Timeline for Why was this question about human monogamy closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 20:16 | comment | added | Bryan Krause Mod | I just brought up the quality of the answer because of your comment to AliceD below. I think a modified question that asks about the biology could be fine, but in the context of the original question it just seemed like one that would solicit too much opinion and not really be answerable. I do agree the body was better than the title. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 20:02 | comment | added | canadianer | …and this seems like no basis to close the latter. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 20:02 | comment | added | canadianer | The question asks "if monogamy is an innate human behaviour or is it because of... society" and later states "Let's say we go back in time [would we see monogamy]". My interpretation is that they are asking for the mating behaviour of humans before modern society and I cannot imagine any other plausible reading of it. Thus either my imagination is not very good or this question is not opinion based. As for the answer(s): I agree, but this wouldn't be the first time that an answer has been posted, upvoted and accepted that doesn't actually answer the question… | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 19:35 | comment | added | Bryan Krause Mod | Okay - don't like them though, just provide them :) I looked at the definitions from the dictionary you linked, the ones that apply are no less vague. On the latter point, I'd be open to reevaluating the question if it was asking about mating behavior in anatomically modern humans circa 200 kya - that's not what the question is. Also, the most upvoted answer, although well-received, doesn't come anywhere close to actually addressing that question. The main source for that answer is a modern study of present-day human behavior. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 18:57 | comment | added | canadianer | @BryanKrause If you like, I can link to the definitions of innate and inherent as well ;) I go on to say in that same comment and in this post that the question does give an operational definition: they are asking if the monogamy observed in humans is a construct of society or an ancestral condition. Ie what mating behaviour would be observed for anatomically modern humans circa 200 kya. Is that insufficient for you? Why? | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 18:24 | comment | added | Bryan Krause Mod | Did you look at the link that you use to say "by nature" is well defined? essentially or innately; naturally; inherently - you still have to define those terms. We are talking operational definitions here, not dictionary ones. This reminds me of an argument I had with someone who thought they were clever by distilling "consciousness" down to "awareness" - when you look at the dictionary, the definition for "awareness" is "being conscious" - definitions like that are helpful for understanding English, not for understanding the scientific question at hand. | |
| Jul 11, 2017 at 19:54 | answer | added | AliceDMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 11, 2017 at 18:42 | history | asked | canadianer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |