Re: sexual selection and memes

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Jul 07 2001 - 19:47:51 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: sexual selection and memes"

    Received: by id TAA09108 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 19:10:09 +0100
    Message-ID: <000d01c10715$757082e0$2aa2bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: sexual selection and memes
    Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:47:51 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    X-RBL-Warning: ( is listed by
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Vincent,
    You wrote,

    > Clearly in humans mate choice is extremely complicated and goes both
    > ways to an extent far greater than many other species. This means there's
    > lot of scope for behaviours aimed at getting a mate thatcould work for
    > sexes just as well in different contexts. It depends on how one defines
    > gendered characteristics doesn't it- a can of worms certainly. Take ideas
    > the 'new' man from the 1980s, for example, caring sharing men, house
    > husbands etc. etc. But to regard such behaviours as feminine is surely a
    > mistake (not to mention a red rag to a bull for some), as these
    > characteristics could be extremely useful in men demonstrating to women
    > their capacity for high male parental investment. But then how do we
    > such behaviour- as feminised? or as a masculine strategy?
    > The one advantage that the sexual selection angle seems to have, in
    > arguing for memes, is the experimental evidence apparently showing the
    > potential influence of social pressure and imitation on mate choice, often
    > over-riding genetic preferences. Dugatkin's book is full of stuff from
    > guppy experiments, as well as other studies, that seem to give a strong
    > basis for saying something else other than genes is important in key
    > behaviour.

    << Maybe I explained it not enough !?
    I don 't think it is a mistake, not in the least because those changed
    behavior characteristics are due for a great deal to the greater amount of
    oestrogen in nature.
    The latest reports tell us that the quality of sperm is descreased and
    that man- potency related disorders are on the increase.

    IMO, it is not a masculine strategy, it seems this way because the
    oestrogen- level influences the genetic built up of men somewhat.
    The robust- manly- like characteristics are nibbled off bit by bit by
    That is, changed genes give rise to changed memes, maybe in a very
    subtle way, I agree, but IMO a very significant one.
    And in the way sexual selection is concerned I agree on the fact that
    something else other than genes is important in key animal behavior,
    namely, changed genes give rise to changed memes and therefor in
    a way an other " expression- site " for the gene... ' more feminized '....
    Maybe in a way, a gene has two sides, one masculine and one feminine,
    and maybe the amount of oestrogen is changing the balance....

    For the animal world as such, where apparently no memes are in-
    fluencing the behaviors, deformed animals are the result.

    Best regards,


    ( I am, because we are) something else

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 07 2001 - 19:14:17 BST