@
spec111, Вы так и не смогли привести ни одного научного доказательства из указанных мной Ваших утверждений. Так что, как и предупреждал, я с Вами дискуссию закончил.
Я не "не смог". Я не стал, потому что я не увидел у вас даже минимума адекватности. И так и не увидел вашего главного тезиса, т.е. того что вы стремитесь доказать и коим вы стремитесь опровергнуть мой главный тезис, который у вас опять же вызвал столь бурную реакцию.
Но вы наконец-то стали формулировать нечто вразумительное, поэтому мне таки стало интересно:
С другой стороны, Я в дискуссии со @
spec111 утверждал, что даже у животных не все так примитивно и что даже у животных не всегда шансы оставить потомство у "мужика под размножение" больше, чем у "мужчины для содержания".
Нас интересуют далеко не все животные и даже далеко не все приматы. Именно в силу того, что даже у приматов существуют очень разные репродуктивные системы. Попугаи, как и большинство птиц как раз выделяются моногамностью, но не без сюрпризов, и они тут мимо кассы. А уж тем более мимо кассы горные гориллы, которых усиленно изучают как раз из-за того что они по многим характеристикам отличаются не только от приматов, но и от других горилл.
Ссылка номер раз:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689943/
"
Abstract
Competition for fertile females determines male reproductive success in many species. The priority of access model predicts that male dominance rank determines access to females, but this model has been difficult to test in wild populations, particularly in promiscuous mating systems. Tests of the model have produced variable results, probably because of the differing socioecological circumstances of individual species and populations. We tested the predictions of the priority of access model in the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanzania. Chimpanzees are an interesting species in which to test the model because of their fission–fusion grouping patterns, promiscuous mating system and alternative male mating strategies. We determined paternity for 34 offspring over a 22-year period and found that the priority of access model was generally predictive of male reproductive success. However, we found that younger males had higher success per male than older males, and low-ranking males sired more offspring than predicted. Low-ranking males sired offspring with younger, less desirable females and by engaging in consortships more often than high-ranking fathers. Although alpha males never sired offspring with related females, inbreeding avoidance of high-ranking male relatives did not completely explain the success of low-ranking males. While our work confirms that male rank typically predicts male chimpanzee reproductive success, other factors are also important; mate choice and alternative male strategies can give low-ranking males access to females more often than would be predicted by the model. Furthermore, the success of younger males suggests that they are more successful in sperm competition.
Keywords: chimpanzee, dominance rank, male reproductive success,
Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, paternity, priority of access"
То есть как мы видим у шимпанзе, ближайшего к нам вида обезьян все очень и очень сурово. Да, существуют некоторые неожиданные явления, но картинка остается прежней.
Далее, некоторые граждане делали предположения о том, что якобы более высокий интеллект связан с куда большим количеством потомков. Это не совсем так. Скажем данные исследований шведских мужчин родившихся на рубеже 60-х, пожалуй одного из самых эгалитарных западных обществ того периода, показывают, что есть некоторая корреляция между повышенным IQ и количеством потомков, однако вплоть до IQ 81 никакой особо существенной просадки в количестве детей не наблюдается:
https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2017-020.pdf Страница 27
Т.е. это дает нам основания предполагать, что если явление "мужчин для размножения" таки существует, то даже очень среднего IQ для этого бы хватало.
Далее, что касается корреляции между уровнем образования и уровнем рождаемости:
https://demotrends.org/2017/09/19/n...ip-between-education-and-fertility-among-men/
Опять же мы видим, что даже на материале финнов родившихся в 50-х, т.е. еще до того периода как пошли горы исследований по факту утверждающих обратную корреляцию между IQ, образованием и рождаемостью, мы по факту видим что корреляция действительно присутствует, однако никакого тотального преимущества у мужчин получившими высшее образование и мужчинами закончившими старшую школу-trade school-ПТУ по части количества потомков опять же не наблюдается.
Далее, доходы и рождаемость. Опять же Schultz из Йельского университета, в своем исследовании -
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf демонстрирует нам уже обратную корреляцию между рождаемостью и доходами:
На самом деле эта штука, если ее детализировать, по факту устроена чуть сложнее, но для данной дискуссии нам и этого хватит.
Далее, основной тезис моих оппонентов и их основная претензия ко мне заключается в том, что якобы явления "мужчин для размножения" не существует. Из этологии и смежных дисциплин мы знаем, что само явление "мужчин для размножения" связано с явлением полигамии и полигамных систем спаривания и репродукции у человека. То есть если мы докажем, что полигамия у людей таки существует, то тем самым мы докажем и существование той самой категории "мужчин для размножения".
Во-первых, сам по себе половой диморфизм вообщем-то является признаком полигамности. Читаем у Daly, Wilson (1996)
https://www.martindaly.ca/uploads/2/3/7/0/23707972/daly___wilson_1996_in_buss___malamuth.pdf -
"The human animal exhibits a number of sex differences that may be interpreted as evolutionary vestiges of a selective history as an effectively polygynous species–that is, as a species in which male fitness has generally been more variable than female fitness and hence intrasexual competition has generally been more intense among males than among females. These vestiges include sex differences in body size, in maturation schedules, in intrasexual combat, and in rates of senescence. In all of these, the sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygynous mammals such as bison or various seals or our cousins the great apes. Likely implications are that the human species evolved as a slightly polygynous one, and, more specifically, that pair formation with biparental care is an ancient hominid adaptation but that competitively ascendant men continued to be polygamists. And that, of course, is also what is suggested by the ethnographic record of marriage practices epitomized above. "
Далее находим у Wilson, Miller, Crouse (2017)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mating-system
4. Dimorphism in visual appearance
"Both men and women display sex-specific traits that are attractive to potential mates, including broad shoulders, beards, low voices and masculine facial features in men, and broad hips, breasts and feminine facial features in women [
18]. While some have claimed that humans are ‘relatively monomorphic’, systematic comparison with other primates reveals that men and women differ substantially in appearance, particularly compared with primates classified as having monogamous mating systems [
73]. Dixson
et al. [
73] developed a rating system for visual trait dimorphism in a range of conspicuous traits displayed by primates, including hair tufts, capes, manes, baldness, colourful skin patches and fleshy protuberances. They scored all sexually dimorphic traits on the head, trunk and limbs on a six-point scale, from no difference between the sexes (0) to maximum dimorphism (5), being fully developed in one sex but absent in the other. Total scores ranged from 0 to 32 [
73]. In most primates classified as monogamous, males and females looked similar, with a median score of 0 (range = 0–11.5,
n = 41 [
73]), whereas humans received a score of 10. Among monogamous primates, humans tied with white-faced saki monkeys (
Pithecia pithecia), and were exceeded only by the pileated gibbon (
Hylobates pileatus) [
73]. Recent observations have found that both white-faced saki monkeys and several species of gibbon have greater diversity in mating behaviour than previously assumed [
74,
75], further supporting the view that high visual trait dimorphism is unusual for monogamous primates.
Grueter
et al. [
76] recently refined the visual trait dimorphism analysis to take into account the growing recognition that humans and several other primates are best classified as having multi-level societies, in which social groups consist of nested sets of modular units, such as ‘one-male units’ (one breeding male and several females) combining in higher levels such as band or herd [
77,
78]. Ten of 140 species categorized had multi-level societies: some Asian colobines, some African papionins (baboons and their kin) and humans [
76]. Primates living in multi-level societies are more strikingly ornamented than closely related species living in other societies [
76] (
figure 1). For example, in contrast with the rather dull appearance of male olive baboons (
Papio anubis), male hamadryas baboons (
Papio hamadryas) have long capes of white fur and bright red paracallosal skin (which in olive baboons occurs only in pregnant females). Similarly, men and women differ more in their appearance than do male and female chimpanzees (
Pan troglodytes) (
figure 1). In multi-level societies, the prevailing threats of mate poaching and mate-switching may favour the evolution of conspicuous ornamentation to display condition, to maintain the interest of current mates, attract higher quality mates and/or to deter rivals [
76,
77]."
С милой картинкой:
То есть даже по сравнению с приматами люди отличаются куда визуальным половым диморфизмом, что само по себе уже дает нам определенные основания считать людей полигамными.
Далее, а что там с практикой? Там же:
5. Human mating systems
"The diversity of human mating systems provides abundant opportunities to test evolutionary hypotheses for how mating behaviour relates to socioecology. Humans exhibit a wide range of marriage systems and mating practices within and among societies, including monogamy (one individual of each sex), polygyny (one male and multiple females), polyandry (one female and multiple males), polygynandry (multiple males and females) as well as same-sex relationships.
In the 186 societies in the standard cross-cultural sample (SCCS), 82% are coded as polygynous, 17% monogamous and only 1% polyandrous [80]. Such broad characterizations, however, obscure substantial variation within each society. Additionally, as in other species, the social mating system for humans (marriage) may differ from the sexual mating system. Because humans mate in private, direct evidence of departures from the social mating system is difficult to obtain. Recent reviews of data for contemporary and historic societies reveal generally low rates of extra-pair paternity (around 1–2%) but with considerable variation among populations [
20,
81,
82].
Polygyny occurs widely, yet even in societies that permit polygyny, only some men—those who are especially adept at hunting, or who have acquired wealth through skill or good fortune, or have otherwise gained high status—marry multiple wives. For example, among 31 forager populations in the SCCS, the percentage of married men with more than one wife varied considerably (range: 0–70%) [
80] (
figure 3). Across these societies, a mean of 12.4% of married men had more than one wife [
80]. This mean is influenced by the few highly polygynous societies; calculating the median reveals that only 5% of married men had more than one wife."
Оуч... То есть помимо всего прочего вполне серьезные ученые говорят нам о различии между брачными и сексуально-репродуктивными структурами. Опять две разные иерархии о которых я и говорил с самого начала? На всякий случай список тех самых культур из SCCS -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_cross-cultural_sample
Ну и напоследок, нами всеми любимая книжка Breed, Moore - Animal behavior (second edition), 2016
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mating-system (PDF или ссылку на полный текст, извините, не выложу.)
Так что нам там говорят о выборе партнера для размножения и как определяют факторы на это влияющие?
Оуч... Опять почти ничего из типичных дамских требований к "мужчинам-провайдерам". Мда.
Так может быть именитые авторы и полигамию у людей отрицают? Да нет, никак не отрицают. Наоборот:
Case Study: Mate Choice, Monogamy, and Human Sexual Behavior
"Human behavior has not been a primary focus in this text, but everyone is curious about how humans fit into the mating behavior picture. Perhaps most obvious from a physical perspective is that sexual selection has affected both male and female human phenotypes. The presence of secondary sexual features in both males and females suggests that both sexes actively choose their mates. Scientific studies and personal experience support the idea that each person has a distinct view of what makes an “optimal” mate. 1
Individual perspectives on what constitutes “beauty” and “sexiness” also vary and are strongly influenced by genes and by cultural background. 2 Some scientists have argued that people judge more symmetrical faces (“even” or “balanced” features) to be attractive. Others note that symmetry seems to have little to do with actual mate choice. Symmetry may convey information about genetic variation and a person’s health; the reasons for this are presented in this chapter. A counterargument is that asymmetries bring character and interest to a person’s appearance. Mate choice revolves not only around physical appearance, but involves perceptions of future fecundity (ability to have children) and abilities as a parent, including possession of resources that will aid in rearing children.
The question of whether or not humans are naturally monogamous is fascinating and definitely serves as a flashpoint in moral, legal, and religious debates. The two ape species most closely related to humans, chimpanzees and bonobos, are strikingly promiscuous in their sexual behavior, with sex playing roles in bonding, social affiliations, and perhaps appeasement in both species.3,4 Copulation serves a variety of nonreproductive social functions in these apes. The validity of looking to chimpanzees and bonobos to understand human sexual behavior is an open question because the ecology of humans differs substantially from that of chimpanzees and bonobos, and ecology plays a major role in mating systems.
Across a broad range of human cultures, the most common mating systems are monogamy and polygyny; the latter occurs when a male has multiple female mates (sometimes this is called a
harem mating system). However, from a lifetime perspective, both males and females are likely to have multiple mates, and serial monogamy—pair bonds that are nonpermanent—is a common mating system in humans. Extrapair copulations (EPCs)—sexual encounters outside a pair bond—are certainly frequent in humans. EPCs may allow a person to produce genetically diverse offspring while avoiding the costs of parental care."
Ну что? Сам по себе тезис моих оппонентов об отсутствии полигамии у людей можно считать опровергнутым. А это, в силу тождественности двух моих тезисов между собой, и означает существование того самого типа "мужчин для размножения". Что вообщем-то и требовалось доказать. ЧТД, жирными буквами. Хах.