Of course polygamy falls into two classes (at least), polyandry and polygyny.

It's up to those involved, unless there is coercion involved. Of course there is a fine line between coercion and free choice.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

TMB wrote:

I don't understand a lot that goes on in this sociology section but you do realise it's 2010?

Are you suggesting that in 2010, our biology no longer dictates our behaviour, or that human society has evolved to the point that no woman would choose a man based upon their status and capability. I accept that there are political aspects in this scenario that make rational evaluation difficult but we should not shy away in the face of this.

I think you need to demonstrate that it is biology which determines this. You also go on to say that status changes depending on circumstances - in other words, "status" just means "things that we like", so when you say that people are attracted to status, you mean that people are attracted to what they like.

The fact that status depends on circumstances doesn't mean that it is nothing more than "things that we like". That really doesn't follow at all. Most human qualities and social judgments adapt to different circumstances and are judged differently by different societies; that doesn't mean they can all be reduced to effectively nothing in such a way.

It's perfectly possible to "like" certain things while recognising that they have nothing to do with status.

Some other misconceptions in this thread include the idea:
- that behavior is determined by biological "drives" - drive theory died at the beginning of the 1900s. Behavior is very complicated and trying to reduce it to being a function of biological needs, even the most fundamental such as hunger or thirst, inevitably fail

I have a body that requires food to stay alive. I'm hungry, I eat (as the zen master said). What fails about that?

Beatsong wrote:The fact that status depends on circumstances doesn't mean that it is nothing more than "things that we like". That really doesn't follow at all. Most human qualities and social judgments adapt to different circumstances and are judged differently by different societies; that doesn't mean they can all be reduced to effectively nothing in such a way.

It's perfectly possible to "like" certain things while recognising that they have nothing to do with status.

This is true, if "status" had a concrete definition. However, it's generally warped to meet whatever needs the person making the argument wants. The other problem is the fact that what constitutes "status" is a product of what is valued by the general public and this is determined largely by what we like.

Beatsong wrote:I have a body that requires food to stay alive. I'm hungry, I eat (as the zen master said). What fails about that?

The problem is that feelings of hunger don't always produce eating behavior, it's not always aversive, eating can occur without a hunger drive, etc etc. So the idea of "drive" becomes so loose that it's practically meaningless - as such, it seems to be more a description of a set of behaviors which are produced by other variables, rather than a cause in itself. It's a problematic unfalsifiable theory that has been ignored for almost a century now, and so understanding "drives" is irrelevant to understanding the causes of behavior.

This doesn't mean that we don't get hungry or thirsty, and that it doesn't impact our behavior - it just doesn't work in the way the term "drive" suggests.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Beatsong wrote:The fact that status depends on circumstances doesn't mean that it is nothing more than "things that we like". That really doesn't follow at all. Most human qualities and social judgments adapt to different circumstances and are judged differently by different societies; that doesn't mean they can all be reduced to effectively nothing in such a way.

It's perfectly possible to "like" certain things while recognising that they have nothing to do with status.

This is true, if "status" had a concrete definition. However, it's generally warped to meet whatever needs the person making the argument wants. The other problem is the fact that what constitutes "status" is a product of what is valued by the general public and this is determined largely by what we like.

You seem to be confusing, or eliding, personal likes and dislikes with recognition of social judgments.

Status does have a concrete definition. It means the position of an individual in relation to others, or their standing in society. This is completely separate from personal likes and dislikes and I think most people are perfectly capable of making the distinction.

Some of the things traditionally associated with status for men are being physically attractive, strong and athletic, having lots of money, an important job, a big house, political connections, recognition as a community leader etc. Women may or may not be influenced by these things to varying degrees in their choice of mate, I don't know. Yes, the way these things are judged will vary from one society to another - what it means to be a "community leader" for example will be different in New York City and in tribal Africa - but that doesn't change the basic meaning.

But women also make all kinds of other judgments about the kinds of men they personally like and could see themselves having successful relationships with, such as "I prefer slim men to muscular men"; "I like men who are arty and unusual"; "I want a man who works in a similar field to me, who I'll have something in common with"; "I want a man who is into healthy eating" etc. etc. None of these kinds of judgments have anything to do with status, and I don't think most people imagine they do.

Your equating of status with pure subjective preference is baseless: there is a clear difference between the two.

Beatsong wrote:I have a body that requires food to stay alive. I'm hungry, I eat (as the zen master said). What fails about that?

The problem is that feelings of hunger don't always produce eating behavior, it's not always aversive, eating can occur without a hunger drive, etc etc. So the idea of "drive" becomes so loose that it's practically meaningless

Well, that last part is your opinion.

The idea of a "drive" that fundamentally orients us towards a particular course of action, but is affected by other factors which cause some exceptions to that course of action, is not a particularly difficult one. All a "drive" as popularly understood means is an impulse towards a particular action. It doesn't even mean that the action will necessarily be completed.

Take the example of a torture victim who is put in solitary confinement and not fed for three days. They will undoubtedly feel the same hunger drive as anyone else - moreso, in fact. But they won't eat anything as a result of it, for the simple reason that they can't. That doesn't change the basic nature of the drive.

Similarly, the fact that there are other social or even personal factors operating that will sometimes change the outcome from what it would be if left to the drive alone (such as anorexia, greed or whatever), doesn't mean that the drive doesn't exist. It only means that human motivation is complex and subject to several different drives which often conflict with each other.

Beatsong wrote:You seem to be confusing, or eliding, personal likes and dislikes with recognition of social judgments.

Status does have a concrete definition. It means the position of an individual in relation to others, or their standing in society. This is completely separate from personal likes and dislikes and I think most people are perfectly capable of making the distinction.

Some of the things traditionally associated with status for men are being physically attractive, strong and athletic, having lots of money, an important job, a big house, political connections, recognition as a community leader etc. Women may or may not be influenced by these things to varying degrees in their choice of mate, I don't know. Yes, the way these things are judged will vary from one society to another - what it means to be a "community leader" for example will be different in New York City and in tribal Africa - but that doesn't change the basic meaning.

But women also make all kinds of other judgments about the kinds of men they personally like and could see themselves having successful relationships with, such as "I prefer slim men to muscular men"; "I like men who are arty and unusual"; "I want a man who works in a similar field to me, who I'll have something in common with"; "I want a man who is into healthy eating" etc. etc. None of these kinds of judgments have anything to do with status, and I don't think most people imagine they do.

Your equating of status with pure subjective preference is baseless: there is a clear difference between the two.

No, I'm not equating preference with status. The problem is, as pointed out by TMB and others, there are numerous kinds of status and as such a highly successful businessman may have less status than a nurse, people can have status due to their looks, or as a result of their achievements, they can have status because of their money or as a result of them giving away all their money, etc. In addition to this, the placement of social hierarchy and the values we attribute to certain acts or characteristics are a result of what we like.

Regardless, the idea that we have some innate urge to mate with an ever-changing understanding of the concept "status" is a bit far fetched.

Beatsong wrote:

The problem is that feelings of hunger don't always produce eating behavior, it's not always aversive, eating can occur without a hunger drive, etc etc. So the idea of "drive" becomes so loose that it's practically meaningless

Well, that last part is your opinion.

Well no, it's the opinion of the scientific community, hence why it was dropped from the literature a long time ago.

Beatsong wrote:The idea of a "drive" that fundamentally orients us towards a particular course of action, but is affected by other factors which cause some exceptions to that course of action, is not a particularly difficult one. All a "drive" as popularly understood means is an impulse towards a particular action. It doesn't even mean that the action will necessarily be completed.

Take the example of a torture victim who is put in solitary confinement and not fed for three days. They will undoubtedly feel the same hunger drive as anyone else - moreso, in fact. But they won't eat anything as a result of it, for the simple reason that they can't. That doesn't change the basic nature of the drive.

Similarly, the fact that there are other social or even personal factors operating that will sometimes change the outcome from what it would be if left to the drive alone (such as anorexia, greed or whatever), doesn't mean that the drive doesn't exist. It only means that human motivation is complex and subject to several different drives which often conflict with each other.

As a general "popular" description, sure, but I thought we were discussing how it's used in science. It isn't actually used in science for the reasons I outlined above, but if you want to describe it as a "motivating factor" then yes, that's an fair way of understanding it - one variable of many that influences the shape of our behavior. This is distinct from the way "drive" is usually used though, which suggests there is some force that compels us to behave in ways that satisfy this need or desire. In that sense, we know it's a useless concept.