Are all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire?

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

So I guess I can't really escape philosophy in saying that I don't think you can play this reductionist game with the behavior of complex organisms. I believe there's a co-existing reality of a programmable genetic reason for behaviors and our more familiar human reasons. I take a somewhat similar stance in free will debates. I think life, especially sentient life, is too complex to be understood without considering both elements as valid.

I think that this is a humanistic approach and that it is valid, perhaps in a practical sense even more so than the Darwinian stuff. This may sound anti-intellectual, but when has there ever been a "scientific" dynasty or "empirical" government? The closest thing we had, the historical materialist Communist states, ended up having to become idealistic (i.e. opposite of materialist) in order to first into power and hold onto it. Human activity occurs due to material causes, obviously, but manifests itself through "idealist" philosophies that in turn have the ability to bring about material changes. "Idealism", in fact, I would argue, can be said to encompass anything anyone thinks, ever, including scientific theories.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

All human interactions? Pretty sure if I walked up to someone and punched them in the face for no reason other than for the fact I just could do it, doesn't mean I secretly want to bone them. So I'd have to say it's a false statement. :P

But seriously though, I'd say it's situationally dependent. Which still makes it a false statement, since it's trying to promote an absolute.

[Alchemist007]

What I think the conversation is really about is how we're hardwired to simply think about people or judge them on the basis of sex. You might see a kid and say something along the lines of "drink your milk and you'll grow up to be big and strong." Why do we say that? So they'll be better off. Do we actually think about their future reproductive success? No, the point is that we would say something like that because the sexual outlook we all have innately influences us to make decisions one way or another. We want to be big and strong because weak and small doesn't drive sexual prowess as a preference of our species.

I would say sex has an influence in many situations to some degree, but not simply on the basis of "to intercourse or not to intercourse."

[Fireminer]

So, the feedbacks until now is mostly negative...

Oh, and artist. Why did they create art, a thing that has almost no material value, and it lead to no avantage in sex?

[Jinto]

The problem is, that many people want to oversimplify things, so that they can understand it. Most often getting their answers from analyzing themselves. So the only thing you can tell by listening to them... is what type of people they are.

[aohige]

Yeah, it's an "easy answer" to a not-so-easy question.
It goes in the line of already establishing a predisposition, and thinking how to fit everything to that context - which is a primary problem I have with all these so-called "philosophers". It's self fulfilling line of thinking.

1) I think this is how it works
2) Ok, what can I observe to prove point 1
3) See, everything can be linked to 1!

To be fair, we all do this to some extent.
But when things are placed in such a generalized window... oh I dunno, like making a statement of "every human interaction", it becomes clearly detrimental.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by C.A.

If you're arguing from an evolutionary standpoint, everything we do can be related to sex.

Originally Posted by C.A.

In case people start asking me how did I end up having such a perspective of life, for that I point to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

I really need to read those books so that I can better tear them apart, because I've heard them cited here and elsewhere multiple times before, usually supporting overly simplified arguments about genetics and evolution. I think I had this discussion with someone, I believe ChainLegacy, once before. He stole my thunder by bringing up an example that I use to debunk this idea:

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Now another tangential idea (not really related to the above line of thinking) I mean to introduce regarding your point about reproduction, is the existence of eusocial organisms such as ants and bees. I would assume you are aware that very few of the members of any given colony/hive reproduce. Yet they still live and work towards the reproductive success of others. From a Darwinian perspective, this is because they share some genetic material with the queen and the fertile males born in their colony. So even though they do not directly reproduce, some of their genetic material is still passed on. Obviously, humans aren't eusocial, but this same situation could apply with humans and their siblings, or menopausal mothers who are still quite obviously alive, but can no longer reproduce and thus would focus more on the survival of their existing children rather than have their energy put towards reproduction.

Looking at higher-level organisms, the topics to read on are "kin selection" and "kinship theory."

Originally Posted by Triple_R

But there are people I've conversed with that I would never express sexual desire for. And that's not just due to some social norms or values, but also due to the simple fact I don't find them sexually attractive.

That statement is basically a /conversation, right there. We all interact with people that we have no sexual desire for, whether due to appearance, age, or gender.

I suspect that sexual attraction receives the most attention because of the way that it grips the mind. Think about the friends you've made over the course of your life; why were you friends? You can probably think of some defining event, usually relating to the fact that you were both in the same place at the same time fairly regularly. It doesn't seem particularly special.

By comparison, think back to people you were drawn to because you found them physically attractive. Your mind is probably overtaken with images of their physical appearance, and perhaps even some romantic or sexual fantasies. That seems a heck of a lot more potent than thinking about the friends made through circumstance. Those may also be the times when you really, really wanted to get to know a person better, which again is different from linking with someone just because of circumstance.

The powerful driving force of sexual attraction thus makes relationships formed through circumstance or other means seem like nothing significant, leading to thoughts that sex must be behind everything. Yet those non-sexual relationships still exist, even if the events leading up to them don't flood your mind with powerful feelings or thoughts.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Looking at higher-level organisms, the topics to read on are "kin selection" and "kinship theory."

This is a reply to both you and ChainLegacy about organisms of the same species protecting and helping each other survive.

This table can be thought of as indicating your level of evolutionary imperative to protect and assist your various relatives. That perspective was nicely summarised by the early evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, and replied “No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.” He was merely observing that 2 × (1/2) = 8 × (1/8) = 1, i.e. that two brothers, or eight cousins, are each “equal” (in evolutionary terms) to one copy of yourself.

That was a quote of J.B.S. Haldane taken from this article about genetic similarity in families.

Professor Robert Sapolsky which I studied from, in a lecture after the one I posted used this quote to describe that animals are protecting other organisms of the same family because they carry similar genes as theirs. Kinship is just another mechanism to help the species spread genes, the purpose of evolution.

In hive families such as bees and ants, the entire family basically carry the same genes as they are born from a single queen. Everything the hive does is to allow the queen to spread her genes.

Organisms who don't reproduce themselves are still contributing to the spread of genes by helping those who carry their genes.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Professor Robert Sapolsky which I studied from, in a lecture after the one I posted used this quote to describe that animals are protecting other organisms of the same family because they carry similar genes as theirs. Kinship is just another mechanism to help the species spread genes, the purpose of evolution.

This strikes me as an argument that is so stretchable as to be meaningless. It starts out with "each gene wants to replicate itself," and then extends to "similar genes help each other." How do you define "similar?" Siblings? Cousins? Second cousins? Hominidae? Primates, mammals, Animalia? Where does it end?

Approaching it from the gene level is going about it backwards, in my opinion. Organisms look to reproduce themselves. Genes are simply the medium through which to accomplish that. If it were all about genes reproducing themselves then we would be combining through binary fission and would probably have even better mechanisms in place to prevent random mutations from occurring. Yet even organisms that reproduce through binary fission (bacteria) have mechanisms to alter their genetic code when the organism as a whole is threatened. Looking at an even more simple organism, viruses do not copy themselves so perfectly so as to make mutations impossible or even rare, either.

The idea that "the gene" drives everything is overrated and oversimplified. In my opinion, the only good thing that came from the idea of "selfish genes" was to raise awareness and interest in the field of genetics.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

This strikes me as an argument that is so stretchable as to be meaningless. It starts out with "each gene wants to replicate itself," and then extends to "similar genes help each other." How do you define "similar?" Siblings? Cousins? Second cousins? Hominidae? Primates, mammals, Animalia? Where does it end?

Approaching it from the gene level is going about it backwards, in my opinion. Organisms look to reproduce themselves. Genes are simply the medium through which to accomplish that. If it were all about genes reproducing themselves then we would be combining through binary fission and would probably have even better mechanisms in place to prevent random mutations from occurring. Yet even organisms that reproduce through binary fission (bacteria) have mechanisms to alter their genetic code when the organism as a whole is threatened. Looking at an even more simple organism, viruses do not copy themselves so perfectly so as to make mutations impossible or even rare, either.

The idea that "the gene" drives everything is overrated and oversimplified. In my opinion, the only good thing that came from the idea of "selfish genes" was to raise awareness and interest in the field of genetics.

The reason why behaviours persist in a species in because they have proven themselves valuable over years of evolution.

Mutations aren't the only thing that affect gene distribution, environmental pressures and population size, natural and sexual selection are also determinating factors. Sexual selection is the most superficial, where organisms pick the "pretty" ones, resulting in traits that may benefit or handicap its own survival randomly. Environmental pressures and population size force individuals with mutations or previously suppressed behaviours that happen to be beneficial to the situation to surface. And if that behaviour helps the species survive, natural selection takes over and they will flourish and spread more of the genes responsible.

Kinship and hive behaviour are just some of these mechanisms that have evolved, and the reason they stay is because they allowed the species to produce more offspring successfully. Every behaviour that has manifested in any species is the result of it having a gene that has successfully distributed itself.

Do genes drive everything? No, its the other way round, everything drives the genes, which only wants to spread itself. The selfishness of genes is so powerful that there is even infighting between genes themselves, which is an extremely complex topic that I cannot properly explain. It can result in unusual behaviours like rivalry between organisms of the same species but opposite sex.

And if you say that approaching from the gene level is going about backwards, its like saying that examining the code of an algorithm is a backwards way of troubleshooting. Genes function exactly like computer code and all organisms are basically extremely complex computing machines. The most appropriate way to understand organisms is to understand them from their genes upwards.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by C.A.

The selfishness of genes is so powerful that there is even infighting between genes themselves, which is an extremely complex topic that I cannot properly explain.

It doesn't sound complex to me, it sounds ridiculous. People got into this idea that "genes are selfish," took it to an extreme, and here we are.

Originally Posted by C.A.

And if you say that approaching from the gene level is going about backwards, its like saying that examining the code of an algorithm is a backwards way of troubleshooting. Genes function exactly like computer code and all organisms are basically extremely complex computing machines. The most appropriate way to understand organisms is to understand them from their genes upwards.

I'm not talking about trying to understand organisms as a whole, I'm talking about behaviors of organisms. You are taking the position that genes are the driving force behind everything, which I am saying is incredibly simplistic. Part of the reason for that is due to epigenetics, a layer above pure genes that regulates genetic expression. Epigenetics are affected by your actions, your environment, and even your thoughts.

I don't mean to downplay genetics by saying this, but biology is more complicated than that alone. To take genetics and try to apply it to everything, as is happening here, is a misguided approach. To take genetics and prioritize over other disciplines of biology is also misguided. We know what genes do, and we know a good amount behind their regulation. To anthropomorphize them and give them an agenda is taking it too far. You can't explain everything behind the function of biological organisms through genetics.

[Fireminer]

So, have we reach the point of conclusion that the basic idea behind this thread is wrong?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

So, have we reach the point of conclusion that the basic idea behind this thread is wrong?

Either all wrong, or too right that it does not even matter.

I remember my high school psychology teacher did bring this topic up once and tried to tell us off that even the feeling of owning and driving (hence totally in control of) your car could be argued by Freud as derived from sexual-activity. All those sexy steering wheel and steering column, with all the curve and stuffs.

Well there, if i say i have as much sexual tension with my loli as with my car, would that be a crime?

[aohige]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Either all wrong, or too right that it does not even matter.

I remember my high school psychology teacher did bring this topic up once and tried to tell us off that even the feeling of owning and driving (hence totally in control of) your car could be argued by Freud as derived from sexual-activity. All those sexy steering wheel and steering column, with all the curve and stuffs.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
If you have a predisposition you're convinced in, you can explain anything to fit that belief, whether it's scientific or not, factual or not, does not matter.

[C.A.]

Except that science is not based on belief but evidence, and evidence supports evolution. Anyone who brings belief into a science argument is just not arguing scientifically and thus not arguing on the same page.

The thing with Freud is that he did not carry out experiments to back up his claims and has been disproven with modern science, and one of such modern theories that work is the gene centric evolution theory.

Its strange that people would rather bring on philosophy and discuss ideas based on logic alone without any form of evidence to support their arguments.

I follow Cartesian philosophy and phenomenology myself and through those ideas I can even argue that none of you exist because there is no way to prove that you do and everything I ever experience only happens because they are processed in my brain. With that I can argue what ever I like in any topic since reality is anything I see fit.

Until anyone actually reads books on evolution or the lectures I provided I don't think we are going to put up an argument with an actual outcome. The rivalry between species but opposite sex, is probably lecture 3 or 4.

[aohige]

Eh, so you're agreeing with me, right?

[Akito Kinomoto]

This topic might as well be do pillows exert gravity? because we tend to make a distinction between forces that are readily apparent and forces that barely influence us. Maybe if we squint really hard we'll find .0001% of sexual desire in every person. Though I doubt it's from the need to pass on genes when sexual orientation could potentially fly in the face of that.

But you know what? I'd really like to know the equation for determining what someone will find especially physically attractive; if it all boils down to sexual desire, why not go all the way (pun intended)?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by aohige

If you have a predisposition you're convinced in, you can explain anything to fit that belief, whether it's scientific or not, factual or not, does not matter.

Originally Posted by aohige

Eh, so you're agreeing with me, right?

Well, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by C.A.

Except that science is not based on belief but evidence, and evidence supports evolution.

Evolution explains how certain genes are selected for by the environment. It can even explain how certain behaviors are passed on along generations. But to cross the two and claim that genes are behaviors is a huge stretch. Nobody is arguing against evolution, just the direct linking of genetics with behaviors.

You talk about evidence as if there's direct evidence of what you're saying. Where is it? I want to see an experiment where a genetic modification that had no major physiologic impact (such as excess testosterone production or impaired brain development) altered a higher organism's behavior. Simply citing evolution and claiming that "genes are selfish" is not direct evidence. It is proposing an idea and spuriously linking facts that are not necessarily linked to one another.

Originally Posted by C.A.

The thing with Freud is that he did not carry out experiments to back up his claims and has been disproven with modern science, and one of such modern theories that work is the gene centric evolution theory.

What has been disproven? His models of development were based off of observations. They are still taught, and they are still relevant.

Of course, one could argue that we are simply perceiving reality to fit into Freud's theories. It's a possibility. It's what I think you're trying to do with the theories surrounding genes.

Originally Posted by C.A.

Until anyone actually reads books on evolution or the lectures I provided I don't think we are going to put up an argument with an actual outcome. The rivalry between species but opposite sex, is probably lecture 3 or 4.

This is probably true, because the specifics will never be addressed. Just out of curiosity, what is your educational training in? I don't mean what level was reached, but are you in the sciences?

[Triple_R]

In fairness to Freud, I'm not sure how you could effectively test some of his more controversial theories, like the Oedipus Complex.

What could you do? Give a bunch of kids a survey asking them if they want to have sex with their opposite-sex parent? Yeah, that would go over well, lol.

I'm pretty skeptical of some of Freud's more controversial theories, but I have to say that the concept of Id, Ego, and Superego has always had a ring of truth to it for me. I definitely can think of many instances in my life where I felt that my Id was warring with my Superego. Or, to put it in more basic terms, where what I wanted to do for instant gratification reasons was warring with what I thought I should do for more prudent or moral reasons.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Since we're on the topic of "selfish" genes...

Looking to genes for the secret to happiness

By Gretchen Reynolds

(Aug 23, Fri)

OUR genes may have a more elevated moral sense than our minds do, according to a new study of the genetic effects of happiness. They can, it seems, reward us with healthy gene activity when we're unselfish — and chastise us, at a microscopic level, when we put our own needs and desires first.

To reach that slightly unsettling conclusion, researchers from the University of North Carolina and the University of California, Los Angeles, had 80 healthy volunteers complete an online questionnaire that asked why they felt satisfied with their lives. Then the researchers drew their blood and analysed their white blood cells.

Scientists have long surmised that moods affect health. But the underlying cellular mechanisms were murky until they began looking at gene-expression profiles inside white blood cells.

Gene expression is the complex process by which genes direct the production of proteins. These proteins jump-start other processes, which in the case of white blood cells control much of the body’s immune response.

It turned out that different forms of happiness were associated with quite different gene-expression profiles.

Specifically, those volunteers whose happiness, according to their questionnaires, was primarily hedonic, to use the scientific term, or based on consuming things, had surprisingly unhealthy profiles, with relatively high levels of biological markers known to promote increased inflammation throughout the body.

Such inflammation has been linked to the development of cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. They also had relatively low levels of other markers that increase antibody production, to better fight off infections.

The volunteers whose happiness was more eudaemonic, or based on a sense of higher purpose and service to others — a small minority of the overall group — had profiles that displayed augmented levels of antibody-producing gene expression and lower levels of the pro-inflammatory expression.

CONTINUED ON THE NEW YORK TIMES