldn't have time to be selected for in that situation. There wouldn't be enough generations left if the wolves hunted themselves to extinction.

>>3101016
Your status:

NOT TOLD [ ]
TOLD [ X]
KNIGHTS OF THE TOLD REPUBLIC [X]
QUANTOLD MECHANICS [X]

not samefag btw, just your idiocy pisses me off

>>3101019

> And if you were a sane human being you would realise I said the exact opposite of what you stated. In my statement, the greedy wolves become dominant in the wolf packs, even though it will make thier species extinct..

Oh...after re-reading what you wrote...I can only conclude that I am not a sane human being.

Haven't you guys heard? Chicks dig gay guys. That's how they pass their genes on.

>>3101019

To clarify, kin selection is very real, right? Could you please tell these fools about the theory.

Biology guy here again.

As for sexual deviants, I think they're just a product of bored but intelligent minds.

After all, many people spend a lot of time thinking about sex, and as many 'intelligent' species also show sexual deviancy I can only assume they're a byproduct of evolutionary focus on reproduction, pleasure from sex (classical conditioning) and imagination

>>3101031
1/10 nearly ignored it completely. Also, you posts reek of adolescence.

There are so many things humans do that are a total perversion of nature.

Let's just say higher animals are well made biological thinking machines and sometimes the complex machines get broken beyond repair.

>>3101041
That's retarded. People notice their attraction to other people before they have any understanding of what they're noticing. Sexual deviancy that comes LATER might be subject to such an explanation, but certainly I was noticing that guys looked nice before I understood it whatsoever, and you were attracted to whatever you like before mental understanding, too.

>>3101039
Kin selection is real. Kin selection cannot explain the existence of prudent hunters. Kin selection makes animals nicer to their peers and relatives. Kin selection does not make animals nicer to their prey, nor ration their prey, nor ration how much offspring they have.

>>3101041

>Also, you posts reek of adolescence

And you were expecting maturity in /sci? Maybe you weren't quite as intelligent as I had thought...

>>3101039
I've seen evidence for it, it seems to be the only natural equivalent of altruism (if such a thing exists). It seems to be more common in 'more evolved' species as far as I know, but then again there is less of it in very intelligent species.

It only arises in viscous populations (wikipedia it) and when kin recognition is advantageous.

>>3101059
>ignores reciprocal altruism and the handicap principle

>>3101052

Just because I use correct grammar and actually construct a coherent argument (unlike most /sci/ residents I might add) you presume I'm intelligent?
I don't think I am, and even as an ex-lecturer in biology I can tell you biology requires much less analytic skill than say, chemistry, physics or maths. There is more memorising and pattern recognition etc.

>>3101063
>>3101059

Also, Mister Scientist, that isn't me (Biology guy). You had already replied to kin selection so I didn't bother.

>>3101069

> Just because I use correct grammar and actually construct a coherent argument (unlike most /sci/ residents I might add) you presume I'm intelligent?

Yes. Indeed, I do.

> I don't think I am, and even as an ex-lecturer in biology I can tell you biology requires much less analytic skill than say, chemistry, physics or maths. There is more memorising and pattern recognition etc.

Well, let's just say that you are probably smarter than the average anon, but I am just making an educated guess.

>>3101084

That, is not difficult. Also it was nice talking to you, I've got to go.

Captcha: ceribl leaving

>>3100304
>I have a smoking fetish, as in I get ultra har seeing hot women smoking a cigarette or cigar.
Explain that one.

it has something to do with your fathers genitals. freud told me that

>>3101084
>> Just because I use correct grammar and actually construct a coherent argument (unlike most /sci/ residents I might add) you presume I'm intelligent?

>Yes. Indeed, I do.

I don't know any really thick people, but amongst those I know, the less intelligent use better punctuation.

>>3101003
MoBr! it all makes sense now!
the fucking mothers brother (not uncle, for you non-college fags, MOBRO)

as an outsider, here's how i explain japan:

in japan, during childhood socialization, children are not reprimanded when they act out of line; the teacher simply exists to make sure nothing horrendous goes on (and nevada tan is proof that horrendous shit can definitely still go on) and the kids are intended to form their own micro society -which they do, because they are human. the older kids advise the younger kids and no one really speaks out or tries to stop a kid when he or she acts out.

in this aspect, it is the complete opposite of china.

what this leads to is the strong feeling that there are no truly bad ideas; the japanese will pursue any interest with dogged determination, and may present it -or may not present it- without much care as to the sensibility or reason for the idea. that it exists and was personally explored to personal satisfaction is enough. i quite like this aspect of japan.

>>3101341
but the japanese still believe in "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down"?

a witty saying proves nothing

-Voltaire