I think I’ve heard David Brin (on his blog somewhere?) make this same rough argument about “creating a clean separating signal between women and children in the minds of horny men” as well so +1 to Angela’s point! When I try to find it again right now, Google sends me here. Also, Dmitry mentions it too.
To Florian’s point, I think a huge shift in human evolution (separating us from chimps and Gorillas (but interestingly NOT so much from gibbons!)) happened that basically made two-parent child-raising happen more reliably.
“Sexual crypsis” (where it isn’t clear when sex will be procreative or not) often co-occurs with monogamy. Storks and ferrets and humans convergently evolved this pattern where the only way a highly invested male can be relatively sure of paternity is to constantly hover nearby and “mate guard” even during periods of time when the mate guarding is technically pointless because any side coupling couldn’t be viable.
Once “an incentive to mate guard constantly” exists, then second order genetically modulated behavioral shaping can make sure it actually like… uh… “helps at all” to improve child outcomes (providing more food and wisdom than, say, child abuse). In general, there is a lot of variety.
But for humans, these incentives towards monogamy get you into a framework where cultural transmission from two parents (and plausibly also grandparents (especially the maternal grandma!)) can help the kids become “supermonkeys” with tool making and language sharing cultural boosts, instead of just a single mom to simply copy the survival behavior of.
My understanding is that Neanderthal were less gregarious, with band sizes more like 3-8 people (and no money or barter?) rather than the sapiens 50-ish or more (with trade goods in their garbage from very far away, suggesting trade networks)… so I think sapiens had more than just this but I think both subspecies had instincts to cause the formation of nuclear-ish families with a shared language.
I think I’ve heard David Brin (on his blog somewhere?) make this same rough argument about “creating a clean separating signal between women and children in the minds of horny men” as well so +1 to Angela’s point! When I try to find it again right now, Google sends me here. Also, Dmitry mentions it too.
To Florian’s point, I think a huge shift in human evolution (separating us from chimps and Gorillas (but interestingly NOT so much from gibbons!)) happened that basically made two-parent child-raising happen more reliably.
“Sexual crypsis” (where it isn’t clear when sex will be procreative or not) often co-occurs with monogamy. Storks and ferrets and humans convergently evolved this pattern where the only way a highly invested male can be relatively sure of paternity is to constantly hover nearby and “mate guard” even during periods of time when the mate guarding is technically pointless because any side coupling couldn’t be viable.
Once “an incentive to mate guard constantly” exists, then second order genetically modulated behavioral shaping can make sure it actually like… uh… “helps at all” to improve child outcomes (providing more food and wisdom than, say, child abuse). In general, there is a lot of variety.
But for humans, these incentives towards monogamy get you into a framework where cultural transmission from two parents (and plausibly also grandparents (especially the maternal grandma!)) can help the kids become “supermonkeys” with tool making and language sharing cultural boosts, instead of just a single mom to simply copy the survival behavior of.
My understanding is that Neanderthal were less gregarious, with band sizes more like 3-8 people (and no money or barter?) rather than the sapiens 50-ish or more (with trade goods in their garbage from very far away, suggesting trade networks)… so I think sapiens had more than just this but I think both subspecies had instincts to cause the formation of nuclear-ish families with a shared language.