I find it pretty insulting that you act like, given the article I wrote, I haven't read the wikipedia entry on the topic and might learn something relevant from doing so. My article is scholarly, and well researched, while you seem to think you are above me in expertise with illogical, confused comments about, eg, " forbidding infanticide due to Christianity" (irrelevant by over a millenia) and links to wikipedia.
The need to be able to afford a family to have wealth above subsistence. Companionate marriage norms. And forbidding infanticide due to Christianity are also reasons.
Clark also noted the continual lineage extinction of those who had children without being above subsistence level.
>The need to be able to afford a family to have wealth above subsistence.
Same in antiquity
>And forbidding infanticide due to Christianity are also reasons.
1500 years too late for this to be a factor
>Companionate marriage norms
This is more relevant -- those norms are genetic, they evolve, and they shift towards feminism due to ML, most likely. However, HMP marriages can be companionate. MWEMP marriages are not per se companionate. Delaying marriage is not very romantic.
"However, HMP marriages can be companionate. MWEMP marriages are not per se companionate."
Is it not correct to say that marriage before the modern era was more often than today arranged, decided by the community/the parents of each participant, or subject to subsistence-related economic conditions (dowry)*, especially in a time where a significantly larger percent of the population was rural?
In that case: HMP marriage, while of course it can be companionate, was to a much higher degree not so, and MWEMP marriage, while of course it can be not companionate, was so to a higher degree. Would that be correct to say?
"Delaying marriage is not very romantic."
For people that know each other and are deeply connected, yes. If that is not the case (as it may be for HMP marriage), then not necessarily.
*Unrelated, but what are your general opinions on economic explanations for phenomena like this? (e.g. Increased female autonomy and lessened dependence on men leading to them not rushing into marriage to survive leading to higher age of marriage etc.)
>In that case: HMP marriage, while of course it can be companionate, was to a much higher degree not so, and MWEMP marriage, while of course it can be not companionate, was so to a higher degree. Would that be correct to say?
No, because I believe virginity matters in marriage, and probably age too. Marriages to women far beyond their teens just aren't as loving and romantic for biological reasons. It's called "puppy love" or "teen love" for a reason, not "mid twenties love" or "established young-ish adult love". I'm not sure if all ancient societies had less romantic marriages due to poverty and arrangement, but even if they did, you are confusing correlation with causation.
>Unrelated, but what are your general opinions on economic explanations for phenomena like this? (e.g. Increased female autonomy and lessened dependence on men leading to them not rushing into marriage to survive leading to higher age of marriage etc.)
In my article I surmise that bio-economic factors lead to collapsed selection pressures leading to certain genetic changes cause behavioral changes, so you should already know I think economic factors play a role in the chain of causation. You seem to be asking what I think about a model where there is no evolution, and economic factors exclusively cause behavioral change. This seems to assume that everyone is secretly an SF urbanite just waiting for AIDS prep to be invented so they can join a loveless 30 something bisexual polycule. This model is untenable, because when clones of me get wealthier, they just marry younger women at younger ages and live on bigger homesteads while practicing more effective classical-style eugenics (see eg Alamariu's Selective Breeding and the Birth of Phliosophy). Ancient people were clearly like me and not like modern urbanites, and were only held back by poverty. Therefore a change in deeper instincts and desires must be explained, and you need evolution for that.
"No, because I believe virginity matters in marriage, and probably age too. Marriages to women far beyond their teens just aren't as loving and romantic for biological reasons. It's called "puppy love" or "teen love" for a reason, not "mid twenties love" or "established young-ish adult love". I'm not sure if all ancient societies had less romantic marriages due to poverty and arrangement, but even if they did, you are confusing correlation with causation."
So, if I understood correctly, you are saying that poverty and arrangement are external factors, and if we controlled for those, HMP marriage would be more companionate. Got it, that is fair.
"In my article I surmise that bio-economic factors lead to collapsed selection pressures leading to certain genetic changes cause behavioral changes, so you should already know I think economic factors play a role in the chain of causation."
Are you talking about this paragraph?
<<Perhaps when marriage was able to be delayed due to sufficient economic circumstances, those who delayed it into the 20s had greater long term fitness than those who married in their teens.>>
If so, my mistake. You had dismissed the associated epigenetic effects of wealth as being fitness-increasing, not the reverse.
"You seem to be asking what I think about a model where there is no evolution, and economic factors exclusively cause behavioral change."
That, yes - explanations which minimize or exclude genetic explanations and only focus on economic ones.
"This seems to assume that everyone is secretly an SF urbanite just waiting for AIDS prep to be invented so they can join a loveless 30 something bisexual polycule."
Increased independence of women is generally correlated with decreased fertility and increased age of first marriage. This seems to be the case even in developing nations which have not become "leftist" in your sense yet (though, of course, there are a billion confounders). Do you think that ML is sufficient to explain both this increased independence and decreased fertility/increase in age of first marriage, for the case of these nations?
"This model is untenable, because when clones of me get wealthier, they just marry younger women at younger ages and live on bigger homesteads while practicing more effective classical-style eugenics (see eg Alamariu's Selective Breeding and the Birth of Phliosophy). Ancient people were clearly like me and not like modern urbanites, and were only held back by poverty."
You are a man. I was talking about effects related to the position of women in this instance.
"Therefore a change in deeper instincts and desires must be explained, and you need evolution for that."
I was quite puzzled by the graph from Hajnal you showed (under "The Origins of the MWEMP" - thank you, by the way). I had assumed that in Britain, like the US, this increase in age of marriage came after the Sexual Revolution in the 60s (the urges you speak of being fulfilled without the need for procreation and marriage). But it did not - at least, for peers it did not (data for the general population seems to be similar). I was also shocked by how sudden it was - and before the industrial revolution! Do you think it is feasible for the ML to have been happening amongst peers (elites) earlier than the industrial evolution to explain this? Or do you have another opinion?
https://youtu.be/qkgU6Mhmifo?si=eOeuu8IIlq3-ZYu1
Please Aid really interesting related article by Collins giving positive reasons for women to have children at an even younger age
I find it pretty insulting that you act like, given the article I wrote, I haven't read the wikipedia entry on the topic and might learn something relevant from doing so. My article is scholarly, and well researched, while you seem to think you are above me in expertise with illogical, confused comments about, eg, " forbidding infanticide due to Christianity" (irrelevant by over a millenia) and links to wikipedia.
The need to be able to afford a family to have wealth above subsistence. Companionate marriage norms. And forbidding infanticide due to Christianity are also reasons.
Clark also noted the continual lineage extinction of those who had children without being above subsistence level.
>The need to be able to afford a family to have wealth above subsistence.
Same in antiquity
>And forbidding infanticide due to Christianity are also reasons.
1500 years too late for this to be a factor
>Companionate marriage norms
This is more relevant -- those norms are genetic, they evolve, and they shift towards feminism due to ML, most likely. However, HMP marriages can be companionate. MWEMP marriages are not per se companionate. Delaying marriage is not very romantic.
"However, HMP marriages can be companionate. MWEMP marriages are not per se companionate."
Is it not correct to say that marriage before the modern era was more often than today arranged, decided by the community/the parents of each participant, or subject to subsistence-related economic conditions (dowry)*, especially in a time where a significantly larger percent of the population was rural?
In that case: HMP marriage, while of course it can be companionate, was to a much higher degree not so, and MWEMP marriage, while of course it can be not companionate, was so to a higher degree. Would that be correct to say?
"Delaying marriage is not very romantic."
For people that know each other and are deeply connected, yes. If that is not the case (as it may be for HMP marriage), then not necessarily.
*Unrelated, but what are your general opinions on economic explanations for phenomena like this? (e.g. Increased female autonomy and lessened dependence on men leading to them not rushing into marriage to survive leading to higher age of marriage etc.)
>In that case: HMP marriage, while of course it can be companionate, was to a much higher degree not so, and MWEMP marriage, while of course it can be not companionate, was so to a higher degree. Would that be correct to say?
No, because I believe virginity matters in marriage, and probably age too. Marriages to women far beyond their teens just aren't as loving and romantic for biological reasons. It's called "puppy love" or "teen love" for a reason, not "mid twenties love" or "established young-ish adult love". I'm not sure if all ancient societies had less romantic marriages due to poverty and arrangement, but even if they did, you are confusing correlation with causation.
>Unrelated, but what are your general opinions on economic explanations for phenomena like this? (e.g. Increased female autonomy and lessened dependence on men leading to them not rushing into marriage to survive leading to higher age of marriage etc.)
In my article I surmise that bio-economic factors lead to collapsed selection pressures leading to certain genetic changes cause behavioral changes, so you should already know I think economic factors play a role in the chain of causation. You seem to be asking what I think about a model where there is no evolution, and economic factors exclusively cause behavioral change. This seems to assume that everyone is secretly an SF urbanite just waiting for AIDS prep to be invented so they can join a loveless 30 something bisexual polycule. This model is untenable, because when clones of me get wealthier, they just marry younger women at younger ages and live on bigger homesteads while practicing more effective classical-style eugenics (see eg Alamariu's Selective Breeding and the Birth of Phliosophy). Ancient people were clearly like me and not like modern urbanites, and were only held back by poverty. Therefore a change in deeper instincts and desires must be explained, and you need evolution for that.
"No, because I believe virginity matters in marriage, and probably age too. Marriages to women far beyond their teens just aren't as loving and romantic for biological reasons. It's called "puppy love" or "teen love" for a reason, not "mid twenties love" or "established young-ish adult love". I'm not sure if all ancient societies had less romantic marriages due to poverty and arrangement, but even if they did, you are confusing correlation with causation."
So, if I understood correctly, you are saying that poverty and arrangement are external factors, and if we controlled for those, HMP marriage would be more companionate. Got it, that is fair.
"In my article I surmise that bio-economic factors lead to collapsed selection pressures leading to certain genetic changes cause behavioral changes, so you should already know I think economic factors play a role in the chain of causation."
Are you talking about this paragraph?
<<Perhaps when marriage was able to be delayed due to sufficient economic circumstances, those who delayed it into the 20s had greater long term fitness than those who married in their teens.>>
If so, my mistake. You had dismissed the associated epigenetic effects of wealth as being fitness-increasing, not the reverse.
"You seem to be asking what I think about a model where there is no evolution, and economic factors exclusively cause behavioral change."
That, yes - explanations which minimize or exclude genetic explanations and only focus on economic ones.
"This seems to assume that everyone is secretly an SF urbanite just waiting for AIDS prep to be invented so they can join a loveless 30 something bisexual polycule."
Increased independence of women is generally correlated with decreased fertility and increased age of first marriage. This seems to be the case even in developing nations which have not become "leftist" in your sense yet (though, of course, there are a billion confounders). Do you think that ML is sufficient to explain both this increased independence and decreased fertility/increase in age of first marriage, for the case of these nations?
"This model is untenable, because when clones of me get wealthier, they just marry younger women at younger ages and live on bigger homesteads while practicing more effective classical-style eugenics (see eg Alamariu's Selective Breeding and the Birth of Phliosophy). Ancient people were clearly like me and not like modern urbanites, and were only held back by poverty."
You are a man. I was talking about effects related to the position of women in this instance.
"Therefore a change in deeper instincts and desires must be explained, and you need evolution for that."
I was quite puzzled by the graph from Hajnal you showed (under "The Origins of the MWEMP" - thank you, by the way). I had assumed that in Britain, like the US, this increase in age of marriage came after the Sexual Revolution in the 60s (the urges you speak of being fulfilled without the need for procreation and marriage). But it did not - at least, for peers it did not (data for the general population seems to be similar). I was also shocked by how sudden it was - and before the industrial revolution! Do you think it is feasible for the ML to have been happening amongst peers (elites) earlier than the industrial evolution to explain this? Or do you have another opinion?