Homophobia, nature or nurture?

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think the there is a selective advantage.

Aren't traits selected for by the individual? That is, it has to be beneficial to ME, allowing me to be more likely to reproduce. How can being homosexual be a reproductive advantage?

[TheVat]

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Aren't traits selected for by the individual? That is, it has to be beneficial to ME, allowing me to be more likely to reproduce. How can being homosexual be a reproductive advantage?

Group selection is also part of NS.  From Brit Tanica...

group selection, in biology, a type of natural selection that acts collectively on all members of a given group. Group selection may also be defined as selection in which traits evolve according to the fitness (survival and reproductive success) of groups or, mathematically, as selection in which overall group fitness is higher or lower than the mean of the individual members’ fitness values. Typically the group under selection is a small cohesive social unit, and members’ interactions are of an altruistic nature. Examples of behaviours that appear to influence group selection include cooperative hunting, such as among lions and other social carnivores; cooperative raising of young, such as in elephants; and systems of predatory warning, such as those used by prairie dogs and ground squirrels.

Homophobia, given its potential effect on the cohesion of, say, hunting parties, could have some negative group selection effect.  When social humans divide up by gender so that male groups go off to hunt or trade or make war with other tribes, some tolerance of homosexual play (recreation, relaxation, bonding) might improve stability and effectiveness of that group.  

Given the constant fertility of human males, it seems unlikely that nonreproductive acts, be it blowing, wanking or buggering, would put much dent in overall pregnancy rates.  We're like bonobos - lots of nonreproductive sex done for bonding.  

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Although it is not a selective advantage of being a homosexual, it could explain presence of homosexuals in a population. However, I wonder if there might be a selective advantage of being homophobic. I don't see any, but see rather a disadvantage, which I've mentioned.

It doesn't have to be such a direct process. The homophobic tendency might arise as a side effect of other traits, which ARE favoured. For instance, my suggestion that it arises from our ability to mentally imagine what others are feeling. That can be a huge advantage to the individual, in building alliances, in attracting mates, and even in hunting. But it also might have the side effect of making us recoil from homosexual behaviour. The plusses might just outweigh any disadvantage. 

I'm not championing that scene, just bringing up complicating possibilities. 

In my case, mentally putting myself in the shoes of someone just like me, but who discovered that they are attracted to men, has eventually had the contrary effect to phobia, by making me imagine what I would feel like, in their place. 

[iNow]

What got selected was ability to be a member of a cohesive social group and tribally identify us versus them. 

What did not get selected was a phobia of people who love or feel attraction differently than we do. 

The core issue is many cultures decided (often for religious reasons) that LGBTQ etc. aren’t welcome as part of their ingroup. They’ve been shunned and classified as an outgroup. 

And evolution selected for humans who in groups experienced higher cohesion and communal shared burdens by exhibiting ingroup/outgroup behaviors, including those which have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction, desire, or self-identity. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by iNow

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Group selection is also part of NS.  From Brit Tanica...

group selection, in biology, a type of natural selection that acts collectively on all members of a given group. Group selection may also be defined as selection in which traits evolve according to the fitness (survival and reproductive success) of groups or, mathematically, as selection in which overall group fitness is higher or lower than the mean of the individual members’ fitness values. Typically the group under selection is a small cohesive social unit, and members’ interactions are of an altruistic nature. Examples of behaviours that appear to influence group selection include cooperative hunting, such as among lions and other social carnivores; cooperative raising of young, such as in elephants; and systems of predatory warning, such as those used by prairie dogs and ground squirrels.

Homophobia, given its potential effect on the cohesion of, say, hunting parties, could have some negative group selection effect.  When social humans divide up by gender so that male groups go off to hunt or trade or make war with other tribes, some tolerance of homosexual play (recreation, relaxation, bonding) might improve stability and effectiveness of that group.  

Given the constant fertility of human males, it seems unlikely that nonreproductive acts, be it blowing, wanking or buggering, would put much dent in overall pregnancy rates.  We're like bonobos - lots of nonreproductive sex done for bonding.  

I just want to add that group selection has been in discussion for a long time and despite some resurgences, most evolutionary scientists find it problematic, as other than just-so stories, it has not been useful in explaining persistence of traits. Moreover, many social traits can and have been explained in the context of "regular" selection more efficiently. 

The whole idea kind of nosedived together with the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. 

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I just want to add that group selection has been in discussion for a long time and despite some resurgences, most evolutionary scientists find it problematic, as other than just-so stories, it has not been useful in explaining persistence of traits. Moreover, many social traits can and have been explained in the context of "regular" selection more efficiently. 

The whole idea kind of nosedived together with the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. 

This is OT, but I am very glad to hear this, because I've had many discussions about (im)possible mechanisms of this kind of selection years ago.

[mistermack]

At population level, it's pretty obvious that a lot of variation is good for the survival prospects of the overall population, but bad for some individuals who's characteristics are badly matched to the environment.
If you have variation, it's obvious that there will be winners and losers at an individual level. 
But the variation is an insurance policy for the group when conditions take a turn for the worse. 
If you had a population of clones, ideally suited to the current conditions, then they might be highly vulnerable to a climate shift, or an influx of competitors or new diseases. Whereas if you have a great deal of variety, the population might ride out the bad times, with the most suitable individuals surviving. So it's not likely to be pure chance that populations are varied. It's a tried and tested feature of evolution that's been happening for millions of years.
When you lose variety artificially, like in potatoes in Ireland in the 1800s, you set yourself up for disaster.

[iNow]

Wait, I thought the thread was about evolving a hatred of people who love or desire differently than we do. 

When did the goalposts move to homosexuality itself being nature vs nurture? 

[MigL]

I find it funny ( rather strange, actually ) that sexual attraction to your own gender, along with preference for homosexual sex, is considered innate, or even genetic, by some, yet a distaste for homosexual acts is considered 'learned' behaviour, and deserving of the 'homophobe' term.

Maybe someone could explain the 'logic' to me, Exchemist, and others.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I find it funny ( rather strange, actually ) that sexual attraction to your own gender, along with preference for homosexual sex, is considered innate, or even genetic, by some, yet a distaste for homosexual acts is considered 'learned' behaviour, and deserving of the 'homophobe' term.

Maybe someone could explain the 'logic' to me, Exchemist, and others.

Can you tell me which of the two seems strange to you? Meaning, do you think the idea that homosexuality being genetic is strange, and/or that distaste of homosexual acts being learned behavior is strange? 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I find it funny ( rather strange, actually ) that sexual attraction to your own gender, along with preference for homosexual sex, is considered innate, or even genetic, by some, yet a distaste for homosexual acts is considered 'learned' behaviour, and deserving of the 'homophobe' term.

Maybe someone could explain the 'logic' to me, Exchemist, and others.

The logic is that sexual orientation basically does not change through life, making it either genetic or at least strongly imprinted early in  life and in a mostly unchangeable way.

By the same token, homophobic sentiments can change quickly as noted earlier. Thus, using the same reasoning, it is much less likely to be innate.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

By the same token, homophobic sentiments can change quickly

You can learn or reason that it is desirable to overcome an innate instinct. It's possible to reason your way to overcoming other kinds of phobias. That doesn't change the fact that it was originally innate so it doesn't answer the question of "nature or nurture".

[MigL]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

By the same token, homophobic sentiments can change quickly as noted earlier.

But we are not discussing 'homophobic' sentiments, which most of us can agree are wrong; there is never a reason to hate others.

I am wondering how liking something can be innate, but disliking the very same thing, be a learned behaviour.

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

You can learn or reason that it is desirable to overcome an innate instinct. It's possible to reason your way to overcoming other kinds of phobias. That doesn't change the fact that it was originally innate so it doesn't answer the question of "nature or nurture".

I don't think it's a "fact" that what you're referring to is innate. We don't start out with many fears, we learn them. We tend to shy away from loud noises, we instinctively duck from things that come at us too fast, and spiders/snakes seem to be hereditary dangers for most. Homophobia certainly doesn't make the list of natural fears for humans. The closest instinctual fear would be predators in general, so why are some hetero males afraid of homosexuals as predators? Predators triggering innate fears usually exhibit obviously dangerous behavior, like growling and baring of teeth. Some people learn to fear predation from people they don't want to have sex with, yet we all have a strong urge to appear desirable and fit to everyone we encounter. 

Ask a homophobic what they fear about LGBTQ people and it's fairly easy to see they learned every bit of it. Studies show that homophobes are less likely to have had any kind of contact with gays or lesbians, more likely to be religious, less well educated, resided in areas where homophobia was the norm (small towns, rural areas), and tend towards authoritarian views and the personality traits that come with that perspective. Homophobia isn't natural, otherwise we'd see it in nature, right? Name another species with homophobia, please.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I am wondering how liking something can be innate, but disliking the very same thing, be a learned behaviour.

What are some examples of things humans like innately?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But we are not discussing 'homophobic' sentiments, which most of us can agree are wrong; there is never a reason to hate others.

I am wondering how liking something can be innate, but disliking the very same thing, be a learned behaviour.

It falls roughly under the same umbrella. There is a host of data, starting from the one I mentioned above where it shows that folks are far less uncomfortable (including sexual advances from individuals from the same sex). I think it is fairly clear that this is not true for sexual orientation. I.e. it only seems similar if you use the terms of like and dislike. But I think you will agree that sexual orientation is far more hardwired (though part is likely learned early on), whereas the other "dislike" is far more malleable.

 

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But I think you will agree that sexual orientation is far more hardwired (though part is likely learned early on), whereas the other "dislike" is far more malleable.

The orientation may be hardwired, but I think the behavior surrounding it is mostly learned. Male heterosexuality in particular is a pretty fragile thing, where men learn even one mistake can label you for life. Women's orientation is a bit more forgiving, as if men don't understand lesbians and don't see their homosexuality as a threat.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I am wondering how liking something can be innate, but disliking the very same thing, be a learned behaviour.

And I'm wondering why you're mixing reference frames like this.

How is "an innate attraction toward a specific sex" supposed to be in your words "the very same thing" as disliking others for who they happen to feel attracted to? That doesn't follow...

If my preference and general like of a specific ice cream flavor like vanilla is innate, that is in no way related to other feelings of dislike I may have for other humans due merely to them preferring chocolate. 

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

What are some examples of things humans like innately?

In fairness, it was Charon not MigL who introduced this in context of which sexes we happen to feel more attracted to along the purely heterosexual/purely homosexual spectrum... MigL was just taking that as given, but asking why the dislike of others for their sexuality should be any different. 

[TheVat]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

I just want to add that group selection has been in discussion for a long time and despite some resurgences, most evolutionary scientists find it problematic, as other than just-so stories, it has not been useful in explaining persistence of traits. Moreover, many social traits can and have been explained in the context of "regular" selection more efficiently. 

The whole idea kind of nosedived together with the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. 

I appreciate you taking time to point this out.  I have wondered about the concept, but am fairly rusty on trends in evolutionary biology, so I'm going to look at some recent critiques of the GS idea.  

And yes, I can see how selection at the individual level can direct social animals towards behaviors that promote group cohesion and cooperation.  (IIRC, there were studies of the amygdala in domesticated animals, which mediates fear responses.  Domestication seems to be partly a selective process for shrinkage of the amygdala so that humans can be approached and interacted with more easily)   

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The orientation may be hardwired, but I think the behavior surrounding it is mostly learned. Male heterosexuality in particular is a pretty fragile thing, where men learn even one mistake can label you for life. Women's orientation is a bit more forgiving, as if men don't understand lesbians and don't see their homosexuality as a threat.

To your first point, I think it the term hardwired or innate does obscure some of the mechanisms surrounding sexual orientation. Most likely it is a developmental mechanism where genetic factors contribute, but not necessarily determine sexual orientation. What we do know is that typically it is fixed at an early age. However, one should contrast them to sexual preference, which might be finer grained. I.e. the attraction among the perceived sexually compatible partners. These are much clearer to be learned, but are likely also heavily influenced by child-hood learning. There are several mechanisms described in psychology in that regard where childhood might influence partner selection.

There is for example a hypothesis in psychology, called the Westermarck effect which assumes a form of inprinting in which folks tend not to be attracted to siblings, if they have lived together at a young age. It is an attractive hypothesis as in contrast to what is under discussion here, there is a path to selective advantages (i.e. avoiding incest). The problem though is if experimental data does not really support such a mechanism.

What has been found is that e.g. disgust with incest is more related to social and cultural cues, though the debate is not fully settled yet. So even from a perspective where at least theoretically there could be strong selective factors and which appear to be a automatism, the underlying mechanisms are apparently far more complex. And obviously there is not really a good argument to made for strong selection on mutable traits.

As with many things, I think the somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that most behaviour, even many unconscious ones are learned on one level or another. Our brain requires constant feedback to develop and some behavioural traits (such as sexual orientation) can be fixed very strongly, whereas others remain malleable. 

The OP was talking about selection and as such the traits that are malleable are not under selection. However, the basis for such traits (e.g. the mechanisms which influence how we develop sexual preferences) might be. And I think in the discussion so far, both factors have been mixed up.

[mistermack]

As usual, when you wonder if something is genetic or nurture, a check on identical twins will tell you a lot. Homosexuality in one twin does not automatically match homosexuality in the other. So it's not 100% caused by genetic makeup. 

There is a possibility that identical twins can experience different levels of hormones in the womb, but that's not been proved either way. 

I don't think anyone's done a study on homophobia in identical twins. I wouldn't expect any proven link if they did. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Ask a homophobic what they fear about LGBTQ people and it's fairly easy to see they learned every bit of it.

Well firstly, most people who are homophobic wouldn't admit to fearing gays. And most probably don't fear gays. The phobia label is just a trendy depiction of what most homophobics would describe as dislike or repulsion. Also, it's just as likely that tolerance is something that is learned. I don't see parents openly teaching kids to be homophobic, but I do see parents teaching tolerance to their children all the time. If tolerance is so natural, why does it have to be repeated over and over to children? 

 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Homophobia isn't natural, otherwise we'd see it in nature, right? Name another species with homophobia, please.

Now that is downright silly. There isn't another species with anywhere near the brainpower to understand the concept of homosexuality. Most species can't even comprehend that other animals are even conscious. Very few can even recognise themselves in a mirror. 

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

firstly, most people who are homophobic wouldn't admit to fearing gays.

Mostly because homophones are just anxious, weak, immature children in grownup bodies. The lack of courage is directly correlated with the inability to accept others who are deemed to be different from ourselves. 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well firstly, most people who are homophobic wouldn't admit to fearing gays.

Right, they deny being attracted.

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And most probably don't fear gays.

Most won't admit being afraid, or most don't fear it, are you trying to have this both ways? That's a different orientation.

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Also, it's just as likely that tolerance is something that is learned. I don't see parents openly teaching kids to be homophobic, but I do see parents teaching tolerance to their children all the time. If tolerance is so natural, why does it have to be repeated over and over to children? 

Actually, tolerance is probably the default or natural attitude. Learning to be tolerant after one has learned to be homophobic isn't the same as starting life with a tolerant outlook. Most kids are actually like that, with notable exceptions about justice and fairness.

Children do openly learn homophobia from their parents (even though you've NEVER seen it), and they also learn from peers, media, and other sources. They LEARN it, it's not natural.

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If tolerance is so natural, why does it have to be repeated over and over to children? 

Because the society in which that tolerance must be practiced is often filled with shitty people and like lifting a heavy weight, it takes practice to battle back constantly... day in and day out... just to be accepted for who one is and how they were born.

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There isn't another species with anywhere near the brainpower to understand the concept of homosexuality.

More likely is the animals that are smarter than us simply don't care. Whales, for example. 

x-posted with Phi

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Now that is downright silly. There isn't another species with anywhere near the brainpower to understand the concept of homosexuality. Most species can't even comprehend that other animals are even conscious. Very few can even recognise themselves in a mirror. 

So you agree that homophobia is unique to humans, a learned behavior based on our brainpower, and something that requires indoctrination into a particular set of societal norms. Not natural, but rather nurtured by fear and misunderstanding. 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Mostly because homophones are just anxious, weak, immature children in grownup bodies. The lack of courage is directly correlated with the inability to accept others who are deemed to be different from ourselves. 

Sexual orientation seems to be fairly fundamental to the psyche that picks on those who are different, and they behave with open hostility about it. Being from a different country is probably a core fear as well, based on how foreigners are treated. I wonder if these same feelings are present (though watered down) even in mundane differences. Do homophobes also harbor bad opinions of those who prefer chunky peanut butter to smooth? Do they ridicule those who face the toilet paper the wrong way?

[MigL]

Maybe I'm nor explaining myself well enough ...

Exchemist said that he personally found thoughts of same gender sex, or being 'approached' by a same sex suitor, distasteful, not that he disliked others who engage in such.
He was told this was a learned response.

If personally disliking the acts, or unwanted same sex approaches, is a learned response, why is liking those acts, and 'flattering' same sex approaches, an innate response ?

liking, or disliking, the same thing is either innate to a person, or is learned behavior.
You guys seem to be picking and choosing which is innate to a person and which is learned, in order to suit personal beliefs.

I emphasize that I'm not talking about disliking other people for their behavior, but a person's personal likes and dislikes.
My thinking is somewhat along the same lines as CharonY's post above; like, and dislike, are both learned behavior ( it took a while for me to like lobster and Indian food, and I've learned to dislike Chinese which I used to enjoy )
 

Edited February 3, 2023 by MigL