Thursday, December 15, 2016

Sex Difference Explained by Steve Moxon

I have been getting some stupid comments lately claiming that "Evo psych hasn't been taken seriously since around 2009." Well, that is nonsense, of course, and as luck would have it, now there is a brand new publication on the subject by Steve Moxon. An entire monograph, in fact, written from an MRA point of view and with an up-to-date bibliography:

Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors

This is a ‘layman’s guide’ – for, the interested rather than the merely general reader – to recent major scientific insights that together reveal a comprehensive, holistic understanding of the sexes: what actually distinguishes them and why. A much needed overview drawing together hitherto disparate topics outlining how several principles mutually relate; it’s a simplified distillation and update of the several topics that are the subject of other review papers, which provide more detailed and precise accounts and further sources.

No prior knowledge is assumed, so any other than common-knowledge scientific terms are either explained or replaced with less formal terms (where they are not too imprecise). Notably, instead of the formal, easily confused terms intra-sexual / inter-sexual, the terms within-sex / between-sex (or same-sex / cross-sex) are used. The word 'sociality', is also used despite its unfamiliarity; because it's useful shorthand for social system / dynamics. The term gender (sic) is specifically avoided - other than in 'scare' quotes since it is an ideological rather than scientific term.
And the blurb:
In SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, Steve Moxon argues that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes. The 'genetic filtering' to deal with this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.

The female contribution is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.

Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman's peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness.

With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to 'marry out' to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.

Moxon sees the underlying sex dichotomy as being perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.

The book is not only available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle editions, but also open-access, with the full text downloadable at New Male Studies Publishing.

I will start reading it now and then post a review, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Norwegian readers should also check out this article by Terje Bongard:

Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv

And if anyone wants to argue that evolutionary psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.


Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ser spennende ut! Har ikke tenkt på at dette er grunnen til at jenteklikker er så ekskluderende. Samtidig er jo konkurransen mellom menn det grunnleggende problemet i alle de krisene verden nå står overfor. Var det ikke for kvinnene ville vi bare satt oss ned rundt bålet, hvor vi trives best. Egentlig er det ingen av oss som strever etter fine hus, biler og posisjoner for egen del, det er kun påfuglfjær.

Er litt skeptisk til formuleringen "perfectly complementary." Tenker på at Bongard er så nøye med å presisere at evolusjonen ikke er perfekt på noe vis, her gjelder kun godt nok, dvs. å ligge et hårstrå foran dine konkurrenter. Det er ikke noe som irriterer Bongard så mye som Attenboroughs frase "It's all perfectly adapted".

Bongard presiserer også at evolusjonen stort sett består av kompromisser. Så mennesket er et kompromiss, vi er ikke perfekte på noe vis.

Men komplementære, det er vi som menn og kvinner!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Tom. virus aksepterer kjønnsforskjellene:

Øyvind Holmstad said...

PermaLiv er blank i dag. Kommer inn på innholdet gjennom å logge meg inn på en annen, inaktiv blogg, men hovedbloggen min er blank for leserne. Har du noen formening om hva dette er? Kan det være det nye Sannhetsministeriet som har rapportert meg?

Eivind Berge said...

Permaliv er blank for meg også. Merkelig, men jeg tror mest på en bug. Kanskje noe relatert til dynamisk sidevisning? Du kan prøve å slå det av.

Anonymous said...


Øyvind Holmstad said...

...for de som er livredde for å få svertet de flotte meningspåfuglfjærene sine.

Anonymous said...

In what way is Moxon part of the scientific community?

Eivind Berge said...

What difference does that make as long as he is relying in published research? Check out the 20 pages of references at the end.

EvoPsych = said...

Steve Moxon said...

A poster chooses anonymity to ask of my membership of 'the scientific community', probably because appeal to 'authority' is universally recognised across science as being to betray a fundamental failure to understand science. Evidence and argument are all that count.
A regularly occurring feature within science as in other areas of study is that those who come in from the outside provide a much-needed fresh pair of eyes and are heavily disproportionately responsible for novel insights.
I started out at university and was appalled at the absence of science in what purported to be a BSc science psychology degree course, and I came back to resume and develop a keen interest when the subject got a proper scientific -- evolutionary / biological -- basis.
I've researched across disciplines re the biological roots of human sociality for many years and had many papers published. If my submissions were not well-researched and demonstrably so, then hardly they be published.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Dear Steve Moxon, please note that Terje Bongard, who Berge referes to in his article, has searched for an English publisher for his book "The biological Human Being – individuals and societies in light of evolution" for several years.

His contact info:

Anonymous said...

Draconian sex laws backfires:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Norwegian child porn law literally goes so far as to criminalize the reading/downloading of fictional short stories. It is so batshit insane that it boggles the mind and fills my heart with seething hatred against the state too profound for words. And yet, there is virtually no resistance to it besides from myself. The propaganda about "protecting children" through criminal law has captured the minds of the entire population so successfully that the feminist police state can make the sex laws as draconian as it wants.

It doesn't really backfire. Notice that neither the journalist, lawyer, the accused man or anyone else has anything negative to say about the law in that news story, and there is no indication that the antisexual mission creep might ever get reversed. The law does exactly what it is supposed to do: put men in prison. Those of us who retain any sanity are so few that it doesn't even register, except in the limited way that my criminal case (and now compensation case) got attention.

Eivind Berge said...

What is so incredibly frustrating, beyond the oppression itself, is that the institutionalized hatred against sexuality and men is a one-way street. I have made it my mission to incite hatred back against the state, but I am failing. I no longer think there is anything the state could do against male sexuality that would make men as a group want to fight back.

If, for example, the state wants to abolish the reasonable doubt standard in rape cases, well, they already have "men" cheering for that idea!

Again, this is so astonishingly hateful against men that it boggles the mind, but it is par for the course today. That article is also another example of how those who call themselves "ethicists" tend to be most vile and unethical people, which is a pattern I have noticed.

Anonymous said...

Save the pixels! - "There is no question that the depictions that I have examined in court … are very disturbing":

Eivind Berge said...

The populace has been brainwashed to not see the difference between pixels and abuse, or text and abuse, or ones and zeros and abuse, or magnetic charge or electrons and abuse. Child porn by itself is always nothing more than information, the mere possession of which should never incriminate anyone, though it may or may not originate from real abuse. The more you copy it, the further removed it becomes from actual abuse, yet the more you thus dilute it, the more the criminality increases along with the insanity in our sick society. It is frightening that humans can be so irrational, but that sort of magical thinking is not really unique to child porn. Homeopaths similarly claim there is no difference between water molecules and active ingredients after they have done their dilution, and plenty of people buy it. Perhaps surprisingly, the Drug War has not yet seized on the idea and started imprisoning people for homeopathic doses of illegal drugs. Now, there is a missed opportunity for tyrants to exploit.

Anonymous said...

My buddy owes me $500 if evpsych is still taught in American universities in 2020.

Anonymous said...

Evo psych is where no sane person should start. In 2016 it’s pretty much dead.. Science laughs at it.