Re: Lynch's Memetic Theories about Masturbation (Long)

Aaron Lynch (
Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:28:00 -0500

Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:28:00 -0500
From: Aaron Lynch <>
Subject: Re: Lynch's Memetic Theories about Masturbation (Long)
In-Reply-To: <>

Aaron Lynch responding to Bill Benzon:

>I've decided to comment on this debate despite the fact that I have not
>met the minimal requirement of reading CT. Sorry about that.
>> Why do pro-contraception memes spread even anti-contraception memes
>> have
>> spread? It's discussed in my book. But the above paragraph suggests
>> that I
>> never even thought of the subject! But I guess part of the problem
>> arises
>> from this instantaneous medium, which favors responding quickly and
>> often
>> instead of reading a whole book, or even a chapter first, or even
>> looking
>> up "birth control" in the index. Why are you trying to comment on
>> memetics
>> without reading a serious book on the subject? I hope you aren't just
>> trying to waste my time.
>Aaron -- surely you must realize that this sort of dialog does not
>endear you to your opponents. Has it occurred to you that we may feel a
>bit like you are asking us to waste our time? We too are serious people
>and we have devoted a great deal of time and effort to understanding
>human behavior. The fact that we may not know Lynchian memetics chapter
>and verse does not mean that our knowledge and intellectual experience
>count for nothing. In my case, there are certain issues I'm interested
>in (e.g. musical styles in 20th C American culture) and I have a very
>extensive background in cognitive science and have read more than a
>little in neuroscience; I know more than a little about what goes on in
>our heads, which is where memes (in the orthodox view) reside. While I
>know perfectly well that you are talking about population psycholgy, not
>individual psychology, I still find your way of talking about what goes
>on in our heads to be uninformed. And that means that I'm unlikely to
>want to devote much effort to thinking seriously about your work.

You are right about my tone here. I meant to snip some of this, but forgot
to before mailing. But if you ever end up reading THOUGHT CONTAGION, you
will see just how far it is from asserting that pro-contraception memes
cannot propagate. Hence my frustration. I imagine that most members of this
list would show a bit of irritation if their published work seemed to be

>That's no big deal. I've got my interests you've got yours. At the
>moment they don't seem to be congruent. so be it.
>> This is not a "proof by assertion." It is a hypothezed mechanism of
>> belief
>> proliferation which does indeed require new surveys for confirmation
>> or
>> falsification. As yet, I don't know of any such
>> anti-masturbation/fertility
>> survey, and I doubt that one would have been conducted without a
>> hypothesis
>> under test. A small reproductive advantage of 5% per generation gives
>> a 15
>> billion fold increase over 480 generations, so the survey should be
>> sensitive to fertility differentials much smaller than those caused by
>> oral
>> contraceptives.
>So, as a point of information, just what is your hypothesis? Are you
>saying, for example, that at some point in the past there were no taboos
>against masturbation, and all groups had more or less the same
>reproductive rates. Then, through some mechanism we don't know (and
>which we can safely treat as a black box), some of those people decided
>not to masturbate.

All you need, for instance, is a "first host" of a masturbation taboo. His
masturbation need not be reduced to zero. It might, for instance, be
reduced by 20%, with concomitant guilt, with a 5% increase in
(meme-inculcated) reproduction. That would give you a 15,000,000,000-fold
increase after 480 generations.

Somehow that decision took root in a community.
>Presumbably there was some belief structure around non-masturbation
>involving ostensible reasons for not doing it and probably some
>illustrative stories; but the ideology did not contain the explicit
>assertion that "we're not masturbating so that we might be more
>fruitfull." People told these stories to one another for whatever reason
>and stopped masturbating. In particular, the members of the community
>passed that belief to their off-spring. As a "hydraulic side-effect" of
>this belief, the reproduction rate of this community rose above that of
>neighboring communities and, in time, the non-masturbators
>out-reproduced the masturbators and so now we live in a world full of
>ideological opposition to masturbation.
>> TP/MC: >Thus, young men masturbate less often and father fewer
>> children; men
>> >between ages 25-34 masturbate more and father more children; men
>> aged
>> >35-39 have lower masturbatory and fathering rates, and men still
>> older
>> >masturbate even less and have even fewer children. This pattern is
>> the
>> >OPPOSITE of what Lynch's argument predicts.
>> AL: This only continues a line of statistically confused thinking on
>> the
>> matter. Reproductive biology is OF COURSE highly age correlated. We
>> want to
>> see is either the LIFETIME reproduction of those who held masturbation
>> taboos versus those who remained free of masturbation taboos, or else
>> comparisons of taboo and non-taboo individuals of equal ages. You
>> don't
>> impress me by saying that middle age men masturbate more and have more
>> children than do male infants, and that therefore frequent
>> masturbation may
>> cause reproduction.
>I don't hear them saying that frequent masturbation may cause
>reproduction. I think they're saying that frequent intercourse causes
>reproduction and that people who have frequent intercourse also
>masturbate relatively frequently. They aren't implying any causal
>relationship between the two, but only pointing out that the correlation
>is not what one would expect if the causal relationship were what you
>hypothesize. You are the one who is imputing causality to their

Their line of reasoning is still fallacious, whether they are using it to
assert opposite causation from what I propose, or merely using it to negate
the causation I propose.


--Aaron Lynch

THOUGHT CONTAGION: How Belief Spreads Through Society The New Science of Memes Basic Books. Info and free sample:

=============================================================== 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) see: