File this under "what it means to be human"

In terms of our sexual behavior, according to Myth of Monogamy, we're most similar to certain bird species (i.e. the human and bird species consist of individuals who are ostensible serial monogamists in terms of sexual partners and of some individuals who are socially monogamous for life). In terms of our social groups, we're most similar to wolves ("which is why we domesticated dogs and not chimpanzees"). Genetically most similar to chimpanzees... socially most similar to wolves... sexually most similar to some bird species....

What about how we learn languages? Specifically, it's zebra finches.

(Tangentially, these kinds of theories help me to understand why people disbelieve "Darwinism." It's fuckin' complicated! Quantum mechanics is complicated too, and if the USA hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nobody'd buy that science, either.)

More importantly, the mapping of the zebra finch genome may help us to understand the etiology of autism and other speech-related developmental disabilities. My pet theory about the cause of autism is a bit wonky, but I'll take the time to explain it.

I believe that autistic individuals have a misfire in that black box of utmost opacity (i.e. their brains). That misfire disrupts the behavior chain that, in neurotypicals, allows the conditioning of social reinforcers.

The misfire is, like most other genetically caused human diseases, utterly complex. It differs in degree (resulting in the "s" of ASD), can cause both utter debilitation and "savant" qualities and, if you'll allow me to facetiously reference a stereotype, engenders an inordinate liking for trains.

If this misfire is indeed genetically linked, and there are lil' autistic zebra finches, they won't give a flying fig about learning how to sing. So... um... help me prove my theory. ("Prove" in the sense of the phrase "the exception proves the rule." I want to test its mettle.) Nature is a bit over my head, so I'll need any assistance the Internet can offer.

A delicate proposition about casual female bisexuality

My citations are going to be imprecise and my claims are going to be broad; I apologize for those issues in advance.

Reading Savage Love obsessively led to catching a couple of other books. If you'll allow me to summarize and hopefully not form a strawman, Dan Savage believes that men and women are biologically different in their interaction with their sexual orientation. Basically, he posits that women have a "superpower" that allows them to, at times, change their sexual orientation. On his podcast, he once mentioned (paraphrase) "every time I turn around, some lesbian I knew is fuckin' men again, or becoming a man." Also, he has said that though he knows many lesbian women who came out as transgendered and became men, few gay men he's known long term have become women. Another relevant fact is that there are roughly twice as many gay-identified men as lesbian-identified women.

Observing people and their sexualities made me think about the relative high rate of casual bisexual behavior among heterosexual women, compared with the abysmally low rate of the male equivalent. Dan Savage's explanation of this phenomenon is an appeal to biology. Mine is not.

Reading The Masculine Self made me understand masculinity as power Features of traditional masculinity, e.g. having sex with women, are also a way to wield power. In this way, assuming that women are dis-privileged in the realm of heterosexual sex, I think that casual bisexual behavior is a way to lay claim to some of the masculine privilege.

My analysis of the other situations proceeds about the same. Fewer lesbian identified women? It's because living permanently in that pairing lacks any masculine power. Less casual bisexual behavior in heterosexual men? It's because admitting sexual attractions to men is actually a disavowal of masculine privilege. There's more female-to-male transexuals and fewer MTFs? It's obvious to me, and made plain in The Masculine Self that men are punished more for out-role behavior.

My underlying assumption is that though biology generally and genetics in specific have huge effects on our sexuality and gender identification, some of the difference in the statistics about the sexes in terms of gender identity and sexual behavior are the result of the out-sized structure of socialization regarding masculine power.

I would actually love to argue this out and defend my position with academic detachment, because I'm not at all certain of it.

Western diet/lifestyle diseases lead to the extension of misery, not welfare

Listening to this Think podcast on KERA made me think about how Western diet/lifestyle diseases (type II diabetes, IBS, obesity) reflect the worst tendencies that we have in terms of extending misery rather than promoting welfare. We're political even in the way that we die!

I've often wanted a clarification when somebody claims to have no political views. You may be apolitical and apathetic but is it a propos?

If you drive on a highway, your transportation is facilitated by pure politics.

When you fuel your body with corn syrup, light beer, tobacco, and partially hydrogenated oils,

you stand on the shoulders of political giants. I realize that very few (if any) individuals declare, "I support the continuation of Nixon's corn subsidies!" every time they buy a 99^c soda. But the connection is patently there.

SETI: keep on truckin' to the other side of the moon, to 500AU away...

I have a hard time understanding SETI as anything other than a pipe dream. Fundamentally, the Drake equation is not empirical and belies observations. It's an extremely interesting thought experiment, but does not supply enough hard data to justify expense and human effort that is beyond superlatives. Can you think of any scientists who did their best work seeking something they were certain they would find, as Drake is certain he will find extraterrestrial life? Did Rosalind Franklin think she would find a double helix? Was Einstein certain that the speed of light in a vacuum was constant?
Fifty years of staring into the abyss and finding nothing is an awesome act of faith. Good science it is not.

Fighting "wars on"

"Acknowledge that national security does have economic, social, educational, and environmental dimensions, but insist that this doesn't necessarily mean the problems in those areas are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating efforts to solve national ills as "wars" doesn't convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces." (page 12)

It makes sense that a solider engaged in "warfighting" would oppose the militarization of the language surrounding the "wars on" poverty and drugs. Thought this piece is dated and framed by a giant caveat, I think the idea in the quote should make the short list of reasons why our social wars are immensely scary rhetorical vehicles.

Evolution as the only game in town - even for nonliving organisms

It seems to me that if prions, which are not living, are able to evolve, Dawkins' hypothesis that extraterrestrial life would also be Darwinian stands to reason.
Processes that we assume to be exclusive to our domain (human, sentient, and even living) frequently reveal themselves to be intrinsic to nature, like a physical law. Seeing life as matter that is subject to deterministic principles seems inevitable, since we can no longer support the notion that we (defined as broadly as possible) are capable of anything that other natural systems can't do.

Homophobia and humor

It's really easy to make any reference to gays by straight men turn into jocular, friendly disgust. "I'm comfortable enough with homosexuality to joke about it, but being involved with it myself is utterly repulsive!" Some humor sites do a great job of showing us what humor without homophobia would look like: The Onion and Uhh Yeah Dude. The Onion video advances a pro-gay perspective because of the ubiquity of the response that they're viciously satirizing: "I'm comfortable with homosexuality, but I don't want my kid to be gay!" Uhh Yeah Dude is going after an easy target: men seeking anonymous gay sex. While cruising is on the fringes even of gay culture, the lack of flamboyancy or exaggerated enthusiasm is admirable on the part of UYD.

edit: In retrospect, UYD is at least biphobic (calling John Mayer's admission of bisexual interests "gross") and transphobic (asserting that children of the transcouple will be undoubtedly psychologically unbalanced). I was so happy that they avoided such a common pitfall (that of feigned homosexual interests or proclivities) that I had overlooked their overall attitude. Still funny guys, still worth listening to, but politically, they suck.