Re: culture as gene-flow regulator: the arunta

Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:00:34 GMT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Susan Brassfield: "Re: Chariots of da Gods?!!"
Previous message: Sylvia T. Paldhan: "Re: terms (Psychiatrists, State,Liberty and Schizophrenia)"

In article <52pn6a$3b0@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:

[snip - Firl continues his lala journey deeper and deeper into never-never
land]

>In article <lpiotrow.500.324C4A67@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Len Piotrowski) writes:

>|> >[Right on time, Firl - tedium transmogrifies itself into Firlism]

>Right on time, indeed. I notice that you immediately fire-off a reply
>any time I post on this subject. Usually within a couple of hours.

If you can't keep up, Firl, I wouldn't mind at all if you quit.

>If you want to adopt the pose of bored superiority, you should
>probably wait a little longer to reply. Your eagerness is a little too
>transparent.

Your attempt to paste me with one caricature by accusing me of it's
opposite is typical of the way you conduct your "science."

>|> In article <52hb3l$kk9@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:

>|> > And on what basis does this writer conclude that
>|> >the original field workers were wrong?

>|> Subsequent ethnographic work.

>I'm willing to entertain the notion that the reports of spencer and
>gillen are unreliable. I have a hard time believing that service was
>gulled by a couple of con men, but if you can produce the evidence,
>I'd like to see it. Who were these subsequent ethnographers? When and
>where did they publish?

Do your own research, Firl. Service isn't the culmination of Australian
ethnography.

>|> >Levi-Strauss has never been to
>|> >australia; in fact, he was an office anthropologist. I would need some
>|> >pretty good reasons to take the conclusions of an acedemician in a
>|> >comfortable french drawing room over those of the field workers.

>|> Well, let me see, between the two of us, only one of us has actually read
>|> Spencer and Gillen's original work. If you won't regard Levi-Strauss' reading
>|> of Spencer and Gillen, you won't regard anyone else's either.

>I have never claimed to have read spencer and gillen. Service cites
>them, along with a couple dozen other sources, as the basis for his
>profile, noting that they were the first to document arunta customs,
>and the fact that the arunta had not yet been heavily impacted by
>european immigrants at the time.

Let me see here: Firl finds Levi-Strauss incredible because he seems to be an
"acedemician in a comfortable french drawing room," while Firl himself
pontificates from his comfortable American computer room about matters he has
never witnessed in a country he has never been about subjects he has only read
about in a book by an author who himself is an academician likely writing from
his own comfortable drawing room. Boggles the mind, don't it!

>I suggest you
>|> read it for yourself and contemplate the "oddities" they report existing in
>|> the inhospitable regions of the central Australian desert:
[select oddities snipped]

>That sounds pretty bogus, all right. Are you then suggesting that
>service was hoodwinked by some penny-dreadful travelers tale?

I don't recall _Profiles_ mentioning any of these "oddities". But in every
tale there is a modicum of truth. Even the early travelogs have invaluable
information to offer about these cultures. Have to weigh the independent value
of these reports, eh?

>|> >According to Service, paternity was not an issue; conception resulted
>|> >from the entry of the local totem spirit into a womans body. Are you
>|> >sure you're thinking of the right aborigines?

>|> Even if told to one of these original writers, it is Levi-Strauss' opinion
>|> based on other ethnographers, that this wasn't literally true, that aborigines
>|> knew full well their own paternity.

>That may well be; ideologies which purport to decouple conception from
>paternity may well be cases of willful self-delusion, serving a
>purpose whose meaning lies beyond the facts of biology.

>But you know all about that, right?

Your free choice to ignore it places you beyond the subjects of interest to
social and cultural science.

>|> > And saying that the
>|> >arunta were too ethically formalized and morally proscribed to engage
>|> >in anything so crass and vulgar as licentious sex sounds more like the
>|> >delicate sensibility of the salon than the observations of the field.

>|> Hogwash! It's a fact of their cultural system.

>Can you provide a citation to support this claim? "Facts" are not
>always factual, as you well know.

I suggest you read Service's _Profiles in Ethnology_ for starters! And
then go to your library and do a subject search on: Australian aborigine.

>|> >|> >You had also challenged the data which I had used to develop the
>|> >|> >hypothesis, claiming that the description of arunta society presented
>|> >|> >by elman service is erroneous.

>|> >|> Scientific misconduct under the above rules.

>|> >How?

>|> "...introducing ad hoc, content-decreasing modifications in one's theories
>|> in order to protect them against refutation ..."

>The hypothesis has not been changed at all; neither have the
>predictions proposed as a means of falsification. I don't think you
>understood the hypothesis the first time around, and it's not clear
>that you do even now.

Well it's up to you, Firl, to make that clear and unambiguous. Part of the
processes of "Good Science" is stipulating:

"...Good scientific method consists in putting forward highly
falsifiable hypotheses, specifying in advance what sorts of evidence would
falsify these hypotheses, testing the hypotheses at exactly those points at
which they seem most likely to break down and then giving them up should such
evidence be observed. "

"Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science," by J. Woodward and David
Goodstein, page 482.

You've indicated an ambiguous understanding of what "prediction" means for
your own hypothesis ("falsifiability" vs. "verified"):

"... Prediction is key to falsifiability. If my prediction
regarding variations in sexual positions at home vs. abroad for the
arunta could be verified, then that would be strong support for the
hypothesis that arunta customs reflect gene-flow enhancement
strategies."

From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: culture as gene-flow regulator: the arunta
Date: 26 Sep 1996 19:49:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 113
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <52emnp$5sv@news.sdd.hp.com>
Message-ID: <52emnp$5sv@news.sdd.hp.com>
<lpiotrow.490.32499A4B@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

"According to falsificationists, we test a hypothesis by deducing from it a
testable prediction. If this prediction turns out to be false, the hypothesis
from which it is deduced is said to be falsified and must be rejected."

"Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science," by J. Woodward and David
Goodstein, page 482.

Firl's hypothesis: low population -> social strategies to increase gene flow:

"There were a couple of points about the difficulty of falsifying my
predictions about arunta sexual behavior; given my lack of familiarity
with the availible contact-era sources and with the current state of
arunta culture, I can't really comment on that. however, I would like
to address the question of how and why low population densities lead
to social strategies for increasing rates of gene flow, since I get
the feeling that not everyone understands the importance of genetic
variability."

From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: culture as gene-flow regulator: the arunta
Date: 24 Sep 1996 20:35:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 69
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <529gma$60e@news.sdd.hp.com>
References: <51muh4$kve@news.sdd.hp.com> <lpiotrow.471.323F14A5@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <51pkso$639@news.sdd.hp.com> <51u9je$e8b@mujibur.inmind.com>

Firl's prediction:

"Population density determines how far a person must travel to find a
suitible mate, and the arunta custom of widespread sexual activity at
ritual gatherings is consistant with such a constraint. I don't recall
if service mentioned anything concerning the walkabout among the
arunta, but again, such a custom would be consistant with a cultural
adaptation for increased gene flow rates: hence my prediction that
they get laid a lot."

Firl's prediction's falsification: Firl does not specify in advance what sorts
of evidence would falsify the hypothesis that low population densities lead to
social strategies for increasing rates of gene flow, but despite this flaw
in his scientific method, there is no evidence of a "walkabout" at Arunta or
any other aboriginal corroboree; there is no independent verification of
"sexual license" or "custom[s] of widespread sexual activity at ritual
gatherings" in Arunta aboriginal corroborees (Service provides no citation,
either) nor has it been documented in any other aboriginal groups; there is no
evidence for, yet convincing evidence against, the notion that male Arunta and
aborigines in general "get laid a lot;" and the evidence for the significance
of "walkabout" in aboriginal society contradicts any notion that it relates to
"a cultural adaptation for increased gene flow rates."

>|> >|> > What this means is
>|> >|> >that semen either dribbles down the groove cut along the underside of
>|> >|> >the shaft (incidentally, resulting in more of a flatiron than a cylindar)
>|> >|> >in the case of male-superior positions, or else running onto the ground
>|> >|> >in the case of female superior positions.

>|> >|> Hogwash! You've been challenged on this before. There is no evidence the
>|> >|> urethra is cut!

>|> >No evidence except the accounts of people who have seen it.

>|> Not you, for instance, and not any one you've read, and you discount anyone
>|> else who's seen and written about it, or anyone else who's read a different
>|> account of it, so just who are you relying on? The Word of God?

>The one detailed description of subincision which I have read did
>indeed describe a situation where the urethra was cut completely
>through, starting at the base of the penis, and was not allowed to heal
>shut.

Unlikely that a cut parallel to the urethra would slice completely through it.
Indeed, the cut is made to resemble the shallow groove of the emu's penis,
which hardly has a dribbling problem, a fact to which the aborigine should be
well aware. Indeed the wound is kept open, ostensibly for life, for reasons
well beyond the scope of your model, and your, purportedly socio-cultural,
interests in Australian aboriginal customs as well.

> Unfortunately, I can't recall where I read it, except that I was
>in the UCSD library at the time, doing research in my undergrad days.
>Service is not so graphic, writing that the penis was slit with a
>stone knife "to the urethra". (Note:" the cut is from the underside,
>of course, where the urethra is close to the skin. The cut need only
>be about 1/2" or 10 mm deep.)

Question: how do you cut through by cutting parallel to the urethra?

>question: is subincision done when the penis is erect or flaccid?

Irrelevant to the discussion, unless your "...introducing ad hoc,
content-decreasing modifications in one's theories in order to protect them
against refutation ...", in which case it's another exemplar of scientific
misconduct.

>Why do you believe that the urethra isn't cut? Are you basing this on
>some kind of data, or are we dealing with lenny's intuition here?

Try the experiment for yourself, let us all know how it comes out.

>|> >[snip]

>|> >every time a guy takes a pee it's quite obvious.
>|> >Urine emerges at the base of the penis. Kind of obvious.

>|> Have you done the experiment?

>I'm basing this on the ethnographic record.

Prove it!

> On what do you base your
>objection? Levi-Strauss, or your own penetrating insight into the
>mysteries of the (insert dramatic/spooky theme, to taste) Other?

Gee, I da' know? Could it be - incredulity?

>|> >|> >In the case of male-superior
>|> >|> >positions, semen can still enter the vagina; that's why subincision can
>|> >|> >function as a birth-control system.

>|> >|> How, by "dribbling?"

>|> >Is this really so difficult to understand?

>|> No, it's just bizarre to say the least, and incredible.

>Bizarre and incredible? Bizarre is fairly normal, where humans are
>concerned, and while it is an extreme custom, on the human continuum,
>it seems very credible to me. Again, I ask you, why the denial?

Dribble semen into the vagina? You ask "why the denial?" Come on!

>|> >The subincised penis, when
>|> >erect, forms into a wide flatiron.

>|> A while ago you claimed the subincised penis was incapable of erection.
>|> Oh, shame on you ...

>Your misrepresentation of my position is offensive and unethical. If
>it results from your inability to comprehend, you have my pity; if
>deliberate, my contempt. Your grasp of english seems facile enough
>when you're insulting people; how is it that you can't understand the
>meaning of others?

Well in the absence of any explicit model for your dribble mechanism, any
misunderstanding is your problem to correct, to wit:

"Subincision, in this view, would be a method by which the incidence of
marital impregnation would be minimized. Since semen is not ejaculated
against the cervix, birth control can be achieved very reliably. In
female-superior positions, fertilization can be easily avoided."

From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: culture as gene-flow regulator: the arunta
Date: 17 Sep 1996 19:35:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 69
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <51muh4$kve@news.sdd.hp.com>

"I don't recall the source; it was from an ethnographic study I read as
an undergrad. If you think about it, it makes sense however; the
urethra is open at the base of the penis. In male-superior positions,
semen can dribble down to the vagina, but that is a far cry from being
ejaculated directly against the cervix, wouldn't you say?"

From: geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: culture as gene-flow regulator: the arunta
Date: 18 Sep 1996 20:08:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 237
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <51pkso$639@news.sdd.hp.com>
References: <51muh4$kve@news.sdd.hp.com> <lpiotrow.471.323F14A5@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

"You have objected to the fact that a subincised penis does not
ejaculate inside the vagina. I still don't know why you have a problem
accepting it, but that's how it was described to me. What this means is
that semen either dribbles down the groove cut along the underside of
the shaft (incidentally, resulting in more of a flatiron than a cylindar)
in the case of male-superior positions, or else running onto the ground
in the case of female superior positions. In the case of male-superior
positions, semen can still enter the vagina; that's why subincision can
function as a birth-control system."

Since you make no explicit mention of an erection or ejaculation outside of
the cervix in you previous posts, how can you pretend now that that's what
you obviously intended to mean all along?

>I have never said that the subuncised penis was incapible of erection.

So, does it achieve erection to the best of your knowledge?

>|> >If the man is on top, when he
>|> >ejaculates the semen can run down the underside of the penis and enter
>|> >the vagina.

>|> But just a few posts ago you claimed the subincised penis was incapable of
>|> ejaculation.
>|> Oh, shame on you ...

>Read, lenny, and try to understand. This really isn't that difficult.
>I said that it was impossible for the subincised penis to ejaculate
>*inside the vagina* (emphasis added for the comprehension impaired).

Why?

>The reason for that, as I've explained to you already, is that the
>cut in the urethra at the base of the penis is where semen leaves
>the mans body.

If, then, the subincised penis is capable of erection and also capable of
ejaculation inside the vagina (against the cervix) and if the urethra is
intact, no disruption in normal sexual function would be expected, regardless
of the male-female/superior-inferior position assumed by the couple!

>|> Now we've entertained a new stage in Firl's copulatory model - semen
>|> ejaculated from the penis some how (miraculously) returns to the penis and
>|> runs down the underside to enter the vagina which is conveniently in contact
>|> with the base of the penis, and it such a profound Newtonian position as to
>|> act as a gravity trap for the semen dribble. Fantastic!

>Fantastic indeed, lenny. You're amazing. The only real question should
>be one of fact: was the urethra prevented from healing after
>subincision, so that semen was ejaculated from the base of the penis
>throughout the rest of a mans life?

You have no evidence to offer that the urethra was habitually cut! The
subincision would have to be perpendicular to the length of the penis at the
base, which is not what Service or any one else has described! What has been
reported, however, is that there is NO disruption in the normal male
sexual function.

> If so, then the biophysics of
>impregnation/contraception depending on coital position is obvious to
>just about anybody. You'll believe what you want to believe; that's ok
>by me.

Fine! Seems to me this one's all wrapped up. I'll leave you and all the other
dribble believers to your exclusive indulgences. Please spare the rest of
us remaining heretics any further proselytizations!

Cheers,

--Lenny__

"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle

Next message: Susan Brassfield: "Re: Chariots of da Gods?!!"
Previous message: Sylvia T. Paldhan: "Re: terms (Psychiatrists, State,Liberty and Schizophrenia)"