Fermi Paradox, Peacock Tails and Drake Equations

Reading the most recent New Scientist (25 May) I came across an article
which has interesting implications for SETI and the like, as well as
for various SF.

Apparently geneticists have discovered that intelligence is mostly
determined by the X chromosome. Which lends enormous credence to
one of my favourite theories as to why we have such big brains, and
maybe resolves the differences between Drake's Equations and Fermi's
Paradox.

(Drake's Equation is the one about X planets with probabilities of
life forming, muliplied by chance of life becoming intelligent, and
so on, to give a total number of civilisations in the Galaxy.
Fermi's paradox is simple - it answer's Drake's Equation with
the question "where are they?")

My favourite theory is this: we evolved big brains to chat up girls.
(It's not my theory - someone put it forward about ten years ago.)
What the X chromosome thing shows is that brain-fitness is going
to be more variable in boys than girls, because boys have only one
X chromosome, and girls have a spare. This applies to both good
and bad traits, so boys' intelligences will tend to scatter wider
across the range than girls' intelligences. Which also means that
smart girls breed true - a good reason to consider them to be
attractive mates. As if you needed a good reason ... :-)

What does that mean for SETI? Well, if our huge brains serve the
same purpose as a peacock's huge tail - what percentage of bird
species have tails as big as peacocks? Not many. Which suggests
that intelligent life is unlikely to evolve naturally, and that
even if the Galaxy is teeming with life, most of it is stupid.

SF seems to fall into two groups: Man as the dominant (or only)
species in the Galaxy; and Man as just another species among many.
The "peacock's tail" theory of intelligence makes the first SF
sound more credible.

Which would make it a lonely Galaxy. :-(


Thoughts?

This just brings me back to one of my favourite reasonings as to which of
the sexes is the stronger one...

'The weaker sex is the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger
sex for the weaker sex.'

Wendy

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

On Tue, 28 May 2002, "Wendybelle Stallworthy-Burgess" wrote
Given the relative fertility rates of men and women, you'd expect
the men to be competing for the attention of the women, rather than
the other way around.

Another interesting point raised in this article is that they have
studied what makes men attractive, and apparently (and I am only
describing the article here) women find rich men more attractive
most of the time, but find intelligent men more attractive around
the time they ovulate.

Which really *does* show which is the stronger sex, as well as the
sex-selection of intelligence.

(In balance, elsewhere in the same publication there was a short
article on new legislation against "DNA theft", where they mentioned
the tendency of US males to secretly test the paternity of "their"
children using DNA tests available online.)

Strange days.

simon@ wrote:
O, that is where I have been going wrong, I got it the wrong way
round, I thought the men were supposed to be competing for the
attention of the Women, playing hard to get and showing a lack of
interest why did no one tell me :)
OK they have but I find it hard to gain the instinct to learn it the
other way around.
OK then why do men just find (in general) younger women more attractive
rather than money etc. Especially considering with a rich other person
you can get loaded on drinks for free and if you have two or three of
them competing at the same time you can get very drunk, (Done it a few
times myself), but have only been in the position of being gotten drunk
by men far older and richer than me, even one of my girlfriends who was
older and had a good job did not buy me endless drinks faster than I
could keep up. (Maybe that is just me being mixed up though :))

However that article seems to argue a good case for polygamy for women,
a women should have two husbands, a professor for reproduction, a CEO or
portfolio manager for income, what about go the whole hog and also have
a stud for fun and have three husbands. Or what about have professors
rent themselves out to couples who want intelligent offspring and don't
quite match up, Posh and Becks could really have done with that
considering they might just about have one brain cell between them.
Then again some professors leave me wondering how they ever got a GCSE,
let alone a PHD, a lectureship than a professorship.


Maybe the Bonobo have the better idea, why go for just one partner.
Simple.

---

Roy
r.blewitt@

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Roy Blewitt wrote
Read what you wrote and what I wrote.
I have observed that my best success with women has always been
when they have done the asking. But that is way the way off
topic - and even then, the women that have asked me have generally
been attracted to my brain. My current girlfriend reacted to
me showing her what roleplaying was (not that sort of roleplaying,
you filthy lot. ;-) )

But then she had started by telling me the first time we met that
she had far too much imagination to roleplay. But, you'll notice,
she still came looking at IFIS.
Or having a stronger liver than her.


My age difference has ranged from +40 years to -15 years. (+40 was
the first, -15 the most recent.) My absolute age range is between
sixteen and fifty-mumble. I think youth only counts for
anything when you are planning children - unfair as it may be,
the fertile age range for women is much shorter than for men.
But that difference is going to be the reason why men are attracted
to young women. The ideal age to marry her is going to be when
she starts being properly fertile - say about thirteen.

Other than that, experience has its advantages, youth has its
advantages. And in the long term, one turns into the other.
Which goes to show that there is a lot more to having a good
relationship than instincts.

We're back to that brain again.
Or they could pick chaps who have done well in professions that require
a brain. Probably the peak choice would be, say, a very successful
SF or fantasy author. :-)

So, ladies of IFIS - Neil Gaiman, fancyable or no?
Do you know anything about the relationship I had before this one?
This could get way the way off topic in very short order. On
second thoughts ... how many SF stories include polyamoury as
a story theme?

Sorry, I bounced too far off topic for a mailing list, I sort of forgot
what I was replying to, too many e-mails came in at once some from chat
others from a couple of other different people and I sent a
non-appropriate response to chat (forgetting that it includes lots of
people most of whom I don't know too well).

I will shut up now

Roy..

I think youth only counts for
That is the age that women (citizens) tended to get married in Ancient
Greece, usually if my classics holds out to a man in their 40's, one
thing to consider though is that the age a women is able to become
pregnant has dropped since then, so would a 13 year old Ancient Greek
woman have been able to become pregnant.
The Jewish faith has the Bat Mitzva at 12 for girls a comming of age I
am not sure what the marriage rules would have been,
Islam at 15.
To go back to SF/Fantasy how did the Amazons reproduce in Xena, and I
can think of a real culture clash if Amazons and Ferenghi ever met. The
Ferenghi would off course be wiped out as they would be bound to upset
the Amazons. Any other grudge match ideas.

There's a quote I like which goes something like: "I think the
surest proof that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that
they've never tried to contact us."

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Proctor GD wrote
Which for some reason makes me think of the Galaxy Song, which
has the last four lines:-
| So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
| How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
| And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
| 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
|
| - Eric Idle / Monty Python

My source:
http://www.wilken.freeserve.co.uk/Montypython/Songs/song18.htm

(for those of you who don't realise that there is less typing in
using a search engine than composing a message to IFIS chat. :-p )

I'm not sure I follow.
You seem to be saying that the effect of two chromosomes will average out,
and yet also claiming that a smart girl breeds true, as if that was a unique
factor for the girls.
A man meanwhile only has the one X, and so if he passes it on, it'll always
be the same one.

Ok - so a girl with X chromosomes of (allocating arbitrary numbers to it) 9
and 3 will appear much as smart as a girl with two chromosomes scored 6, but
could breed either a genius of 9 or a moron of 3.
And a girl of two 9s will always breed a 9.

Sooo....
Smart men may breed smart girls, but are dependent on the mate for the
intelligence of boys.
So if I'm smart, it's because my mother was smart, not my father.
And if I'm a true genius, and become fabulously wealthy - if I then marry a
bimbo, I may have moderately smart daughters, but my son will never take
over the family business, he'll just be too stupid.

This kindof makes sense.

Dominic

I wonder if this is the approach that they are taking in Smallville with
Lex being challenged to prove himself by his Father, who see's himself
sometimes as Phillip of Macedon and Alexander as his heir, sometimes as
Alexander who wants an heir to hold his empire together and sometimes
almost as Chronos (Kronos) who expects his heir (Zeus) to kill and
dethrone him.
Luthor Senior has an over inflated sence of his own self worth and
intellegence and does not trust his offspring to follow in his path.

Dominic Thomas wrote:

---

Roy Blewitt
Library Assistant
Birkbeck College (University of London)
Malet Street,
London,
WC1E 7HX
r.blewitt@

On Tue, 28 May 2002, "Dominic Thomas" wrote
unique
Well, think back to your O-level biology days. The thing we have
here is Mendelian inheritance. If you remember, some genes are
dominant, and some recessive.

Males express all X-linked genes, dominant or recessive.

Females express X-linked dominants, and X-linked recessives only
if they carry two copies.

If you assume that advantageous and disadvantageous genes for
intelligence may be recessive, the overall effect is to average
out the X-linked genes in females.
but
That's more or less it, for sons. For daughters it's more complicated
because daughters get some of their brains from their fathers.
That is also correct.
It does. And it means that if you want smart sons, marry a smart lass.
Or leave the Evil Empire to your daughters, on the basis that your
son will be Tim Nice-but-Dim.

As you say, it makes a lot of sense, especially when we look at the
examples from nobility.



What is more wierd is that if these brain-genes also have an effect
on personality, then sons get all their personality from their mothers,
but daughters get half from their fathers. Which would imply that
daughters would relate to fathers better, and sons to mothers.

Odd, that.

Clinical tests would tend to reject that theory.
(Well, my personal one-man clinical test.)

I've noticed traits about myself that come from each parent fairly evenly.

Dominic

What planet are this years big brother contstants from, especially
Jade, they all seem to have bad X chromosomes especially Jade who
thus must have two bad X chromsomes, and must be an really bad choice
for a mate (arggh) :)
----------------------
Roy Blewitt
r.blewitt@