The Unjust Review of Homophobia Explained 5/6
237 views · Published 7 July 2008 · 7:19 · Indexed 28 October 2026
Channel: Jackies1979 · 2008 · Science & Technology
REVIEWER: If I am right, then the payoff matrix proposed by the author should just work once but can not tell us anything about the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the long run. I: Yes, I do not wish to claim more and be so pretentious as to play a prophet here about homosexuality and the evolution of it in the long run or even the future. All I am saying is that this does work once; i.e. in a population where there is some evidence that homosexuality develops via some maternally inherited "mad about men gene", i.e. in such a population "as it stands" and has developed now, my dilemma arises. It may of course be resolved if it should turn out that the causal constellation embraced by Camperio-Ciani and the reviewer is wrong just as it has turned out to be wrong that there is a common cause for smoking and lung cancer (Fisher's hypothesis). It has simply turned out that one thing of the two causes the other. REVIEWER: To be more precise, let's say that p(c2/s1) = x and p(c2/s2)=y. The assumptions of the model tell us that y)x, in other words the individuals who bear the genetic factors s2 have a greater probability to become homosexual. If we note f1 and f2=1-f1 respectively the frequency of genetic factor s1 and s2 in the population then we have (accordingly to Baye's theorem): p(s2/ c2)=y f2 / (x f1 +y f2) which is not a constant. I: To be more precise, let's say that p(s2/c1) = x and p(s2/c2)=y. The empirical results and hypothetical assumptions about the existence of a "mad about men gene" tell us that y)x, in other words the individuals who become homosexual have a greater probability to bear the genetic "mad about men" factor. If we let f1 and f2=1-f1, respectively, denote the frequency of heterosexuals and homosexuals in the population, then we have (according to Bayes's theorem): p(c2/s2)=y f2 /(x f1 +y f2), which is not a constant. REVIEWER: Indeed, in the author's words, the "goal" or "hope" of the individuals is to have a family larger than the average, so frequency of genetic factors will change. If the author does not take it into account, I don't think his model can tell us anyhting about the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality. I: I did not claim that it did tell "us anyhting about the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality". All I intended to show is that some model (Camperio-Ciani's), which indeed intends to show us something about the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality, gives rise to a dilemma -which may be a hint that something is wrong with the explanation or that something has been left unexplained. One other substantial point of the paper is to make clear that -- just as other bad types of behavior such as xenophobia, misogyny, rape etc. -- homophobia -- a trait so much present in many populations still today after the others have started to have been somewhat overcome, must have a root in prehistoric human populations where it did make sense. Many of the other explanations of homosexuality which do seem to explain the trait (homosexual behavior) itself do not seem to explain the costly hatred of it still rooted, according to recent surveys, in almost 50% of homo sapiens in certain areas of the world. If we understand where some type of hatred comes from, we have a better basis to deal with it. This is especially interesting for evolutionary psychology and/or cultural evolution.
