Here is what I would have done for this sequence. Rather than trying to summarise everything from the book, figure out what my argument would have been like for the same and then put the pieces that fit the argument in place and then highlight the pieces of evidence missing. Critique and praise the book.
First I would have checked to see what the view of how fluid human sexuality was around here; to avoid calling something the standard view if it wasn’t.
Then my argument would have been something like this.
1) Talk about standard sexuality in humans (polygamous/monogamous). Show non-standard sexuality in other species (bonobos), talk about why it is evolutionarily advantageous for their situations/environments. Preferably with links to simulations/models. Talked about the possibilities for human sexuality:
i) Genetically fixed monogamous/polygamous
ii) Genetically variable monogamous/polygamous/polyandrous and other
iii) Somewhat environmentally variable monogamous/polygamous/polyandrous and other
iv) Totally environmentally variable.
2) Look at the anthropological evidence, do people in the situations highlighted in section 1 have different mating patterns. If so it eliminates option i). Preferably look at the genetic variation between the groups. Are there racial types that don’t adopt different mating patterns under different circumstances, that’d suggest ii) or iii)
3) Look at the archaeological records for evidence similar to section 2.
4) Look at modern humans and what environmental pressures they are under. Are we seeing shifts in mating patterns? If not, why not?
Anything extraneous to this thread of argument I would have ignored. So the stuff on pinker would have gone in an open thread or something.
Here is what I would have done for this sequence. Rather than trying to summarise everything from the book, figure out what my argument would have been like for the same and then put the pieces that fit the argument in place and then highlight the pieces of evidence missing. Critique and praise the book.
First I would have checked to see what the view of how fluid human sexuality was around here; to avoid calling something the standard view if it wasn’t.
Then my argument would have been something like this.
1) Talk about standard sexuality in humans (polygamous/monogamous). Show non-standard sexuality in other species (bonobos), talk about why it is evolutionarily advantageous for their situations/environments. Preferably with links to simulations/models. Talked about the possibilities for human sexuality:
i) Genetically fixed monogamous/polygamous
ii) Genetically variable monogamous/polygamous/polyandrous and other
iii) Somewhat environmentally variable monogamous/polygamous/polyandrous and other
iv) Totally environmentally variable.
2) Look at the anthropological evidence, do people in the situations highlighted in section 1 have different mating patterns. If so it eliminates option i). Preferably look at the genetic variation between the groups. Are there racial types that don’t adopt different mating patterns under different circumstances, that’d suggest ii) or iii)
3) Look at the archaeological records for evidence similar to section 2.
4) Look at modern humans and what environmental pressures they are under. Are we seeing shifts in mating patterns? If not, why not?
Anything extraneous to this thread of argument I would have ignored. So the stuff on pinker would have gone in an open thread or something.