While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.
This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).
Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.
The point I am making is that there isn’t a aversion away from something, there is simply a preference towards something. We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips. The potato chips are more advantageous to our survival.
This may seem I am splitting hairs but it’s important to make that distinction because the following arguments are based on such distinctions and it’s important to assign the correct motivation to our evolutionary drives.
It’s not that our blind systems somehow know that screwing our siblings makes disadvantaged babies (which it doesn’t know that and nor does it compared to mating with someone with a more prominent genetic issue- at least not for the first few generations) it doesn’t code that far ahead for cause and effect. It only instills a preference for slightly exogenous mates to confer immunity advantages.
The Westermarck effect shows strong evidence for a higher (socially speaking) system influencing our mate preference BECAUSE it can be “circumvented” by the evidence that even siblings raised away from each other show no inhibitions towards mating. If there were purely a genetic aversion towards inbreeding there wouldn’t be a statistically significant event of long lost relatives copulating. I’m stretching a bit on the statical significance but it happens often enough to be reported on.
Also, inbreeding is very common in the animal kingdom. Less between direct descendants, like mother/child, but on the whole most creatures make little distinction between relations. Which makes sense if the options are mate with your brood or potentially die without performing our evolutionary imperative command of passing on our genes.
We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).
Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.
The point I am making is that there isn’t a aversion away from something, there is simply a preference towards something. We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips. The potato chips are more advantageous to our survival. This may seem I am splitting hairs but it’s important to make that distinction because the following arguments are based on such distinctions and it’s important to assign the correct motivation to our evolutionary drives.
It’s not that our blind systems somehow know that screwing our siblings makes disadvantaged babies (which it doesn’t know that and nor does it compared to mating with someone with a more prominent genetic issue- at least not for the first few generations) it doesn’t code that far ahead for cause and effect. It only instills a preference for slightly exogenous mates to confer immunity advantages.
The Westermarck effect shows strong evidence for a higher (socially speaking) system influencing our mate preference BECAUSE it can be “circumvented” by the evidence that even siblings raised away from each other show no inhibitions towards mating. If there were purely a genetic aversion towards inbreeding there wouldn’t be a statistically significant event of long lost relatives copulating. I’m stretching a bit on the statical significance but it happens often enough to be reported on.
Also, inbreeding is very common in the animal kingdom. Less between direct descendants, like mother/child, but on the whole most creatures make little distinction between relations. Which makes sense if the options are mate with your brood or potentially die without performing our evolutionary imperative command of passing on our genes.
https://theconversation.com/incest-isnt-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-160937
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
deleted by creator
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
deleted by creator