"Hi, I'm poly and I don't exist."

[Ceoli]

This is an awesome essay that gives some interesting thoughts about the intersection between our identies (what's deemed "natural" or "biological") and our choices.

I tend to think that we fall back onto the biological argument a bit too much and it causes us to ask the wrong questions.

Instead of nature versus nurture, I think the real dynamic is about nurture versus reason. What if we left nature and biology out of the whole argument and just considered being poly or being monogamous as subscribing to a certain set of beliefs? What if nature is a red herring?

 

[bimblynim]

Interesting Ideas, are you advocating that nurture (attachment history etc) is more important in our personality formation than genetic factors?

"What if we left nature and biology out of the whole argument and just considered being poly or being monogamous as subscribing to a certain set of beliefs"

My gut instint to the issues raised was that for me poly has nothing to do with belief its a relationship style that makes me feel secure, for other people different relationship styles make them secure. I see Beliefs as your (ones) ideas about how you (one) should live your (ones) life

For instance there are many people in traditionall hetrosexual relationships because that is how the believe they aught to live their lives

poly is not a way i would choose if i could help it (i have no problem with alternative lifestyles per say i'm just too lazy to WANT one for myself) as it stands i feel that its how i am, there are pros and cons to any style and i have to role with it.

You can chose to act in accordance with your beliefs or how you feel - i'm lucky in that mine mesh (sorry may have got off topic)

to answer the original ? although as someone said we are far from being "natuaral creatures" I don't think we can dissmiss genetic factors or early upbringing in the formation of our feeling. I don't think relationship styles are purely a matter of rational choice

that's my 2p

 

[Ceoli]

Interesting Ideas, are you advocating that nurture (attachment history etc) is more important in our personality formation than genetic factors?

Actually the essay talks about how whatever leads to our personality formation, we eventually develop a logic and belief system that works for us in the world. We develop political beliefs, we develop religious beliefs (beliefs about the ultimate nature of the universe) and we also develop beliefs about the best way to conduct our relationships in the world.

My gut instint to the issues raised was that for me poly has nothing to do with belief its a relationship style that makes me feel secure, for other people different relationship styles make them secure. I see Beliefs as your (ones) ideas about how you (one) should live your (ones) life

I would argue that what makes you feel secure is a belief system. It's based upon your beliefs about what would happen. You feel secure in a triad relationship style because you believe that it is going to be the style that meets your needs. Others feel secure in monogamous relationship styles because they believe that is the style of relationship that's going to meet their needs.

There are also other beliefs that go along with it. Some people believe that love is best expressed with exclusivity, others believe that love is best expressed in other ways. Some believe that loving more than one person diminishes love, others belive that love doesn't work that way.

All of these beliefs are valid, but they are just that- beliefs. Beliefs we choose to live by and beliefs that inform how we should be living our lives.

For instance there are many people in traditionall hetrosexual relationships because that is how the believe they aught to live their lives

That's kind of the point. There are many other people who are not in traditional heterosexual relationships because they believe that's not how they should live their lives. In all of these cases, it's their beliefs that guide them to where they are. Beliefs inform the choices we make and how we feel about our choices, whether consciously or unconsciously.

You can chose to act in accordance with your beliefs or how you feel - i'm lucky in that mine mesh (sorry may have got off topic)

What is the difference between what you believe and how you feel?

to answer the original ? although as someone said we are far from being "natuaral creatures" I don't think we can dissmiss genetic factors or early upbringing in the formation of our feeling. I don't think relationship styles are purely a matter of rational choice.

that's my 2p

I'm not claiming that relationship styles are purely a matter of rational choice. I'm claiming that they're a matter of belief. That's not the same thing. What we believe is formed from many aspects of our lives. But every belief we have *can* be subject to applying some rational thought to it. I generally don't think that happens very often, but it still can happen.

Did you read the essay?

 

[bimblynim]

maybe i misread it (have dyslexia and often read things a different way each time) will look again

no my interpretation hasn't changed (so far, though obv please clarify)

"What does nature want us to be doing? You know... it really doesn't matter"

I agree with this and think sometimes people errect devissions (eg poly vs mono) to solidify their sense of idintity and that that is a unhelpful thing to do (there i think we agree)

I think where we disagree is I don't think it is only belief that makes the difference, and wether there *is* a difference between people who class themselves as mono or poly. My "hetrosexual mono" friend (y -in case your reading other posts though could aply to the majority of my friendship group) and I both *believe* that it is ok for people to live whatever lifestyle suits them best, she has no *feeling* that poly is right for her and I do, i think a genuine difference in our relationship needs and styles does exist and i think its interesting to explore how/why they may have come about. I don't think theres anything wrong with looking at biology, early upbrining ect, to try to find whats going on. I certainly don't think that any way is better or more natural and like the original poster hate the false divissions people throw up.

You propose that it is my belief that poly may be right for me is what makes me feel secure. My experience was the other way around. I knew nothing of poly, was flabbergasted by my emotional reaction. Joined this forum to explore, and this has reinforced the *belief* that poly is right for me without changing the underlying *feelings*.

you were asking what the difference between feelings and belief is for me - probably the easiest way to explain is by example

I *feel* sad and vulnerable at the thought of a mono relationship and happy at the thought of a poly one but i also feel frightened that being poly is not widely accepted and my life will harder as a result (there i accept there probably is some crossover between feelings and beliefs, although it might be just my attempt to rationalise the feeling of anxiety i experience)
I *believe* people have the right to live in whatever way makes them happy and that a polly relationship may fulfill my needs and being poly does not make me a bad person. I also believe that triangle may be the best option for me but I believe i'll have to wait and see how life pans out.

"But every belief we have *can* be subject to applying some rational thought to it"

I agree that every *belief* can but i'm not sure every *feeling* can - I say this as a person who tries to understand her feelings (and is occasionally massively surprised by them) perhaps for me beliefs are the interface between my feelings and my rationallity.

"whatever leads to our personality formation, we eventually develop a logic and belief system that works for us in the world"

I would like this to be the case but i don't think it is

Have you ever found yourself much angrier/ more hurt etc. than you rationally felt you should be?

I did read the article, but we seem to have got different things from it, please believe i'm not being deliberately obtuse, thanks for making me think all the best

nim

 

[jkelly]

What if nature is a red herring?

I'm pretty sure it is, so I was predisposed to agree with the essay.

I suspect that this paradigm has sprung up because there's a way in which polyamory as a movement has modelled itself somewhat on the LGBT movement, where a retreat away from the "choice" argument looked like a powerful political move.

That said, people really should be able to identify however they want to, even if I think that the stories they tell about why they identify that way are... unlikely, problematic, or a "red herring".

Incidentally, I wonder if this is an internet thing. I don't really encounter it IRL.

 

[Ceoli]

I think where we disagree is I don't think it is only belief that makes the difference, and wether there *is* a difference between people who class themselves as mono or poly. My "hetrosexual mono" friend (y -in case your reading other posts though could aply to the majority of my friendship group) and I both *believe* that it is ok for people to live whatever lifestyle suits them best, she has no *feeling* that poly is right for her and I do, i think a genuine difference in our relationship needs and styles does exist and i think its interesting to explore how/why they may have come about. I don't think theres anything wrong with looking at biology, early upbrining ect, to try to find whats going on. I certainly don't think that any way is better or more natural and like the original poster hate the false divissions people throw up.

When you speak of looking at how/why certain feelings about relationships feeling right or not may have come about, it's reasonable to think that those feelings are informed by beliefs that are held. People have strong feelings about religion too, and those feelings are informed by beliefs. If biology is responsible for what we believe about relationships, is biology also responsible for our political views and our religious views?

You propose that it is my belief that poly may be right for me is what makes me feel secure. My experience was the other way around. I knew nothing of poly, was flabbergasted by my emotional reaction. Joined this forum to explore, and this has reinforced the *belief* that poly is right for me without changing the underlying *feelings*.

There are all sorts of feelings we have that are informed by beliefs whether we know it or not. That's what therapy is all about- understanding what underlying stories we tell ourselves that create the lives we're living. You don't have to know that poly exists to have a belief that a certain kind of relationship will work for you. There are all sorts of beliefs we hold that don't have some organized group attached to it.

you were asking what the difference between feelings and belief is for me - probably the easiest way to explain is by example

I *feel* sad and vulnerable at the thought of a mono relationship and happy at the thought of a poly one but i also feel frightened that being poly is not widely accepted and my life will harder as a result (there i accept there probably is some crossover between feelings and beliefs, although it might be just my attempt to rationalise the feeling of anxiety i experience)

I would say that feelings of sadness and vulnerability have some sort of belief at their core. If I'm feeling sad about a relationship, it's usually because I believe that I will be losing something or having to give up something important or any number of other reasons. It would make sense that if a mono relationship makes you feel sad and vulnerable, there is some underlying belief about yourself informing that. I've always found that if I have strong emotions ruling me, I can unpack them and discover underlying beliefs that are fueling those feelings. The same would go for feeling happy at a poly relationship and scared and any other number of things.

I *believe* people have the right to live in whatever way makes them happy and that a polly relationship may fulfill my needs and being poly does not make me a bad person. I also believe that triangle may be the best option for me but I believe i'll have to wait and see how life pans out.

Exactly. You are basing the relationship structures you would like to build on a belief system you have built.

"But every belief we have *can* be subject to applying some rational thought to it"

I agree that every *belief* can but i'm not sure every *feeling* can - I say this as a person who tries to understand her feelings (and is occasionally massively surprised by them) perhaps for me beliefs are the interface between my feelings and my rationallity.

Given that we can have opposite feelings about the same thing on any given day (what might make me upset one day might make me happy the next) it can certainly seem like there's no rhyme or reason, but I've generally found that there are underlying reasons. Like I said before, what we believe about something is generally the thing that informs us about how we feel about it. If belief can be subject to rational examination, then it follows that feelings can be subject to that same examination. That's not to say that we control our feelings....it's just to say that we can understand, deal with and resolve them much better when we examine them.

"whatever leads to our personality formation, we eventually develop a logic and belief system that works for us in the world"

I would like this to be the case but i don't think it is

Have you ever found yourself much angrier/ more hurt etc. than you rationally felt you should be?

Yep, I most certainly have. And when that's happened, I've unpacked what might be causing such a strong reaction in me and I can almost always pin it down to some core belief that was fueling it.

Here's an example from my own life:

My partner went away for a weekend camping party without me and had a great time with friends and another partner of hers. When she came back, she was feeling worn out and tired and a bit ill from her experience and needed a good extended amount of alone time to recover, meaning that she wasn't going to be able to see me for a long stretch. I found myself getting pretty upset and sad. While I did miss her, there was definitely more going on for me than just missing her. I was genuinely despondent. When I looked a little deeper into why I was experiencing that feeling, I realized that the last relationship I had with a woman went pretty wrong, and when things were going badly, she spent a lot of time "being ill" instead of wanting to see me. It made me hold an underlying belief that this period of time away from my current partner was "the beginning of the end". I believed that her needing some recovery time was the equivalent of her pulling away from me. When I examined that belief that was fueling my feelings, I was able to talk with her about them. All I needed was some reassurance that this wasn't her pulling away from me. When she did reassure me, it allowed me to let go of that belief and all of the hurt feelings that were being fueled by it. Then the dominant feeling I had was one of caring for her and wanting her to be happy and well. It was then quite easy for me to give her the space she needed to recover and I was very happy to see her when she was better.

So yes, I do think that there are always reasons *why* we have strong emotional reactions to things and those reasons can always be examined.

And since we build our lives around what beliefs we hold, it makes sense that how we structure our relationships is also informed by such beliefs (and the feelings they fuel).

(I will make a caveat for the chemical argument- I do know that there are many issues of depression and anxiety that are chemical in nature- hell, my own pre menstrual depression when I was on the pill SUCKED- but in general, there is still a rationally examined reason for such strong emotions surfacing)

 

[Ceoli]

That said, people really should be able to identify however they want to, even if I think that the stories they tell about why they identify that way are... unlikely, problematic, or a "red herring".

Incidentally, I wonder if this is an internet thing. I don't really encounter it IRL.

I agree that people should be able to identify however they want to, but I do think there are cases where the stories they tell about why they get there can create a larger effect of prejudice and assumptions about others. The biology argument being one. When people claim that their being poly is due to a difference in genetics or wiring, they are then implying that I am also wired differently or have different genetics that lead to how I live my life because I am also poly. Plus bad science tends to be a pet peeve of mine.

 

[SayYes]

I think arguments based in nature are really problematic in general; I feel that way about their use in the LGBT-rights movement as well. The bottom line is that it shouldn't matter whether it's a choice or not, everyone deserves the same rights. Allowing the entire argument for equality to hinge on biology is just too flimsy in my opinion. Equality needs to happen *regardless* of whether there's ever a clearly identified biological basis for sexual orientation.

I don't feel like I made a choice to be poly. It feels like an essential part of who I am, that I struggled for a long time to deny. But I can't claim to know why that is. There are plenty of things I consider immutable parts of who I am that I don't think can likely be reduced to a simple matter of genetics. And I recognize that plenty of people absolutely choose poly as a lifestyle, and I don't think that makes their poly any less valid or real a part of who they are than it is for those of us who don't feel so much like it was a choice we made. Chances are, there are a multitude of factors that can potentially contribute to defining our orientations. Acceptance of other people shouldn't depend on whether or not they had a choice in the matter.

 

[AutumnalTone]

"Good grief! Are we animals?"

Yes, we are.

Can everything we do be laid at the feet of genetics? No, though the whole range of human variation undoubtedly does have a genetic component. "Different wiring" is part of the human condition.

Can everything we do be laid at the feet of early childhood experience? No, though bonding issues and personal environment during earliest development affect everything thereafter.

Can everything we do be laid at the feet of reason? No, though rational thought about what we do certainly has a great deal to do with how we act.

Should the reason we behave in a certain way have any bearing on whether or not that behavior should be acceptable? Not that I can see.

So, one can say being poly or gay is OK whether it has to do with genetic inclination, early developmental experience, or because one holds personal freedom of choice in high regard and it really doesn't matter. How one chooses to view the issue is a personal choice.

I object to trying to tell other people that they can't argue for acceptability/legal recognition based on the reasons they find most compelling, however. That push to deprive people of their personal line of reasoning and their ability to choose is something I find morally repulsive.

 

[bimblynim]

Hi

fab food for thought Ceoli, I'd never considered it before but I think you're right about beliefs totally underpinning how we live our lives. However i think we differ in our views regarding the interrelationship of feelings and beliefs,
(before I go any further I think it’s important to acknowledge that most of the stuff we’re talking about need a shed load more research, I just wanted to explore my ideas from my experiences as they currently stand.)

When you speak of looking at how/why certain feelings about relationships feeling right or not may have come about, it's reasonable to think that those feelings are informed by beliefs that are held.

I think feelings are based in biology and that they inform beliefs. (hopefully what i mean will be clarified through the rest of the post)

People have strong feelings about religion too, and those feelings are informed by beliefs. If biology is responsible for what we believe about relationships, is biology also responsible for our political views and our religious views?

To an extent yes. I think biology is at the root of spiritual feelings that guide people to form belief structures. My friends mum had a Spiritual awakening at the age of 45, after spending her life as a fairly disinterested agnostic, a sudden and intense feeling of connectedness with God promptred her to totally reivaluate her life. She has now, "found her calling" and is a baptist minister, I think it was her intense feeling that drove her to reshape her beliefs and subsequent actions. I grant that this is quite a rare/extreem example, but I would argue feelings are what ultimately underly peoples religious beliefs. That eminant scientists are theists and atheist to me underlines (my personal belief) that this is not something we can know, so must rely on our feelings to guide us. I would personaly probably be atheist if I didn’t feel the numenous.

And yes I also think that at base level our politics is probably underpined by the opposing evolutionary drives of competition and co-opperation

There are all sorts of feelings we have that are informed by beliefs whether we know it or not.

I think that there are things that we have experienced that influence our feelings whether we know it or not but that something is not a belief until we hold it consiously

I would be interested in how you conceptualise the difference between feeling and beliefs?

That's what therapy is all about- understanding what underlying stories we tell ourselves that create the lives we're living.

I wonder if therapy is about helping us to acknowledge and challenge our past experiences to form a more coherent and addaptive belief structure to hang our lives on? I feel the stories we tell ourselves are us forming/examining our belief structures. Beacuase beliefs are so central to how we live our lives changing them (particularly core beliefs) is a difficult often painful process (why i suspect people are largely disinclined to do it). though sometimes a feeling of unhappyness can be our cue to reivaluate

A person commited to a monogamous marrage, If they feel very atracted to somebody else, will likely feel very unhappy and will try to interpret what's going on to deal with their feelings. It might make most sense to them that they are being tested by the devil and need to resist, or that the belief structure held by the predominant society is not correct and that it is posible to deeply love more than one person at once so they explore polyamory, in either instance the feelings will be delt with. the other option would be to cheat and I believe it is the difficulty people have in changing their beliefs that leads to this being the most common outcome, incidently they probably likely to modify their beliefs slightly to lessen their guilt.

Thank-you for sharing the experience with your partner, i would suggest instead of an underlying belief causing your sadness it was underlying experience. I see the sadness you experienced as a biological prod for you to protect yourself. Because you're able to examine your feelings and past experiences you could pinpoint the probable cause of the sadness and check if you were in a comparable situation, happily you weren't and this resolved it for you. if you had found that your partner was pulling away from you, you would have had to use your beliefs and feelings to guide you as to what to do next, but you also would have been deealing with it, and so it continues.

That's not to say that we control our feelings....it's just to say that we can understand, deal with and resolve them much better when we examine them.

this i totaly agree with,

I also think it is important to acknowledge that the stories we tell ourselves are best fit moddles, my example is my own experience arround relationships. As you know I never felt the compulsion most do to find a relationship and this troubled me, the first place i found in which other people said they didn't generally fancy people either was AVEN and so i thought i might be asexual (one who does not experience sexual attraction) this made me feel better for a while, but the nigling feeling returned for me to re-evalute the situation, this prompted me to continue serching and find polyamory, which feels right for me at the moment. its not comfortable but this proccess will probably continue throughout my life.

stuff isn't simple. (incidently bad science or anything that allows thought bypasses piss me off too) The problem is people (including me if I’m honest) want life to be simple, it makes it easier to form beliefs and maintain them if our experiences fit within our belief structures, esppecially as they are what underpin our lives and are painful to challenge, I think we unconsciously want simplicity. I think this is also why people find labels attractive, they are a shorthand for encompassing a broad set of ideas, and also why they can be so problematic.

This I think may have influenced your belief that

"When people claim that their being poly is due to a difference in genetics or wiring, they are then implying that I am also wired differently or have different genetics that lead to how I live my life because I am also poly." (sorry lost the quote thingy)

I think we are agreed that we deserve rights regardless of genetic make-up, and because of this I am content that my biological make up is, to greater or lesser degrees, different to everybody else’s on the planet. I don’t have a monozygotic twin and even if I did, our experiences would shape our brains at least slightly differently, I think that’s what makes us so interesting.

I think sexuality and personality may come about in similar ways.

There is quite a lot of research around the physilogical differences between introverts and extroverts (its been a while since I read psych so I can’t remember off hand –but should be easy enough to chase up if you’re interested) which suggests that introverts require less stimulation to reach a certain arousal threshold as compaired to extroverts. In my friend Y this hypothesised lower threshold may be why she *feels* overwhelmed at parties and have lead to her *belief* that she is a quiet person, guiding her behaviour to avoid such events. Thus I think biologically based sexual feelings lead to our creating/modifying belief systems to influence our behaviour. Its massively complicated stuff and still v early days in terms of reserch (tools, fmri etc, still being developed) but thanks for prod, inspired to read up on neurospyc re sexuallity


Finaly (for now) I think that like with many aspects of the human condition variety in sexuality exists because it is biologically advantageous in some instances and less so in others

So no I don’t think “nature” is a red herring if it refers to biology/stuff that can be empirically studied, but I concede it is a fishy shaped piece that has been picked out of a very complex puzzle that is subject to distortion.

Politically and in approach i agree with autumnal tone and the rest of you(thanks for being more concise than I seem to manage!)

Finally I feel that labels help me to some extent (they are a short hand if you agree the terms)

So I am (probably) poly and I exist!

(this in no way encompasses all that I am and does not invalidate anybody else’s experience)

(spoke to my brother about being poly last night, his response was “so your basically just a big hippy” although I’m not sure that label totally fits, it’s been tickling me )

Peace and love

Nim

Ps Crickey! I've never written so much of my own volition in my life! Thanks again Ceoli for making my walks to and from work, way more interesting!

 

[Ceoli]

"Good grief! Are we animals?"

Yes, we are.

Can everything we do be laid at the feet of genetics? No, though the whole range of human variation undoubtedly does have a genetic component. "Different wiring" is part of the human condition.

I wonder why we readily apply wiring to certain aspects of how we live and not to others. Should we see how people of different religious beliefs are wired differently? Or people of differing political beliefs?

Should the reason we behave in a certain way have any bearing on whether or not that behavior should be acceptable? Not that I can see.

A life well examined is a life well lived. I would think that examining reasons for anything we do is a good thing.

So, one can say being poly or gay is OK whether it has to do with genetic inclination, early developmental experience, or because one holds personal freedom of choice in high regard and it really doesn't matter. How one chooses to view the issue is a personal choice.

I object to trying to tell other people that they can't argue for acceptability/legal recognition based on the reasons they find most compelling, however. That push to deprive people of their personal line of reasoning and their ability to choose is something I find morally repulsive.

First, where is anybody here depriving people of their personal line of reasoning? Arguing a point is not the same is depriving others of anything.

Second, there are times when a person's "personal line of reasoning" can indeed ripple out harmful effects to people who share that same identity. Great if it works for them, but there are times when it creates negative implications for everyone else. The idea that poly people are that way because they are wired that way creates an "other" mentality that creates artificial divides and creates further misunderstandings. ("Well, I'm not even going to try to understand because I'm not wired that way.")

I see nothing "morally repulsive" about calling such things into question.

 

[jkelly]

I object to trying to tell other people that they can't argue for acceptability/legal recognition based on the reasons they find most compelling, however. That push to deprive people of their personal line of reasoning and their ability to choose is something I find morally repulsive.

Can you maybe expand on this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

For example, if biology were to reveal that there is no genetically discernible difference between people who prefer to be in poly- relationships and people who prefer to be in mono- ones, would that be "morally repulsive"? It deprives people of their personal line of reasoning, but I don't see the moral problem there.

Maybe it's the "push to deprive" thing that confuses me. Sometimes people make statements (or tell stories) about themselves that are wrong, and I again don't see a moral problem with disagreeing with them. Further, sometimes people make statements (or tell stories) about me that are wrong, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to "push" back against that.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

Good grief! Are we animals?

Uhhh.... obviously? Hmm, I'm not a plant or a mineral. Last time I checked, that left animal.

I utterly don't understand these people who think that humans are somehow above or different from animals.

We're all governed by biochemistry. All the logic in the world is useless when a pregnant woman's hormones are so out of whack she feels like she's going nuts, or when your blood sugar crashes and you feel sick, or when a football player goes into a steroid-induced rage.

Our thoughts follow our emotions. Emotions have an ability to completely overwhelm us. It requires huge amounts of thought to overcome them. Most people never learn how.

So I disagree with the essay's claim that the natural thing for humans to do is base behaviours on conscious thought. A lot of behaviour, dare I say the vast majority, is based on unconscious thought, instinct, and emotional response. Conscious thought takes a back seat to all of those.

Aside, she claims to be a carnivore. No human can live exclusively on meat. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between carnivore and omnivore has zero credibility with respect to her biological claims.

 

[Ceoli]

Uhhh.... obviously? Hmm, I'm not a plant or a mineral. Last time I checked, that left animal.

I utterly don't understand these people who think that humans are somehow above or different from animals.

We're all governed by biochemistry. All the logic in the world is useless when a pregnant woman's hormones are so out of whack she feels like she's going nuts, or when your blood sugar crashes and you feel sick, or when a football player goes into a steroid-induced rage.

Nobody is disputing that we are governed by biochemistry. But at what point does the chemistry replace responsibility for our own thoughts and actions? As someone who works with youth that have severe behavioral and emotional difficulties, I can certainly appreciate the influence of biochemistry on a person's personality. But that's not what the article is taking issue with. Like I said earlier, there seems to be a desire to find *the* biochemical/genetic/otherscientificevidence reason for the fact that some people are poly and others are mono. I wonder why we feel the need to chalk that off to biology and come up with some biological reason for creating a different "type" of person when we don't generally do this for other choices we make in our lives- like what political party we are, or what religion we choose to practice or not. The point of the article is not to say that we are not animals (I took her use of the phrase to be illustrative, not factual), but to illustrate that a poly person is not any different than a mono person except that their lives and thinking are built on a differing belief system of love and relationships. Just like people of different religions operate on differing belief systems about the ultimate nature of reality, or differing belief systems about how societies should form their governing systems. Trying to say that people of differing lifestyles are fundamentally biologically different is a real insidious form of "othering" that creates separation between people where I believe none is necessary.

Our thoughts follow our emotions. Emotions have an ability to completely overwhelm us. It requires huge amounts of thought to overcome them. Most people never learn how.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Sure, lots of people never learn to overcome emotional volatility. Lots of other people never learn to do calculus. But that doesn't mean that these things can't be learned.

]So I disagree with the essay's claim that the natural thing for humans to do is base behaviours on conscious thought. A lot of behaviour, dare I say the vast majority, is based on unconscious thought, instinct, and emotional response. Conscious thought takes a back seat to all of those.

Let's say that's true. Should we then be categorizing and separating all differences in belief systems in life? At what point does a person actually have *any* control over their choices? I would suggest that our internal systems of logic that we build and base our conscious thoughts on is the thing that may form out of a combination of nature, nurture, conscious and unconscious thought.

But then again, I'm not sure it's possible to be "unconsciously poly" or "unconsciously mono". I think even for people who default to such things, there is a certain amount of conscious thought that goes into how a person structures their relationships. So it would make sense that one's conscious thoughts and belief systems inform how they structure their relationships in life .

Aside, she claims to be a carnivore. No human can live exclusively on meat. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between carnivore and omnivore has zero credibility with respect to her biological claims.

The author of the article is perfectly aware of what a carnivore is. She chose to apply a bit of artistic license in how she used the word. If you're actually interested in really knowing what her "credibility is with respect to her biological claims", I suggest you comment on the article and let her address it.

 

[immaterial]

This is culturally crucial stuff, outlined in the article and this thread. Political and cultural power is often wielded by people of all persuasions precisely along these crap science, "biologically wired" lines. Flimsy, sensationalistic science is a pet peeve of mine, too, and sadly a great deal of science writing one finds in the mainstream press is precisely this, even in reputable publications.

"Scientific" claims can be found supporting basically *any* form of relationship expression, sexual or otherwise. Humankind is still in the toddler stage of development regarding socio-biology and I bet in due time the early forays into this field, in retrospect, will look like medieval crank medicine and blood letting.

But, on the cultural level, this distinction between "conscious choice," (which is a whole other conversation, definitely worth having) and "biologically determined necessity" ends up having profound consequences, medically, legally, in popular opinion, etc. Here is another way that humankind is still in the toddler stage: we are desperate for something, anything, to blame. What looks like a "scientific explanation" is quite often just a thinly veiled excuse for not taking 100% personal responsibility for our own reality.

On the personal level, there was some relief for me last year when I accepted that I was *essentially* polyamorous and non-monogamous, that I personally am these things by nature, not by what would ordinarily be called "choice," but by the imperatives of my essential self. I cannot choose to be monogamous in any way that respects the definition of monogamy. This is my personal experience. But this feeling of being essentially one way rather than another needs no particular explanation. I don't need a line of reasoning to support it. I am a free moral agent and I am liberated to take full personal responsibility for who I am. I don't need biology *or* culture to "explain" my free moral agency.

The essential thing is how I behave in the world. Anyone who needs an explanation is probably not very high on my friend list anyhow.

Immaterial

 

[bimblynim]

This is culturally crucial stuff, outlined in the article and this thread. Political and cultural power is often wielded by people of all persuasions precisely along these crap science, "biologically wired" lines. Flimsy, sensationalistic science is a pet peeve of mine, too, and sadly a great deal of science writing one finds in the mainstream press is precisely this, even in reputable publications.

"Scientific" claims can be found supporting basically *any* form of relationship expression, sexual or otherwise. Humankind is still in the toddler stage of development regarding socio-biology and I bet in due time the early forays into this field, in retrospect, will look like medieval crank medicine and blood letting.

But, on the cultural level, this distinction between "conscious choice," (which is a whole other conversation, definitely worth having) and "biologically determined necessity" ends up having profound consequences, medically, legally, in popular opinion, etc. Here is another way that humankind is still in the toddler stage: we are desperate for something, anything, to blame. What looks like a "scientific explanation" is quite often just a thinly veiled excuse for not taking 100% personal responsibility for our own reality.

On the personal level, there was some relief for me last year when I accepted that I was *essentially* polyamorous and non-monogamous, that I personally am these things by nature, not by what would ordinarily be called "choice," but by the imperatives of my essential self. I cannot choose to be monogamous in any way that respects the definition of monogamy. This is my personal experience. But this feeling of being essentially one way rather than another needs no particular explanation. I don't need a line of reasoning to support it. I am a free moral agent and I am liberated to take full personal responsibility for who I am. I don't need biology *or* culture to "explain" my free moral agency.

hear hear! That said I do find exploring the explantions people have come up with so far really interesting

 

[MindfulAgony]

Ultimately, this question is a of the same fundamental type of question that we have wrestled with for centuries of intellectual debate. Are we governed by base - essentially biologically based - drives or are we rational, logical creatures that sit fully above our animal nature? This debate is ancient. The nature vs nurture debate is only one offshoot that happens to have more scientific roots.

As I understand it, the most widely held theory of personality development says that personality traits themselves ARE genetically based but such things as habits, beliefs, values, self-concepts, relationships, roles, and skills are JOINTLY formed by genetically determined traits and the environment (See work by McCrae and Costa). My own research has focused on motive personality traits pioneered by David McClelland (need for Achievement, Power, and Affiliation), but I haven't been really on top of the field in some time.

The twin studies have been a boon to finding ways to unwind the gene's versus environment questions. Identical twins, reared apart, are far more alike in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Personality has a large biochemistry component. Recent research even points to complex states like happiness as having a large genetic component. Most people fundamentally believe that happiness is a function of external factors. Psychological research is showing something quite a bit more complex.

Also, please don't forget one fundamental fact - genes determine brain structure and, correspondingly, a good deal of our intellectual potential and capacity which has a direct relationship with our ability, depth, consistency, and nuance of the reason and logic we can employ in everyday life. See a recent article published in Nature by UCLA neuroscientists.

This is not junk science.

It's not surprising that when you get closer to the behavior patterns that are more fundamental - that underpin survival - you get more questions about whether that behavior is biologically determined or not. It is hard to avoid the topic when you are talking about sex and bonding. Both of which are critical to the success of the species. As such, like all living things, there are strong shaping factors inshrined in our genes that impact what we do. Of course, there's variability in how that basic "wiring" is built and, as a result, differences in their expression.

Impact - not determine. Humans are afforded the luxury of quite a bit of behavioral flexibility. It is indeed our distinguishing feature. So, it's safe to say that the interaction between genes and our environment (both external and internal to ourselves) impact what we choose to do.. and what we choose to do consistently. But, that doesn't mean we are completely free from our biochemistry.

Language and religion are good examples that social scientists believe are predominately determined by the environment. Sexual orientation, attachment or bonding style, intelligence... are good examples where there's believed to be a strong interaction between our biochemistry and the environment.

To put a finer point on it, I don't believe being poly is equivalent to being a democrat or being Buddhist. I find the basic argument that it's fundamentally a belief system that either appeals to us or doesn't too simplistic to me. As simplistic as someone suggesting simply that their genes told them to do it.

 

[bimblynim]

thanks mindful agony.

Far as I'm aware although the formation of language (area of particular interest to me) is an interaction it certainly has a biological componnent, the technology/funding for reaserch into it just hasn't got very far yet. Same goes for cognitive processes more gernerally. Your work sounds interesting though, would you mind linking it for me/us?

Also if your in the field, would you mind doing a serch for us on neuropsych and sexuality? I can't afford the subscription :0( and its not something included in my uni course package.

Ceoli - I think maybe people trot out the "biological argument" so often because the science behind it is currently ambiguous, but they think it'll lend weight to whatever political point they want to make.

It may also be pertinent that funding for reseach seems to largely be financially or politically motivated. (religion, consious experience etc not high on priority list) shame coz thats what i find most interesting, never mind.

Maybe this is an explanation to why people focus on the biological argument, it sounds powerful so people reduce it to fit their political ideas (beliefs if you will )

Peace and love

 

[MindfulAgony]

thanks mindful agony.

Far as I'm aware although the formation of language (area of particular interest to me) is an interaction it certainly has a biological componnent, the technology/funding for reaserch into it just hasn't got very far yet. Same goes for cognitive processes more gernerally.

I think what they mean when they say language is determined by the environment is that anyone who has the capacity at all to learn a language can learn any language during those critical early years. The environment determines what language you end up learning. The basic ability is genetic, but that variation doesn't impact language choice.

Now, the depth and facility that one has with language may be an interaction between genes and the environment - much like cognitive ability. But, that goes beyond the point I was making.

Also if your in the field, would you mind doing a serch for us on neuropsych and sexuality? I can't afford the subscription :0( and its not something included in my uni course package.

Let me see what I can dig up.

 

[GroundedSpirit]

No real debate

I think the danger here, and it has (as Ceoli and others mention) been a common error over the years is trying to erect a distinct wall and having everything fall on one side or the other.
In the case of polyamory, I feel it's definitely counter productive to attempt. From what I've seen in my lifetime poly inclinations can't fall on either side of a nature/nurture debate because I've seen examples of both and far more commonly some blending.
I know a number of people who's personality inclines them to....what I call 'openness'. They are the type of people who are intuitively able to 'feel' people - what many call 'vibes'. There has been a technical label often assigned to such people - they are often referred to as Empaths.

Now someone could undoubtedly argue that there was some 'nurture' influence on this, but I think there IS a distinct biological component that needs to be present in order for any nurture element to contribute to it.
For someone with this trait, i.e. 'wiring', poly - if they become exposed to it - will feel like a natural fit without nearly as much mental effort/analysis.

But then we also have another group of poly folk who have come to it through an intense analytic process including self evaluation. To them it just 'makes sense' - seems a better way to be in relationship with others. If I had to try to fit myself in one of these boxes, I think I would have to say my inclinations came mostly from study & self reflection. Although I can sometimes sense 'connection' with others, the decision to act on that came from too much intellectualization a LONG time ago lol. I looked at what a loving relationship(s) was, and why a monogamous one was preferable to a poly one and found the argument (for mono) to come up lacking. To me, poly just seemed to make more sense from a whole species perspective.

So again, I see any debate of nature/nurture in regards to poly to be nothing more than mental gymnastics or an attempt to draw needless battle lines.

GS