Surely there can't be that many sheep on Soay to come up with such an estimate.
I suspect the scientist got a bit lonely out there doing the fieldwork, tried something that he'd normally get away with on a domestic ewe, got rebuffed, and wrote this paper to slander the whole species as revenge.
This is actually a more interesting statement than one might think at first.
When we describe the habits of various species of animals, it’s my understanding that once a description is obtained, you can look at more or less any particular member of that species and see pretty much the same behavior. Monogamy trends included.
Not so with humans. You can find an average, describe trends, but pick any specific individual human and they’re almost certainly not going to behave as that description.
Some humans pair bond for life and beyond, never seeking other companionship after one partner dies. Others sleep around constantly with dozens of partners in a lifetime. And everything in between.
I don't think this is true. There is certainly a large degree of individual variation in animal behavior too, it's just not that well studied.
I had a professor who studied owls, which are usually highly monogamous. But there was one male who always tried to have two nests with two different females. It was hard for him because he had to hunt twice as much food, but for whatever reason that was what he felt like doing.
Genetically linked behaviors follow distribution curves. There is always variation in every population for any behavior. When a behavior is highly selected for, alternative behaviors become more rare...but they still happen.
A good example of this is homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking this behavior is highly selected against (reduced babies). It still occurs in all sorts of species.
What this means is that around 2/3rds of humans are strictly monogamous. Around 1/3rd of humans are promiscuous or partially promiscuous. These are instinctual behaviors that can be overcome somewhat by cultural norms. On an individual basis, for every 3 people you meet, one instinctually finds sleeping around to be their "normal" behavior.
I don't understand the methodology at all. Genetic analysis of a mother's babies would show "monogamy" if the alpha male in the herd keeps their status in multiple seasons. The typical polygamy relationship counts as monogamous, afaiu. Could it simply be that sheep change their alpha male each season, instead of everybody fucking everybody rules?
First, what it really measures is not the rate of monogamy (as in being with one partner at a time), but the rate at which animals only mate with one other animal throughout life, without contraception (which humans have).
Second, I wonder how culture shapes the score for humans. A lot of monogamous behavior in humans is shaped not by natural drive to stick to one partner, but by culturally defined repercussions for going out with someone else.
27 Comments
ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml · 51 pts · 232d
Idk I bet there are lots of beavers sluttier than me
TeddE@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 232d
Conventions with tons of them!
Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 232d
Probably Hundreds of Beavers.
slowmorella@discuss.tchncs.de · 47 pts · 232d
maybe a sheep that got cheated on wrote this article 😢
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 26 pts · 232d
OpenStars@piefed.social · 14 pts · 232d
Codpiece@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 232d
And he even said “Ewe complete me”.
Ffs Rhys.
bryndos@fedia.io · 26 pts · 232d
Surely there can't be that many sheep on Soay to come up with such an estimate.
I suspect the scientist got a bit lonely out there doing the fieldwork, tried something that he'd normally get away with on a domestic ewe, got rebuffed, and wrote this paper to slander the whole species as revenge.
RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 232d
Damn sexy sheep!
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 232d
Ewe SLUT!
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 232d
I've been baaaaad.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 20 pts · 232d
Depends on the human.
Iunnrais@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 232d
This is actually a more interesting statement than one might think at first.
When we describe the habits of various species of animals, it’s my understanding that once a description is obtained, you can look at more or less any particular member of that species and see pretty much the same behavior. Monogamy trends included.
Not so with humans. You can find an average, describe trends, but pick any specific individual human and they’re almost certainly not going to behave as that description.
Some humans pair bond for life and beyond, never seeking other companionship after one partner dies. Others sleep around constantly with dozens of partners in a lifetime. And everything in between.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 37 pts · 232d
I don't think this is true. There is certainly a large degree of individual variation in animal behavior too, it's just not that well studied.
I had a professor who studied owls, which are usually highly monogamous. But there was one male who always tried to have two nests with two different females. It was hard for him because he had to hunt twice as much food, but for whatever reason that was what he felt like doing.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 232d
Bro just liked to hunt & needed something to do with all that extra food.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 16 pts · 232d
The_v@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 232d
Nope, that's not what it means at all
Genetically linked behaviors follow distribution curves. There is always variation in every population for any behavior. When a behavior is highly selected for, alternative behaviors become more rare...but they still happen.
A good example of this is homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking this behavior is highly selected against (reduced babies). It still occurs in all sorts of species.
What this means is that around 2/3rds of humans are strictly monogamous. Around 1/3rd of humans are promiscuous or partially promiscuous. These are instinctual behaviors that can be overcome somewhat by cultural norms. On an individual basis, for every 3 people you meet, one instinctually finds sleeping around to be their "normal" behavior.
Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io · 2 pts · 232d
So you're saying normal humans are incredibly rare. Yep.
psud@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 231d
And the culture they live in
degen@midwest.social · 10 pts · 232d
What does this say about the Welsh?
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 232d
Jesus tending to his flock: "This is not what I meant when I said be like sheep"
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 230d
You don't know that! I like to believe that's exactly what he meant. Love one another.
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 230d
Well sheep also eat grass; I think its more about the shepherding metaphor.
optissima@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 232d
Learning moment for me: does conflict of interest section not include known baises? why wouldn't the researcher being monogamous be listed there?
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 231d
I'm definitely putting that on my dating profile. Sluter than a sheep
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 232d
I don't understand the methodology at all. Genetic analysis of a mother's babies would show "monogamy" if the alpha male in the herd keeps their status in multiple seasons. The typical polygamy relationship counts as monogamous, afaiu. Could it simply be that sheep change their alpha male each season, instead of everybody fucking everybody rules?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 232d
who wrote this list, idaho?
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 232d
Oh I am SO happy you have an actual monogamy league table here
Pika@rekabu.ru · 1 pts · 225d
First, what it really measures is not the rate of monogamy (as in being with one partner at a time), but the rate at which animals only mate with one other animal throughout life, without contraception (which humans have).
Second, I wonder how culture shapes the score for humans. A lot of monogamous behavior in humans is shaped not by natural drive to stick to one partner, but by culturally defined repercussions for going out with someone else.