Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览罗恩·恩兹档案
“同性恋基因”与“同性恋细菌”
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

我们社会中知识时尚的曲折往往很奇特,尤其是当涉及“敏感”话题时。

例如,考虑对人类行为的分析。 无论大多数人私下相信或说什么,控制我们媒体制高点的有声有色的学者和活动家倾向于声称人们的行为主要是由于社会条件,他们经常谴责或诽谤那些被指控犯有思想罪的人“遗传决定论”。 注意(前)的例子 哈佛总统拉里·萨默斯(Larry Summers).

但是所有规则都有例外,出于某些未知的原因,同样的活动家和媒体机构也认为同性恋是基于基因的,谴责了其他建议。 因此,基因正式决定同性恋而不是别的,这似乎不是世界上最合乎逻辑的可能性。 但是指出这种不一致性会使您陷入困境,因此很少有人这样做。

鉴于我们的媒体精英们在如此广泛的话题中表现出了极大的不诚实,因此自然而然地会认为事实可能与他们所说的一切相反。 这削弱了同性恋基因假说的可信度,其支持者将科学分歧视为宗教异端的做法也是如此。

但坦率地说,辩论的另一方有时在行为上似乎也好不到哪里去。 我认为,盖伊·吉恩(Gay Gene)理论遭到最严厉的竞争对手之一 “同性恋细菌理论” 有关某种病毒或微生物是造成上述行为的原因的建议。 就在几天前,我注意到进化理论家 Gregory Cochran,同性恋细菌的主要支持者之一, 恶毒地侮辱 我的老教授 EO Wilson 的智慧支持同性恋基因方面的言论。

虽然我承认我从来没有对进化生物学理论的这个特定方面进行过太多调查,但整个学术争论对我来说总是有点奇怪。 就我所知,这两个相互矛盾的假设——同性恋基因与同性恋胚芽——几乎没有太大的对立,当我们在近端因果关系和最终因果关系之间做出适当的区分时,它们甚至可能相互融合。

首先,考虑遗传假说。 从我在这里和那里读到的,似乎确实有相当程度的明显遗传性,在家庭中运行的趋势和一致性在同卵双胞胎中远高于异卵双胞胎。 但是遗传力太低,无法通过简单的基因开关来解释,因此至少意味着某种随机的环境触发因素,也很可能是一些修饰基因。

现在考虑竞争对手的“细菌”假设。 似乎没有证据表明该病原体具有通常意义上的传染性,因此任何此类细菌都可能存在于我们的社会中,许多或大多数人不断接触病毒,而个体对病毒的易感性是决定因素。 但这种易感性很可能具有重要的遗传成分,如部分遗传性的证据所示。 因此,假设的细菌仅代表遗传模型所假设的环境触发的一个特定例子,两种理论在本质上是相同的。

Cochran 和其他人嘲笑基因模型是荒谬的,认为强大的选择压力会迅速从种群中消除任何此类基因,这并非没有道理。 但类似的批评也适用于他们自己的模型,因为对细菌的遗传易感性显然会受到同样强大的选择性劣势的影响。

实际上,在我看来,很难想象这样一种情况,即所讨论的基因将保持动态平衡,而定向的选择性缺点则由其他种类的优势所平衡,就像镰刀状细胞基因由于其杂合抗性而存活一样。提供给疟疾。 例如,假设GG纯合条件与细菌接触或其他环境触发因素(可能还有一些修饰基因)共同产生了方向,但杂合Gg组合提供了一些小的选择优势,很可能像平凡一样消化效率或铁的运输。 结果将是有关基因和行为的永久维持。 我当然不是在暗示这个特殊的模型(我花了不到五分钟的时间来制作)是正确的,只是我不知道基于有限的经验证据,如何轻易地将其抛弃。

我怀疑,这些对立理论的学术支持者有时对他们的确定性如此傲慢的一个原因是,他们倾向于将他们基于科学的想法与 100 世纪下半叶主导该主题的荒谬的弗洛伊德式胡说八道进行对比,并假设由于那些相反的想法可能是 100% 错误的,因此他们自己的想法必须是 XNUMX% 正确的。

 

在另一件事上,凯文·麦克唐纳(Kevin MacDonald)教授 回应 我批评他关于中国一夫多妻制的重要作用的说法,但恐怕我看不出他的任何新证据很有说服力。

他正确地指出,据记载,一些中国皇帝中有成百上千的妻子和ubi妃,一夫多妻制在所有中国阶级中都是合法的,但我仍然不知道有任何证据表明这种做法很普遍。 至少在中国成千上万的政府官员中有大多数人以及许多富裕的商人都拥有me妃,这丝毫不会令我感到惊讶。 但是这些精英群体在亿万总人口中所占的比例微乎其微。

为了确认自己的印象,我回过头来查阅了我的五,六本书的索引,这些书对特定的中国村庄进行了详尽的社会学研究,而正如我所记得的那样,第二任妻子或conc妃的数量几乎为零。 的确,其中一位作者指出,由于大多数中国村民连自己的第一任妻子都负担不起,因此涉及巨大的成本,因此完全没有额外的妻子。 有趣的是,主要的例外情况恰好是我所记得的,即那些搬到城市的村民变得足够富裕,可以维持多个家庭,其中一个常常最终被送回其祖传村庄照顾当地财产。 。 另一个典型的案例是村民永久性地搬迁到遥远的城市工作,甚至搬到海外。 他们有时在那个地方成立新的家庭,而他们的原妻子仍然在家中是“草gra”。 但是我认为这种情况有时也出现在XNUMX世纪的美国西部西部。 我的印象是,生活在农村村民中的成年男性中,只有不到百分之一的人是一夫多妻制。

And was the polygamous nature of China’s tiny ruling elite really so totally different than that of Europe’s kings or barons during the same centuries? I’m hardly an expert on medieval sociology, but my impression is that most members of the royalty or nobility tended to have numerous mistresses and often multiple families, even though this practice was frowned upon by the Church. As an extreme example, in the early eighteenth century King August the Strong of Poland was reported by contemporary sources to have sired nearly 400 children. The point is that the although the practices of the tiny slice of ruling elites may attract great historical attention and produce major cultural influences, they are unlikely to shape the innate characteristics of a large population.

 

Meanwhile, I’m pleased to see that my original Chinese Social Darwinism article continues to attract additional interest,与 Indian blogsite reprinting the entire piece and tweeting it out to over 20,000 recipients. My paper was also highlighted by UCLA Professor Cameron Campbell, a leading world authority on East Asian demographics, two of whose books I had read as part of the background research for my own analysis.

On a somewhat less favorable note, some blogger named Alan Baumler has denounced my article as “Yellow Peril 3.1,” juxtaposing his criticism with a description of fictional accounts advocating the total extermination of the Han race. He also described as particularly “loony” my suggestion that Chinese social-conformism may have roots in 2,000 years of strong central government authority, without apparently realizing that I was merely quoting the views of Bruce Lahn, a brilliant Chinese-born genetics researcher. I’ll admit that I don’t really know anything about the blogger in question, but he does seem to have serious problems in reading comprehension.

(从重新发布 美国保守党 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: 中国进化, 同性恋者 
中国进化丛书
隐藏59条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. ziel 说: • 您的网站

    I don’t think ‘viciously attacked’ is a fair characterization. The only first attack onWilson was at the end where he said “Maybe a lot of these low-math types just aren’t very smart. I’ve never seen any sign that E. O. Wilson is.”

    And it didn’t seem to be in the context of gay gene theory at all, but seemed to be triggered by Wilson’s mathophobia. Plus Wilson’s pushing the idea of group selection among humans, a real pet peeve of Greg’s.

  2. cka2nd 说:

    Straw Man Alert! Straw Man Alert!

    Mr. Unz says: “…vocal academics and activists who control the commanding ideological heights of our media…”

    This apparently only holds true where some social issues are concerned, because corporate interests certainly seem to be commanding the ideological heights when it comes to economic, fiscal and educational issues.

    Mr. Unz says: “…tend to claim that people act as they do largely because of social conditioning, and they often denounce or vilify those accused of the thoughtcrime of ‘genetic determinism.’…But all rules have exceptions, and for some unknown reason those same activists and media organs have decided that homosexuality is genetically based, denouncing anyone who suggests otherwise. Thus, genes officially determine gayness and nothing else, which hardly seems the most logical possibility in the world.”

    Really? Folks who argue that genetics determine gayness (what, is “sexual orientation” too academic for you, or are you just trying to score ickiness points?) believe that genes determine “nothing else?” So, these vocal academics and activists do not believe that genes cause no developmental disabilities, play no part at all in causing obesity or addictive behaviors, and have nothing at all to do with some types of mental illness? Uh huh.

  3. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    When most gay activists claim one is ‘born this way’, I do not believe they are saying that being gay is genetically based. Indeed, I rarely hear that argument and I’m gay and pretty well informed. It is my understanding that some scientific studies have pointed that there may be some genes that predispose some humans to be gay (i.e., not all gays have those genes and not all who have those genes are gay, but there is a higher incidence of those genes in gays). However, that science is all very wobbly. The stronger theory is that there is a hormonal factor while the fetus develops in the womb. It’s interesting stuff if you care to google it, but in the end it is still all very theoretical. Almost every scientific study, however, has shown that homosexuality is determined at least by age 3, and definitely not because of domineering mothers or child abuse or anything else that some like to claim brainwash or indoctrinate or ‘pervert’ one to be gay. But the bottom line is, when people say one is ‘born this way’ or being gay is not a choice, etc., they aren’t saying it is genetic but rather one cannot change sexual orientation once it is set at a very early, possibly prenatal stage.

  4. Spartacus 说:

    Even if you disagree with Mr. Unz’s writings on meritocracy, immigration and race, you at least have to acknowledge that he approaches those topics with intellectual rigor and tries to apply empiricism when discussing them. He is, however, seemingly completely incapable of writing intelligently when it comes to SSM or homosexuality.

    Last week he argued that if society is going to permit SSM, then it might as well permit a person to marry a sidewalk. I guess from his perspective there’s no meaningful difference between, on one hand, permitting two adults in a loving, committed relationship wherein they are raising children and, on the other hand, an obviously mentally impaired individual who wants a similar relationship with a block of concrete outside his home.

    He now writes this:

    “But all rules have exceptions, and for some unknown reason those same activists and media organs have decided that homosexuality is genetically based, denouncing anyone who suggests otherwise. Thus, genes officially determine gayness and nothing else, which hardly seems the most logical possibility in the world. But pointing out such inconsistencies can get you into hot water, so few people do.”

    Really, who are these people that claim genes determine sexual orientation, but nothing else? Seriously, name them.

    More importantly, whether it’s solely because of genetics or some combination of genetics and environment, no thinking person alive believes he or she made a conscious decision to determine his/her sexual orientation. Since sexual orientation is outside a person’s control, then obviously so is the gender of someone with whom we may fall in love. I didn’t decide to be attracted to the opposite sex; I simply am, and there’s nothing I or anyone else can ever do to reverse that. Because I am attracted to the opposite sex, I fell in love with someone of the opposite sex and married that person.

    How on earth is that different from what happens among gays and lesbians, and why should the government interfere with that?

  5. ziel 说: • 您的网站

    Cka2d – yes, activists do tend to believe that debilitating conditions have a genetic basis, since that tends to absolve afflicted individuals of any responsibility for their condition. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not in any way debilitating, we are assured. So it does occupy a special place in academia – a perfectly normal behavior that’s genetically determined.

  6. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Of course it’s possible to develop genetic resistance to a germ (or to become less susceptible to it as you put it), but germs evolve too, often very rapidly – that’s one of the advantages the gay germ hypothesis has not only over a primarily genetic explanation but over rival environmental explanations that don’t involve organisms with “incentives” to overcome whatever resistance humans develop

  7. To argue that a genetic link to homosexuality exists while not providing said gene. Until then it is just a theory and if sucha gene exists it creates another dillemma.

    Heterosexuals produce members to sustain the community. That is the most fundamental difference and central to any discussion as to marriage. There are other differences. But that is the most obvious that’s how it is different. Such unions represent the norm and as they provide this benefit coupled with other unique contributions the country has a vested interested in sustaining them.

    Even for couples who eventually discover they cannot produce children. They represent the model that does so. Since the law does advocate chasing down homosexual couples and hanging them by the nearest lamp post, a compaint as to discrimination is unfounded.

  8. I am not sure that is true. I have often considered when and who was the first girl I approached as to sexual attraction. I have not yet decided whether I buy that claim. Sexual desire is biological, is my choice of mate also so geared — or is it my choice.

    In this instance, I find that I lean more towards choice. I chose Patty and not my friend Bill. Was that choice part of my biology or was it formed over time observing the the interaction of my parents. To that end I am not sure that I care why so and and so chose a male. I am able to recognize that it is not the norm. I am able to understand biology enough that same choices challenge the natural order and function of human pair bonding.

    Do same sex couples represent marriages – no, at least not as to a legal recognition. Is my business what occurs between consenting adults, in public, I think there is more room. In private – no. Whether or not that is a moral failing depends on one’s faith and practice.

    But the laws designed to protect and codify heterosexual marriage are Constittional and were passed according to the processes and manner in accordance with the Constitution —

  9. The comparisons to other biological traits of behaviors based on genes are also based on something the same claim made by the homosexual community is not —

    just a small problem. Evidence.

  10. ziel 说: • 您的网站

    Really, who are these people that claim genes determine sexual orientation, but nothing else? Seriously, name them.

    Seriously, yourself. Try columnists for the NY Times – Nik Kristoff, Tom Friedman, Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd. Do you honestly think any of them believe behavioral/mental traits like intelligence, conscientiousness, extroversion are genetically based? Or doubt that homosexuality is “in the genes?”

    This duality of which Unz refers is pretty much rampant among our illuminati. I’d like you to name a public intellectual who clearly believes both to be true.

    On the other hand, it seems likely that Krugman does believe intelligence is largely heritable, based on his dismissiveness towards Gould in the early 90’s – but nowadays he dare not admit such a thing lest his wife physically remove his manhood.

    (FYI – the correct answer is that homosexuality is not genetically based while the others are largely if not mostly genetically based.)

  11. MEH 0910 说:

    Gregory Cochran wrote on 疯狂深度:

    I’ve said it before, but it’s probably time to say it again. The most likely explanation for human homosexuality is that it is caused by some pathogen. It’s too common to be mutational pressure (and we don’t see syndromic versions, as we would in that case), it’s not new, identical twins are usually discordant (~75% of the time), and it’s hell on reproductive fitness. There is no way it is adaptive: the helpful gay uncle notion, group selection, compensating advantage in females, etc: these range from impossible to bloody unlikely.

    我的模型——不是基于病原体的唯一可能模型,而是合理的——依赖于几个自然例子。 一种是嗜睡症。 我们现在知道,发作性睡病发生在某种特定的神经元集中在下丘脑的一个小区域中时,发生了某种形式的破裂。 99% 的发作性睡病病例发生在 25% 具有特定 HLA 类型的人群中——这表明某种东西,可能是病毒,触发了过度热情的免疫反应,从而破坏了产生特定神经递质(称为下丘脑分泌素或食欲素)的神经元亚群调节食欲和睡眠模式。 它没有做任何其他事情:发作性睡病患者并不愚蠢。 您可以将发作性睡病与 I 型糖尿病或帕金森病进行比较。 假设有一个神经元亚群在男性性欲中发挥关键作用:消灭该亚群,而鲍勃就是你的叔叔。

    另一个是弓形虫,我们现在知道弓形虫会改变鼠标的行为,从而增加鼠标被猫(弓形的定性宿主)吞噬的机会。 受感染的老鼠会被猫尿吸引,而未受感染的老鼠则会避开猫尿。 实际上,在受感染的老鼠中,猫尿显然会触发涉及性唤起的神经通路的活动。 微生物可以重编程哺乳动物中的性吸引。

  12. MEH 0910 说:

    Ron, Gregory Cochran 回应 to this post of yours. Excerpt:

    Ron Unz, in one of his occasional visits from Discworld, just offered a criticism of my ‘ gay germ’ theory of homosexuality. He suggests that people would surely develop resistance to any such germ – which general argument must explain why infectious diseases have never been a major problem for humans, right? Why malaria is no problem? The germs evolve too – that’s the point. Parasites can impose fitness burdens for millions of years.

  13. ted 说:

    You might know a lot about many topics, Mr. Unz, but you don’t know the most basic things about pathogens, their mutability and the speed of that mutability.

  14. mike 说:

    Wait–you think a guy like Cochran just cavalierly discarded something like balanced selection, just threw it away with no good reason?

    I guess you don’t think much of Paul Ewald’s notions about germs either?

  15. It’s hardly scientific proof of gay-germ theory, of course, but it’s pretty common knowledge in some circles that homosexuality can be transmitted by sharing a six-pack of beer.

  16. “He is, however, seemingly completely incapable of writing intelligently when it comes to SSM or homosexuality.”

    Naturally, translated, this means “only those who agree can be considered intelligent.”

    Mostly, all the theories are proffered to try to make the point that since no one has any choice, no one can be held responsible for their choices as well as having no control over them.

    It is true, where there is no individual will, there can be no sin.

    Yet the specter of sin hangs heavy over the not-quite-conscious, like a doubt, nevertheless.

    Homosexuality is something that is both made too much of and too little, from several perspectives. In denying choice or responsibility, however, there are those who doth protest too much.

  17. Gaeranee 说:

    Mr. Unz, you may want to look into sexually antagonistic selection in male homosexuals — http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/

    This article explains the study above in layman’s terms about why gays haven’t died out — http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2008/06/sexual_antagonism.html

  18. MEH 0910 说:

    5 Weak Ideas About the Origin of Homosexuality: A Reply
    by Jesse Marczyk

    H/T: West Hunter blog 评论 by 克里斯 (with an interesting 回复 by numerate gay male 误解).

  19. Cole 说:

    Come to think of it, why exactly would this hypothetical germ make people gay? Presumptively it’s an accidental or coincidental thing, e.g. its waste is similar enough to some neurotransmitter/hormone/whatever to affect development. That sounds like a weird coincidence, but less weird than a pathogen that spreads by/profits from making people gay.

    The hormonal surge theory does sound more plausible, but it’s not like I’ve researched this. Or know much at all about the subject.

  20. Ron Unz 说:

    (I generally avoid involving myself in TAC comment-threads, but I’ll copy my response from the Westhunter debate)

    Of *课程*, I’m aware of all those Hamilton inclusive-fitness issues, and quite possibly have been for much longer than gcochran, given my strong interest in the topic stretches back to the late 1970s. And I also agree that E.O. Wilson is almost certainly mistaken on the Gay Uncle Hypothesis, but since the Gay Germ Hypothesis seems just as ridiculous, I don’t think the harsh insults to Wilson’s intelligence were warranted.

    Consider the Gay Germ model. I don’t think that anyone has ever suggested that the germ actually transmits itself via the sexual behavior in question, so that behavior is seemingly a inessential byproduct to the germ life-cycle. If the behavior doesn’t matter to the germ, but obviously matters very, very much to the genes of the host, there would be powerful selective pressure upon the germ to drop that particular extended phenotypic expression, after which the host would declare a permanent truce in the evolutionary arms race. After all, the human body is filled with a multitude of free-riding germs, so who cares about a few more?

    GCochran correctly points out the *大量的* selective pressure against gay behavior. So if the germ didn’t really need it for anything, why keep it?

    这是 *极其* different from the case of nearly all infectious diseases, in which the harm inflicted upon the host is directly related to the massive multiplication or propagation of the germ. If gays ran around biting straights and thereby turning them gay, then I’d agree that a germ was probably responsible.

  21. Three things : first of all, Greg Cochran may be brilliant, but he is also quite arrogant, so anyone who disagrees with him on anything is in for a lot of grief from him. I think it is less a form of political correctness than a form of Harlan Ellison-ness (anyone who knows anything about Harlan Ellison knows what I mean, although I don’t think that Greg goes so far as to mail dead animals to people he doesn’t like).

    Secondly, the gay germ theory does not have quite the same problems as the gay gene theory, because even if this implies a potential genetic predisposition to homosexuality, the actual activation of this predisposition is subject to enough randomness that it might not have a great selective disadvantage. It also needs to be pointed out that identical twins are together in the womb for nine months and then usually together for several years after that, so they not only share genes but would likely be exposed to the same germs – in other words, the 25% concordance in identical twins does not necessarily imply that anyone with that same genetic structure would have a 25% chance of being gay.

    Thirdly, it needs to be pointed out that this applies to male homosexuals. Lesbianism is likely to have completely different causes.

  22. mike 说:

    The gay germ seems a pretty good working hypothesis–a common pathogen that has an unusual, harmful side effect on a susceptible subgroup. Susceptible why? Maybe the age of the infected. An infant’s or a toddler’s brain is especially susceptible. Maybe a certain population has an atypical immune response. Consider something like MS, which appears related to genetic factors like hla type but also with environmental factors like distance from the equator and exposure to Epstein Barr.

    Cochran has pointed out the polio virus lives rather harmlessly in many of us, but is crippling, even life-threatening in others when it somehow meanders out of the gut in the afflicted. Sounds like something any other neurotropic bug could do in an unlucky small percent of a population.

  23. I hope there are those besides me troubled by a discussion about a yet undiscovered and unlikely to discovered responsible gene or germ.

    I understand the need to cut a path in research of what might be. But imbedded in these contentions is the not so subtle conclusion that it is.

  24. MEH 0910 说:

    “(I generally avoid involving myself in TAC comment-threads, but I’ll copy my response from the Westhunter debate)”

    注释 are very interesting over at the West Hunter response to this Unz piece, especially by Greg Cochran himself (gcochran9), and by numerate gay commenter “misdreavus”.

  25. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    As a psychotherapist who has worked with a good number of gay and lesbian clients over the years, I would add to the mix some speculation on a gene/developmental perspective on the emergence of gay behaviors and preferences. Cautionary note, this is not a resurgence of Freud. However, over the last 20 to 30 years developmental psychologists have become far more attuned to the importance of very early micro signaling in infant-caregiver behavior, and the importance of that signaling for a number of developmental outcomes, notably attachment. To be brief on this, some thought is being given to the possible role of slight variations in early developmental behaviors, that would be genetic in origin, that induce variations in response leading to longer term developmental outcomes, possibly including fully formed homosexual preferences. I suppose this is a variant on the gene plus germ argument, but it is worth keeping in mind. From my understanding of work in developmental dynamic systems theory (Thelen and Smith, for example, who also embrace a neural Darwinism model) it is likely that a number of behavioral and personality outcomes share this gene plus developmental environment profile. At any rate, in my clinical experience I can attest that all of the gay men I have worked with were well aware that something about them was “different” by about age 8 to 10, and they often have accounts of a sensed mismatch with their father–not necessarily an abusive or really compromised relationship, although that certainly happens–from a very early stage.

  26. Cliff 说:

    The counter-argument to the gay gene theory, “that strong selective pressure would have rapidly eliminated any such genes from the population”, doesn’t work, as gays have (under social pressure) historically married and reproduced. Will our current acceptance of gays lead to their disappearance?

    The whole kerfuffle sounds like economics to me: people arguing about things that cannot be known. And if Mr Cochran can’t keep his temper over a matter like that, perhaps he should seek a less-stressful occupation.

  27. Spartacus 说:

    Fran Macadam wrote: “Naturally, translated, this means “only those who agree can be considered intelligent.””

    No what it means is that the position one holds needs to be logical and based on facts.

    You apparently agree with me that Unz’s position is illogical because you accepted my statement that sexual orientation is not a choice. You simply have a different view on whether the absence of choice requires society to permit SSM. You apparently believe that because the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, then our society should outlaw SSM and presumably homosexual sex as well. I disagree with your conclusion, but both of us are still in agreement that sexual orientation is beyond one’s control. Unz seems not to believe this.

    By the way, since you’re of the view that society should outlaw sin you should get started on the repeal of the 1st Amendment since it permits people to take God’s name in vain and to worship any deity they want, both of which are clear violations of the 10 commandments.

  28. Just because same-sex sex is naturally occuring does not mean that is it is genetic in origen.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

    There is also the possibility that same-sex sex is easier for people because they do not have to deal with the wide variation of sexual expectations between females and males. Males tend to have low standards and do not require emotional content. Females are choosier and tend to demand emotional interaction.

    Every time my wife and sit down to choose a movie to watch, I wish I was in a same-sex relationship.

  29. Sharculese 说:

    I hope there are those besides me troubled by a discussion about a yet undiscovered and unlikely to discovered responsible gene or germ.

    Why would anyone be troubled about it? That’s not how science works. The human genome is huge and our understanding of it is still pretty primitive.

    It’s not wizardry. It’s hard work that takes time to do.

  30. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    When my first child was born, he was jaundiced and needed to be kept under UV lights for treatment. When my second child was born, the UV lights were not sufficient, and he needed a total blood transfusion. My wife and I were told that if we had a third child, it might require multiple transfusions in-utero. What was going on? We found out after the second child that we had a rare type “C” and “m” blood incompatibility; each time my wife’s immune system got a wiff of the C and m factors in the child’s blood, it mounted an increasingly more robust attack — similar to the way vaccines work.

    What does this have to do with homosexuality? One theory comes from the observation that the probability that a male is gay increases about 33% for each biological (not adopted) older male sibling. It posited the mother’s immune system reacts to mascularizing hormones in the developing fetus and attacks them; more male offspring mean more exposures and a heightened immune response. There would be positive evolutionary pressure for this adaptation- a strong immune system is good — but clearly there is a balancing act, and a too strong immune response results in some gay (infertile) offspring.

    Note that homosexuality is probably like fever – a condition with multiple causes. Just because viruses cause fever, doesn’t mean that bacteria don’t also — or for that matter, some purely voluntary behavior, like staying in the sun till the point of sunstroke — don’t cause it as well. Current estimates are that the Fraternal Birth Order effect account for about 1/7th of male homosexuality.

    Female homosexuality probably has a host of different causes as well, though my sense is that it is more often socially conditioned (the Lesbian until graduation phenomon) than in the male case.

  31. Ron Unz 说:

    格利夫斯特: Greg Cochran may be brilliant, but he is also quite arrogant, so anyone who disagrees with him on anything is in for a lot of grief from him.

    Well, you appear to be correct. After he produced his lengthy post attacking my critique of his Gay Germ theory, I showed up and published a couple of comments in response, but he now seems to have censored/banned me, perhaps because I was defending myself a bit too well. Here are my two published comments:

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/hamilton-rules-ok/#comment-11890

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/hamilton-rules-ok/#comment-11894

    His response to the second was:
    ===
    Chlamydia often causes sterility. There are parts of the world – Africa’s ‘sterility belt’, where tens of percent of women were sterile or had drastically lowered fertility, before antibiotics became widely available.

    According to your argument, that can’t have happened. But it did.

    Enough already. Your style of argumentation is not productive.
    ===

    我对此回应:
    ===
    Aren’t sterile women in those African societies usually forced into prostitution? Hasn’t there been quite a bit of speculation in ev-bio circles that the sterility inflicted by the disease therefore greatly increases the effectiveness of its vector transmission to additional hosts? Now *那* is an ev-bio disease hypothesis that makes perfectly good sense to me.
    ===

    After three tries last night, my comment still hasn’t appeared, so I suppose our dialogue is at an end. Obviously, it’s his blogsite and he can do whatever he wants with it, but I doubt if such behavior enhances his scientific credibility. Stephen Jay Gould would be proud.

  32. cka2nd 说:

    Glaivester says: “…first of all, Greg Cochran may be brilliant, but he is also quite arrogant, so anyone who disagrees with him on anything is in for a lot of grief from him. I think it is less a form of political correctness than a form of Harlan Ellison-ness…”

    哎呀!

  33. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    … Can people without molcularbiology degrees just refrain from commenting. Although most will have the capacitie to understand some of the research that has come out recently- most will never be able

  34. Geoff Guth 说:

    You may be interested to know that current research suggests that male homosexuality is not transmitted genetically, strictly speaking, but via changes in how genes are expressed (a field of study called 表观遗传学). There’s a discussion related to homosexuality 此处.

    The “gay germ” theory is not one I’m familiar with. However, it seems to me that it would have to account for several difficulties. First and foremost, where is it? Why has it not been identified? Secondly, how is it transmitted? How and why are some people infected and others not? Sexual orientation, after all, appears to be extremely geographically dispersed, and seems to manifest in many cases before puberty.

    I suppose you could argue that most people have an inherited resistance to a “gay germ”, but that doesn’t square with what we know about how such resistance comes about (bubonic plague is an excellent example: you’ll initially get widespread infection and morbidity, eventually this settles into being endemic like plague is now, finally we end up with most people not being affected or only weakly so).

    As with any other “germ” that causes genetic extinction (homosexuality doesn’t kill you, but does prevent you from reproducing), we would have expected to see tons of gayness breaking out followed by a population crash followed by a slow recovery. And we would have expected to see that pattern repeated when previously isolated populations were introduced to the germ (看到。 smallpox and syphilis, which crossed the Atlantic in opposite directions during the Columbian Exchange).

    Anyways, if anything, the whole germ theory appears, if anything, to be even more problematic to me than the genetic model.

    The epigenetic argument is interesting, and may well prove fruitful. Prior to reading about it, my assumption had been that homosexuality was caused by a combination of factors, some genetic, some environmental (in the broadest sense; for instance it would include the environment 在子宫内 as well as family and social factors 产后).

    But, more broadly, whether homosexuality is ppurely genetic, epigenetic, environmental, caused by infection, or some combination of all of these factors, while interesting, is beside the point. The point is that it a conscious choice. Which suggests a major reason why conservative hostility towards gay people has become so unpopular as that understanding has grown.

  35. minty 说:

    “the ridiculous Freudian nonsense that dominated the subject during the second half of the twentieth century”

    Har. Somewhere in the 1990’s, Camille Paglia is VERY ANGRY with you.

  36. Sharculese,

    I did not say it was wizardry. I did not say it wasn’t hard work. I said it is not in evidence. The discussion centers soley on it’s speculative possibilities. For me the discussion suggests (strongly) that biology is a given — And to that I mus say “Whoa.”

    I am ver mindful of the research that denotes that in males engaged in homosexuality, that a substantial number revert to heterosexual unions. as they age.

    A biologic determinent would preclude such behaviors.

  37. “Just because same-sex sex is naturally occuring does not mean that is it is genetic in origen.”

    Just because something appears in nature doesn’t make it normal either. Anamolies occur across most animal and plant life.

  38. “Folks who argue that genetics determine gayness (what, is “sexual orientation” too academic for you, or are you just trying to score ickiness points?) believe that genes determine “nothing else?”

    My infinitesimal academic background requires something more than repeated refernces to a study by a now damaged survey, not the least of which is the continuum contention. Like all speculation and theory . . . sounds nice — but the evidence is rather scant.

    Here’s what I mean. if genetically based . . . even if hormonally based — one would be able to examine X gene and tydghn s chemical hormonal content and predict which children will be homosexual.

    Great for broadway plays — a long way from science.

  39. MEH 0910 说:

    The epigenetic theory appears problematic to Gregory Cochran: 同性恋,表观遗传和斑马

    Rice suggested sexually antagonistic genes, earlier. What fraction of known, common, fitness-reducing syndromes are known to be caused by that? Gee, none of them. What fraction are known to caused by leaky epigenetics? None.

    What fraction are known to be caused by infectious organisms? Practically all of them. So you know it can’t be that, right? Life is really a vast murder mystery – it’s always the one you least suspect.

  40. MEH 0910 说:

    Ron Unz, I would have liked to have seen Greg Cochran continue to engage your arguments in the West Hunter comments.

  41. Eric 说:

    Greg Cochran may be brilliant, but he is also quite arrogant, so anyone who disagrees with him on anything is in for a lot of grief from him.

    I’m not sure why Cochran is regarded as “brilliant”. He hasn’t contributed anything exceptional or original. There’s nothing novel in 10,000年度爆炸 or novel about the “gay germ” theory. I don’t know whether E.O. Wilson is smart or not, but it’s pretty clear that he has made more of an original contribution to science simply via his fieldwork than Cochran ever will (considering Cochran’s age). Just comparing their popular writing output, if you had to use the word, “brilliant” would apply to Wilson before ever applying to Cochran. 10,000年度爆炸 is pretty derivative compared to, say, 社会生物学.

    It seems the whole notion that Cochran is somehow “brilliant” comes from deferential amateurs from non-science or non-grad school backgrounds in the HBD blogosphere that are intimidated by an actual credentialed physicist, especially one that acts so imperiously, that actively participates in their corner of the web populated mainly by fellow amateurs. They just assume he’s “brilliant” when it’s not really justified. He’s spent most of his career at government funded labs and contractors. Those PhDs are a dime a dozen. Most of them are time serving bureaucrats. They’re not “brilliant” physicists just because they have PhDs.

  42. “Those PhDs are a dime a dozen.”

    Hold on, I think I have a dime.

  43. MEH 0910 说:

    that are intimidated by an actual credentialed physicist”

    Oh please. It’s all about the quality of the arguments. There is a theoretical physicist associated with the HBD blogosphere – HBD accepting and string theory partisan “mad man” 卢博斯莫特尔. I think string theory is bunk. In the physicist blogosphere I look to string skeptic 彼得·怀特, who I am certain rejects HBD. That’s neither here nor there for me. For me it’s not tribal, it’s all about the quality of the arguments.

  44. Geoff Guth 说:

    I am ver mindful of the research that denotes that in males engaged in homosexuality, that a substantial number revert to heterosexual unions. as they age.

    I am unaware of such research. Perhaps a citation would be in order? Unless you are referring to bisexual males who later choose to forgo homosexual relationships, in which case then, well duh, the whole point of bisexuality is attraction to both genders, which you can choose to act on in varying degrees. In other words, you’re talking about the same kind of situational homosexuality that Mr. Unz separated from the people who in earlier generations fled to San Francisco and New York.

    As for the whole “ex-gay” movement, Exodus finally admitted some years ago that they couldn’t actually make gay men straight. I believe they now focus on helping them with chastity. And the remaining ex-gay movement has the problem that their poster boys keep coming back out of the closet. John Paulk is only the latest example.

    As I stated, it’s still unclear what the actual causes of homosexuality may be. But pretty much the one thing that has been established is that the myth that it’s a conscious choice has pretty much been demolished. When even the ex-gay dead-enders start admitting they were wrong, that’s pretty much the end of the argument.

  45. Mr. Unz, thanks for leading the charge on so many fascinating, yet neglected issues here at TAC over the last few months.

    I appreciate your perspectives as well as your openness!

  46. Jack 说:

    The easiest question to answer is whether or not being a gay man is a choice. All you have to do is ask gay men this question: Did you choose to be gay? The answer, of course, is no, we did not choose. And anybody who still thinks it is a simple lifestyle choice is an idiot. Full stop. The difficult question is “What causes homosexuality?”. I encourage biologists and psychologists to keep researching for an answer. But in the meantime, the answer does not matter, right? Germs, genes, hormones in the womb, who cares? Whether the reason is this or that, will it change how you treat gay people? Should it change what rights they have as individuals? I sure hope not. This parsing of rights only matters if you are arguing that being gay is a choice. And it isn’t a choice.

  47. MEH 0910 说:

    Gregory Cochran’s latest writing on the issue: 不是最终的!
    摘抄:

    If you knew the MZ twin concordance, which is around 25%, you’d already know that some environmental factor had to be the main cause. If you knew history, let alone microbiology, you’d wonder about pathogens, because they have caused most of the common fitness-reducing syndromes. As for the notion that hosts would surely evolve resistance – microorganisms typically evolve a bit faster than we do. A bacterium can go through thousands of generations in a year.

    You need to do a fair amount of spadework to make the case against a genetic cause. Even then, you can’t perfectly sure. It’s not like math. There’s always the possibility that there’s an undiscovered genetic phenomena that doesn’t have a name yet, not yet even a twinkle in someone’s mind’s eye. As Haldane would have said, things may be queerer than we can suppose. But that’s not the way to bet.

  48. Rambler88 说:

    A particularly interesting contradiction is that psychology, and other practices of similar authority, claim that they can–and should–treat a large and ever-growing variety of behaviors. These conditions range from serial child molestation to behaviors that are commonly considered to be normal, such as small boys acting like small boys. But it seems to be the strongly prevailing doctrine among them that homosexual behavior is immutable.

    I myself think that they’re mostly charlatans, with regard to what they claim they can change, and also with regard to their predatory attempts to extend the range of what they should be hired to change. But the contradiction should in any case cast some serious doubt on any “science” they may produce, either in defense of the gay agenda, or offensively against those who criticize it.

    Even in fields that are usually more rigorous, findings that can be seen to reinforce pro-gay positions are much more likely to lead to further funding and promotion than are findings that challenge those positions.

    As to whether or not homosexual behavior is a choice, I’m not convinced by statements like “I always knew I was different”. Some people 是不同的, but many more think they are. And I’m not convinced of it by my impressions of most of the many gays I’ve known more or less well, at work or socially.

    If, in some cases, homosexuality is inevitable, it need not be for reasons that are intrinsically gender-related and therefore necessarily manifested in gender-related behavior. For instance, a person who is physically weak or morbidly shy may be pushed into such behavior in some environments–but not in others. The underlying characteristics of weakness or shyness may have a genetic component, or some other physiological basis, but the expression in gender behavior can still be environmentally determined and therefore might often be, to some significant extent, under the control of the individual and those around him. The same may be true of physiological factors in the womb, or even, for that matter, of genetic factors.

    Being from New York City, I’m certain that, for many homosexuals, fashion, social pressure, or the need to sugar up to the boss are decisive factors. (They’re factors in female promiscuity, and I’m quite sure that not all those women are promiscuous by nature.)

    Even if homosexuality is not a matter for choice, there are all sorts of behaviors that people can’t help, some with a physiological basis, some not. The fact that they can’t be helped does not mean that they merit promotion to the status of social norms. The undesirability of behaviors can be more obvious in some cases than in others, and the need for restriction can vary. A serious alcoholic or psychotic, or a severely autistic person, could be very disruptive in the workplace, for example, while a gay may make major positive contributions with no tradeoffs. (Though in fact, the more extreme gay types I’ve worked with were also quite disruptive–and a lot harder to fire.) This suggests that there might be a good deal of room for tolerance of gays.

    It does not follow from this, however, that homosexuality should be treated as a general social norm. There are respectable arguments against doing so. One of the strongest is that, through all the variations human society has experienced, no society, except the West in the last generation, has ever attempted to treat it as a general social norm–despite the fact that homosexuality has probably always been present in some degree. However accepted it has been in some circles and some situations, it has always been severely restricted, never publicly proclaimed, and always scorned by many- openly and with impunity.

    Official tolerance is nice, and I advocated it for gays for a long time, back when doing so was a social handicap rather than a smart career move. But it is now clear that in our society official tolerance is not enough for gays, or at least not enough for those whom gays allow to speak for them. I’m beginning to suspect that this has always been the case, and that this in turn is the reason why past societies, even those which accepted gays in some circles, have also tolerated, and often mandated, extreme measures against gays who ask too much from the wrong people.

  49. Vince 说:

    Ron seems to take as a given that there would be “massive selective pressure” against a gay gene which would ultimately eliminate it from the gene pool. I take this to mean that being gay would present a significant enough social impairment to lead to total marginality in one’s milieu. But it isn’t true that gays were always-everywhere marginal to society. Charlemagne would be a singular example. Or we could look at homosexuality among the leisured class of ancient Greece.

    Or, to cite a modern example, think of a married man with kids who comes out of the closet at age 40. If we wish to argue against the gay gene theory, this would present a problem for the “selective pressure argument,” as this guy has done just fine reproducing, and it doesn’t seem to be a stretch of imagination to consider that a lot more men do the same thing. Think of how marriage and sexual relationships have changed throughout history, too, and how they react to the economy–a peasant would like to have as many children (farmhands) as possible, whereas a CPA can’t really have his 12-year old sons tend expense accounts.

    If we accept that there is a gay gene, then it would be the case that gays were pretending to be straight all throughout history. Given that cultural views and tolerance of gayness vary with the place and its historical moment, it wouldn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that the gay gene could persist.

  50. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Given the remarkable dishonesty of our media elites across such a wide range of topics, there is a natural tendency to assume that the truth is probably the opposite of whatever they say about anything.

    Hence your belief in Creationism?

  51. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    The rule with human sexual behavior seems to be that whatever can be done to elicit arousal and orgasm will be done and it doesn’t have to be done with a partner. The idea that the sort of pornography we find stimulating as adults was determined en utero is preposterous.

  52. TGGP 说: • 您的网站

    It’s possible that at any moment of time there are genes associated with susceptibility to a pathogen. But those genes will be selected against, and then the pathogen will have to adapt in response to its changing environment. So there will not be a particular gene which remains associated for a long time.

    GBH, have you read “The Nurture Assumption”?

    Eric, Cochran & Ewald’s “New Germ Theory” seems to have persuaded the American Academy of Microbiology, which endorsed relaxing Koch’s Postulates along their recommended lines in 2005.

  53. Rambler88 说:

    @ Vince:

    Your example of “a married man with kids who comes out of the closet at age 40” is a good point. But a “gay gene” (or complex of genes, or whatever) that survives on that basis is not distinctive enough to fit in with the radical “intrinsically gay” vs. “intrinsically straight” dichotomy that would justify the sort of “separate but equal” status that the gay rights movement currently demands. (Much less the “separate and superior” status implicit in much gay rhetoric.)

    In other words, survival of a “gay gene” on that basis concedes too much to the view that heterosexuality is the norm (because it is the basis for survival and persistence). It would not 通过它自己 invalidate the notion that SSM is enough of an aberration to warrant being prohibited.

  54. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Coming up with a theory of a gay “germ” is a great way to make the white liberals in San Francisco or Montgomery County Maryland foam at the mouth, muttering about “homophobia” and all….but from my experience, homosexuality is both nature and nurture…there is a predisposition to it, based on some early emotional experiences and family dynamics (such as early molestation, or maybe too nurturing mom and an emotionally absent father)…or is opportunistic—like the absence for socio-economic reasons of women—which is why Kinsey came up with his “Kinsey Scale”…which has been discarded by the politically uncool by the modern urbane set.

    The most prevalent form of homosexuality seems to be older guys with young men—Oscar Wilde’s “feasting with panther”, or maybe the ultra-feminists, who hate men so much that they consider emotional or sexual intimacy with a man to be impossible.

    At any rate, sexuality as a recreational activity for well-to-do urbane wealthy men (The Playboy Philosophy) and women (Helen G Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl) fits right in with the “Gay Sexual Liberation” movement. It might work for the rich playboys/girls, but it’s a disaster for the working guy or gay who lives closer to the edge economically. Look at the African-American family for instance.

    All the above is very politically incorrect. Hope I don’t get demoderated….<chuckle.

  55. ““Kinsey Scale”…which has been discarded by the politically uncool by the modern urbane set.”

    While vast the Kinsey study is rife with problems. Not the leat of whic is Kinsey’s theories are just that — theories. His methodology and record keeping are highly questionable as well as the absence of any hard data to support the same theories.

    The continuum sexuality scale — is not rooted in scioentific evidence. We just know that certain people have certain prefernces — there is is no evidence that sucha scale is biologically determined or that one even exists.

  56. “Look at the African-American family for instance.nced. ”

    as linked to the matters you referenced, I think this is an astute observation.

  57. Stew 说:

    I am a gay man, I’ve known I was different and that I felt differently about males since I was young. I was neither neglected, molested or abused as a child and entered puberty noticing the guys on my soccer teams while they noticed the girls. I can say without a doubt that sexual orientation occurs without some life altering sexual abuse. I have a straight friend who was abused and he still turned out straight. You christians use that old “the bible says…” to defend what you don’t understand while ignoring it’s neighboring old laws because they aren’t socially appropriate anymore.

    The next time you wave that two thousand year old fiction around think about how you’re not helping the poor, orphaned children or the sick and darkly enough how you’re not punishing insolent woman or how you’re treating your slaves.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Ron Unz评论