Not directly mentioned in the article, but relevant: Richard Dawkins, in at least one of his books, discusses why dads don't put in as much child-rearing (in many mammals, for example). The evolutionary incentives for fathers and mothers are the same (eg they have equal stakes in the genes being propagated). 2 categories of reasons. (there may be more)
- Fathers (depending on species) can't be confident a given child is theirs. Mothers can be confident due to giving live birth. Fathers have a lower incentive to care for a given child, since expending effort on offspring that's not yours is evolutionary detrimental; everything has an opportunity cost.
- Mothers have a much higher investment in the child from the moment of conception: Due to the extra food they must consume to nourish the embryo, the effects of pregnancy etc. By comparison, sperm is cheap. Neither parent wants to let the child die due to lack of care, but the fathers are in a better position to call the mothers' bluff than vice versa due to the sunk cost.
This is an argument I've heard previously but in the context of jealousy. The idea then is that men are on average more "sexually" jealous (don't want their heterosexual partner to have physical intimacy with other men) whereas women would on average be more "socially" jealous (don't want their heterosexual partner to have emotional intimacy with other women.)
In case it needs to be explicit: the men in the story are worried that their women may become with another man's child, whereas the women are worried that the man will not remain loyal and help raise their child.
This is fascinating, but also worrying how people might extrapolate too much from innate evolutionary upbringing. We’re social beings and there are so many examples of social constructs that benefit humans as a species but run against the grain of our more primal tendencies. It’s still important to study, and interesting nonetheless. But too often I see it used as a justification for people to express certain types of behavior (e.g. physical altercations, etc)
Well nowadays there’s inexpensive DNA tests incase your wife purposefully confuses paternity. Cheap enough that you don’t have to go on the Maury TV show to find out. One female dating strategy as old as time is to have a baby with an alpha male and let a beta male raise it. However, I don’t know of a scenario where a wife won’t get very angry if you request a paternity test.
They may be inexpensive, but they also have to be legal. In France, you may only have one if ordered by a judge, which only happens for a limited number of reasons, and may be refused if it's deemed against the child's interest.
> The carrying out of a paternity test outside the legal framework carries penalties ranging from one year's imprisonment to €15,000 fine.
Wait, really? Even if both sides consent? Why does the French government want to tell people whether they can or not can have a DNA test if both parties consent??
I seem to recall a reason along the lines of "to keep the peace in the families". Can't find that source.
But in practice, I expect a paternity test to come in an otherwise troubled relationship, so I don't know how often it happens that both parents would seek to get one.
It is not necessarily legal to get such a test, and in some countries (like Germany), the men are still liable to pay child support even if the child isn't theirs.
Paternity tests for every birth is a thing one has to mention up front as a position. Then those who'd be offended by it self-select out of one's dating pool.
I disagree. Paternity tests for every birth are unnecessary. That girl he met at the club messaging him on Instagram that she’s pregnant with his boy versus The woman that has moved in with him and he is married to before having kids. Every situation is different and to some this honesty test doesn’t matter.
What’s the gene pool loss if the kid actually isn’t his? Seems to me that that his dating pool will then expand from zero to many. A rational male may think that offering more than 18 years of his life is more significant than not offending someone once.
> I think we need to take a much more nonjudgmental view of the human family
Dunno; how many of us agree what makes a good family? "Is everyone there happier and healthier than they would be elsewhere?" would be my question, but a lot of people seem to assume a good family is one that looks like those portrayed on TV.
As for animals; I can speak firsthand of dog packs where junior males have a lot to do with caring for the young, especially the "raise the teenagers" stage. The females of that age tend to stand on dignity and want nothing to do with pups, but the males are willing to be chew toys.
I think there are things we can broadly agree on. For example, reducing the number of single-parent families or general delinquency. Once we solve those types of issues, we can get into the relative minutae of things like screen time, etc.
Why is a single parent family alone a bad thing? I could see a case where a single caring parent could be much better than 2 negligent or abusive ones.
Sure, add 'limiting any amount of abusive parents' to the list too. I was coming from the point of view of 'all other things being equal', two parents are better than one.
"All else being equal" is an implied assumption here. Yes, two abusive parents are worse than one good parent. But two good parents are better than one good parent. It is probably also the case that one good parent and one abusive parent is better than one abusive parent alone.
We don't have kids but I see this kind of behavior with my wife regarding the dog. When he gets zoomies or very playful, she's likely to see this energetic behavior as "being bad" and not something to engage with. Not sure how extensible my anecdote is to other people's situations but it mirrors my understanding of the treatment of boys in a school setting.
I think in a school setting, you can't make allowances for the 1 kid who is stopping the rest from learning, so behaviour that might be tolerated by parents or in a 1;1 situation gets shut down. Just hypothesising, no direct experience.
Most people on the planet agree that the ideal family involves both parents in a loving stable relationship who are able to provide for their children’s needs.
You implicitely changed the criteria though: you went from the "ideal family", which is very vague but I would understand as "a family where the members are happy in their lives", to "a family model that makes a society successful".
Optimising for the individual's happiness or for society "success" conceivably yields different family models.
It’s a bit of a brutalization of the concept of ideal to reduce it to mere happiness. The junkie on his way to a fentanyl overdose may very well be happy, but nobody who is honest and not evil would hold it up as an ideal life.
It’s pretty obvious that an ideal has to account for externalities to be much of one.
But “success” is a fleeting metric, is the point. In your meth use example, the addiction and codependency are due to a physical dependency. Child-rearing is a choice, not a physical addiction. Can’t compare apples and oranges.
Happiness is measured in happiness. We can also measure health.
But “success” is too subjective to matter as a useful metric.
> You implicitely changed the criteria though: you went from the "ideal family", [...] to "a family model that makes a society successful".
You're staring at the finger, when I'm talking about the moon. [1] I didn't change the criteria, because I don't actually care about the original argument. The person complaining about generalizing is missing the fact that "generally" certain things apply to a general population, and certain things don't. In general, a population gets big enough by being successful. So those certain things that bring success, apply.
Sometimes I wonder if we focus too much on the human family and not enough on the human community.
As someone raising kids in a city with no community network, no family around, etc - I am acutely aware that it's quite bad for my kids despite my ongoing best efforts.
A supportive community can enrich life so much in ways that an isolated nuclear family probably can't. It can offer things parents can't themselves.
So in isolation, sure, let's talk about what the best family structure can be and we will certainly discover important things. But I think it has to be one which integrates well socially, and allow community in. Without that there is a lot of lost potential.
Just my opinion of course. Perhaps this mostly reflects my own inadequacies, I'm not sure.
"I think we need to take a much more nonjudgmental view of the human family, and the kinds of family structures in which children can thrive"
A strange conclusion. After spending the rest of the article describing ways in which dads matter, why would the article pivot to essentially say all methods are equal?
Different circumstances create different pressures and evolve different behaviors. Choosing and socially encouraging the best ones is important. Isn't that being judgemental?
Sure, there's room for variety. But, as a society, you should be somewhat choosey.
A lot of the article was about how human behavior varies based on culture, including the role of the father. It also talks about studies where children without fathers had the same survival rates as those with fathers, and speculates that the father role might be fillable by other members of society. So that conclusion was not totally out of the blue.
It seems kind of dumb, of course the role can be replaced. Its not like a father today is doing anything super specific to child survival. Just feed, change and play with the kid, obviously anyone of any sex can do these things.
If this is what society considers the roles of a father to be, then to goes a long way to explain so many of the challenges people face today.
I certainly don't see my role with my children as just a babysitter. The partnership with my wife to raise our family is a complex and rich engagement between our strengths and weaknesses to aid in our kids development, not only physically, but also mentally and emotionally among other aspects.
Survival is sort of not the point though? We want people to thrive not just live. People with male role models do better in school, less likely to commit crime, take risks, live longer and are happier.
Diversity between and within soceties is fine. But societies need to pass some judgement to get a healthy diversity of roles rather than unhealthy negligence.
The studies they're quoting support the thesis that fathers aren't strictly necessary for child survival, only the role they perform is. So from the child survival point of view, a culture or society that does not have doting fathers but enough community support to fill those roles is just as beneficial as one that has doting fathers. Either way works, from a child survival p.o.v.
There may be other factors that we as a society consider beneficial that we wish to promote, that need present and involved fathers, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean a non-involved father is bad for the survival of the child. We currently based societal mores on more than just survival, though, and that is a sign of progress.
When reading the article, I was surprised to not see the other studies mentioned alongside the strict survival results. In developed/industrialized countries, the number of years a child has an involved father predicts their future income, even after controlling for education level, total family income, etc. Of course, these are in environments where survival is not exactly a close call.
Edit to add: I don't know if the results were able to be replicated in non-WEIRD societies.
I don't think this research can come to any conclusion, we don't judge our parenting ways by how some animals or even some tribes in Africa are doing it. For us it is more relevant to judge it based on how good it is for our times and place. In my eyes it is very clear that fatherhood is important but that just by looking at what happens in societies with low rate of fatherhood, not because of this research.
Yes, the "anything is as good as another" attitude is not born out by the data.
Even when controlling for other factors (e.g. poverty), fatherless children are more likely to have teenage pregnancies, commit crimes, and drop out of high school.
Yes, single mothers are loving and contagious.
But let's not pretend for political correctness points that everything is equal.
Can you provide any such data, as the article disagrees with you and specifically focuses on the role being important, but not the presence of a male father fulfilling that role.
Unless the study is controlling for that. Most of these studies only control for sleep deprivation based on self reported questionnaires, where parents are likely to be too optimistic.
Agreed. They need to start controlling for sleep deprivation and cessation of sexual activity for the weeks after birth before these studies can start suggesting anything physiological.
Decrease in testosterone in human males after birth is not news, but I've never seen anyone suggest that the cause could be decreased sexual activity as the mother heals. It is known that decreased sexual activity lowers testosterone in human males. I just had my third child 10 days ago so I'm right smack in the middle of this. I don't feel a drop in libido, but lack of sleep and the knowledge that there won't be sex for a while doesn't help. I'd like to see a study that actually proves a causal relationship here.
Fathers who are soldiers away on deployment who can only see their newborn over zoom also have the dip. But only if they've been closely tracking the pregnancy and birth. Apparently the dip is not observed in fathers who are deployed soldiers who are not involved/invested.
> [Genghis Khan] was born to a mother who had been kidnapped and [raped] by his father, a practice in which Genghis Khan himself would later engage.
> He and his men would kill the heads of other clans then force the survivors to join their united “super-clan.”
> Each time he conquered a new clan or people, Genghis Khan would [rape] the women, either to himself or to his head chiefs. This is how he acquired enough wives to father the number of sons necessary to provide the DNA lineage which we know today.
Standard infanticide practice for many primate species. Humans just scale better.
> Yet when it comes to the DNA of Genghis Khan and his descendants, we are fascinated at the possibilities and still seek the “bragging rights” of being a part of his incredible family legacy.
Being descended from a mass rapist isn't something to brag about. And let's not gloss over what those women went through.
64 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] thread- Fathers (depending on species) can't be confident a given child is theirs. Mothers can be confident due to giving live birth. Fathers have a lower incentive to care for a given child, since expending effort on offspring that's not yours is evolutionary detrimental; everything has an opportunity cost.
- Mothers have a much higher investment in the child from the moment of conception: Due to the extra food they must consume to nourish the embryo, the effects of pregnancy etc. By comparison, sperm is cheap. Neither parent wants to let the child die due to lack of care, but the fathers are in a better position to call the mothers' bluff than vice versa due to the sunk cost.
In case it needs to be explicit: the men in the story are worried that their women may become with another man's child, whereas the women are worried that the man will not remain loyal and help raise their child.
When both of those are in effect, does jealousy dissipate?
> The carrying out of a paternity test outside the legal framework carries penalties ranging from one year's imprisonment to €15,000 fine.
Official source: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14042?...
But in practice, I expect a paternity test to come in an otherwise troubled relationship, so I don't know how often it happens that both parents would seek to get one.
What’s the gene pool loss if the kid actually isn’t his? Seems to me that that his dating pool will then expand from zero to many. A rational male may think that offering more than 18 years of his life is more significant than not offending someone once.
It's like drawing conclusions about human society based on just watching prison inmates interact.
Dunno; how many of us agree what makes a good family? "Is everyone there happier and healthier than they would be elsewhere?" would be my question, but a lot of people seem to assume a good family is one that looks like those portrayed on TV.
As for animals; I can speak firsthand of dog packs where junior males have a lot to do with caring for the young, especially the "raise the teenagers" stage. The females of that age tend to stand on dignity and want nothing to do with pups, but the males are willing to be chew toys.
The perfectly describes a non-trivial amount of fatherhood for me — I’m a combination of a mobile jungle gym and a chew toy :D
I think there are things we can broadly agree on. For example, reducing the number of single-parent families or general delinquency. Once we solve those types of issues, we can get into the relative minutae of things like screen time, etc.
What about 3?
Optimising for the individual's happiness or for society "success" conceivably yields different family models.
It’s pretty obvious that an ideal has to account for externalities to be much of one.
Happiness is measured in happiness. We can also measure health.
But “success” is too subjective to matter as a useful metric.
You're staring at the finger, when I'm talking about the moon. [1] I didn't change the criteria, because I don't actually care about the original argument. The person complaining about generalizing is missing the fact that "generally" certain things apply to a general population, and certain things don't. In general, a population gets big enough by being successful. So those certain things that bring success, apply.
[1] - https://youtu.be/LH1GFaw09hk?t=74
As someone raising kids in a city with no community network, no family around, etc - I am acutely aware that it's quite bad for my kids despite my ongoing best efforts.
A supportive community can enrich life so much in ways that an isolated nuclear family probably can't. It can offer things parents can't themselves.
So in isolation, sure, let's talk about what the best family structure can be and we will certainly discover important things. But I think it has to be one which integrates well socially, and allow community in. Without that there is a lot of lost potential.
Just my opinion of course. Perhaps this mostly reflects my own inadequacies, I'm not sure.
A strange conclusion. After spending the rest of the article describing ways in which dads matter, why would the article pivot to essentially say all methods are equal?
Different circumstances create different pressures and evolve different behaviors. Choosing and socially encouraging the best ones is important. Isn't that being judgemental?
Sure, there's room for variety. But, as a society, you should be somewhat choosey.
I certainly don't see my role with my children as just a babysitter. The partnership with my wife to raise our family is a complex and rich engagement between our strengths and weaknesses to aid in our kids development, not only physically, but also mentally and emotionally among other aspects.
Actually, different people have different strengths.
There may be other factors that we as a society consider beneficial that we wish to promote, that need present and involved fathers, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean a non-involved father is bad for the survival of the child. We currently based societal mores on more than just survival, though, and that is a sign of progress.
Edit to add: I don't know if the results were able to be replicated in non-WEIRD societies.
Even when controlling for other factors (e.g. poverty), fatherless children are more likely to have teenage pregnancies, commit crimes, and drop out of high school.
Yes, single mothers are loving and contagious.
But let's not pretend for political correctness points that everything is equal.
Unless the study is controlling for that. Most of these studies only control for sleep deprivation based on self reported questionnaires, where parents are likely to be too optimistic.
> He and his men would kill the heads of other clans then force the survivors to join their united “super-clan.”
> Each time he conquered a new clan or people, Genghis Khan would [rape] the women, either to himself or to his head chiefs. This is how he acquired enough wives to father the number of sons necessary to provide the DNA lineage which we know today.
Standard infanticide practice for many primate species. Humans just scale better.
> Yet when it comes to the DNA of Genghis Khan and his descendants, we are fascinated at the possibilities and still seek the “bragging rights” of being a part of his incredible family legacy.
Being descended from a mass rapist isn't something to brag about. And let's not gloss over what those women went through.