3 ms·

The article also gives a possible explanation to why humans have oversized brains. “Just as the elk measures the size of antlers, we humans measure each other’s

The article also gives a possible explanation to why humans have oversized brains. “Just as the elk measures the size of antlers, we humans measure each other’s brains before we mate,” Peter Bøckman at the University of Oslo explains. Two years ago the University of Oslo had an exhibition made by Peter Bøckman about homophilia in the animal kingdom. The new exhibition, named Sexus, about sexual behaviour is probably going to be an even greater success.

dalke 13y ago
To my knowledge, there is no evidence for the assertion that oversized brains is based on sexual preference. We see brain size enlargement across many mammals, and our brains are about what's expected for a primate our size. The title ("large testicles are linked to infidelity") refers to a trend across species, but cannot be applied to members of a given species. For example, the giant panda is taxonomically a carivore, but 99% of what it eats is bamboo. Just because a skull type and digestive tract is linked to being a carnivore, doesn't mean that the animal is that. "The female has also an opportunity to filter out those who will be permitted fatherhood, for example by having an orgasm." There are dozens of conjectures about female orgasms. Quoting from Wikipedia's Orgasm#Theoretical_biological_and_evolutionary_functions : > They quote primate sexuality specialist Alan Dixson in saying that the monogamy-maintenance explanation for female orgasm "seems far-fetched" because "females of other primate species, and particularly those with multimale-multifemale [promiscuous] mating systems such as macaques and chimpanzees, exhibit orgasmic responses in the absence of such bonding or the formation of stable family units." On the other hand, Dixson notes that "Gibbons, which are primarily monogamous, do not exhibit obvious signs of female orgasm. These observations would suggest that the orgasm/permitting fatherhood hypothesis is incorrect. "If you have all your children with one man, influenza may kill all of them. However, if you mate with the neighbouring male as well, perhaps only some of the children will perish." Again, this is one of many conjectures. Another is that women find it advantageous to sleep with many men because men will help raise their own children, and will help even if there's only a 25% chance of the child being theirs. (Also, I don't think influenza infections are genetic in that way.) The problem with all of these is that there's no real evidence one way or another. As a result, it's easy for cultural biases to strongly sway our interpretations. Take the term "infidelity." That has two meanings: sex with someone other than one's long-term partner, and the cultural and emotional expectations, leading to jealousy, that one won't have sex except with one's partner. The phrase "We can pledge our fidelity until we are blue in the face" implies the second is true, but on evolutionary timescales there's no justification for that belief that people 10,000 years ago followed the same cultural expectations. We know that different cultures right now do not. It sounds like the goal of this exhibition is to get people to think about different possibilities. However, it's also likely that the suggestions proffered reflect too much of the presenters' own biases rather than the diversity of hypotheses available.

dalke 13y ago

To my knowledge, there is no evidence for the assertion that oversized brains is based on sexual preference. We see brain size enlargement across many mammals, and our brains are about what's expected for a primate our size. The title ("large testicles are linked to infidelity") refers to a trend across species, but cannot be applied to members of a given species. For example, the giant panda is taxonomically a carivore, but 99% of what it eats is bamboo. Just because a skull type and digestive tract is linked to being a carnivore, doesn't mean that the animal is that. "The female has also an opportunity to filter out those who will be permitted fatherhood, for example by having an orgasm." There are dozens of conjectures about female orgasms. Quoting from Wikipedia's Orgasm#Theoretical_biological_and_evolutionary_functions : > They quote primate sexuality specialist Alan Dixson in saying that the monogamy-maintenance explanation for female orgasm "seems far-fetched" because "females of other primate species, and particularly those with multimale-multifemale [promiscuous] mating systems such as macaques and chimpanzees, exhibit orgasmic responses in the absence of such bonding or the formation of stable family units." On the other hand, Dixson notes that "Gibbons, which are primarily monogamous, do not exhibit obvious signs of female orgasm. These observations would suggest that the orgasm/permitting fatherhood hypothesis is incorrect. "If you have all your children with one man, influenza may kill all of them. However, if you mate with the neighbouring male as well, perhaps only some of the children will perish." Again, this is one of many conjectures. Another is that women find it advantageous to sleep with many men because men will help raise their own children, and will help even if there's only a 25% chance of the child being theirs. (Also, I don't think influenza infections are genetic in that way.) The problem with all of these is that there's no real evidence one way or another. As a result, it's easy for cultural biases to strongly sway our interpretations. Take the term "infidelity." That has two meanings: sex with someone other than one's long-term partner, and the cultural and emotional expectations, leading to jealousy, that one won't have sex except with one's partner. The phrase "We can pledge our fidelity until we are blue in the face" implies the second is true, but on evolutionary timescales there's no justification for that belief that people 10,000 years ago followed the same cultural expectations. We know that different cultures right now do not. It sounds like the goal of this exhibition is to get people to think about different possibilities. However, it's also likely that the suggestions proffered reflect too much of the presenters' own biases rather than the diversity of hypotheses available.