...truths about human nature. I agree that a lot of what drives suicide bombing among young Muslim men is the polygynous culture, but that doesn't explain the married doctors in the UK.

I agree that a lot of what drives suicide bombing among young Muslim men is the polygynous culture, but that doesn't explain the married doctors in the UK

"Married doctors in the UK" were not suicide bombers. They tried to detonate explosives by remote control.

They were when they drove the car through the airport window. But in general, point taken.

It would be interesting to see if suicide bomber types are also generally more passive, more manipulable, less 'alpha male-ish' (and perhaps less attractive, though that could actually be a looser correlation) than average, as that also tends to work against one in both the mate-gathering, and easily-recruited departments...

"Is that why you did it, Forward? Lack of women?"
- 'The Borderland of Sol,' Larry Niven

(as nearly as I can remember the line...I don't have the story at hand)

Even the airport bombers were not suicidal. They got out of the car once it had stopped.

I agree that a lot of what drives suicide bombing among young Muslim men is the polygynous culture,

Point taken - I agree it's a factor. But I feel compelled to add in a cheeky manner

"Yes, that explains the suicide bombing craze among Mormons in the 19th century, before their changed their mind about that sort of thing."

They got out of the car once it had stopped.

I thought they set themselves on fire on purpose?

Well, we all know the polygamous sects of Later Day Saints in Colorado City, AZ. are a hotbed of terrorism. What, you've never heard of a Mormon terrorist?

Pure psychobable.

"Pure psychobabble"

I'm not much for psychobabble either, but isn't there some significant differences between a polygamous sect in a town in AZ and an entire country that tends to polygamy? Specifically, there is an escape valve for excess males in a small Colorado community that would not be there if the entire country practiced polygamy. And wasn't there some case not too long ago about a couple of young men from a polygamous group in the U.S. who had turned violent, supposedly in part due to the lack of available females?

Jeff, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven:_A_Story_of_Violent_Faith

Also related, this review from the Noxious Rodent Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDF123FF930A3575BC0A9659C8B63

We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women... Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females.

Psychology Today is practicing biology without a license.

Their use of "correlation" is a classic example of the "Black Swan fallacy."

Furthermore, the correlation itself is highly suspect. There's one very large group of non-primates called birds where females are typically larger than males. The reason has nothing to do with polygyny. It's because smaller males are more agile fliers, hence better providers for the female who's sitting on the eggs.

Their could not be any advantage as a hunter by being larger and faster.

I think th esize differential is due to specalization between the sexes.

Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage.

In western civilization, we have prostitution, a form of polygyny. Prostitution isn't proper marriage, but then again, why are we attempting to shoehorn reproductive strategies into the form of marriage?

Edward, you wrote:

Furthermore, the correlation itself is highly suspect. There's one very large group of non-primates called birds where females are typically larger than males. The reason has nothing to do with polygyny. It's because smaller males are more agile fliers, hence better providers for the female who's sitting on the eggs.

And how does the number of female mates correlate with the size of the male in bird species? In other words, you don't have a counterexample without this additional data. My take is that at least in primates the correlation is not a result of bias in the choice of species selected.

In western civilization, we have prostitution, a form of polygyny. Prostitution isn't proper marriage, but then again, why are we attempting to shoehorn reproductive strategies into the form of marriage?

Er, because prostitution generally falls under the heading of "entertainment" rather than "reproductive strategy"?

And how does the number of female mates correlate with the size of the male in bird species?

Not at all.

My take is that at least in primates the correlation is not a result of bias in the choice of species selected.

I can't really say, but there are only two species of primate I have any real experience with.

Horses don't have a big size difference between males and females. So, should we conclude they are naturally monogamous?

From the American Physiological Society:

Given the evolution of the horse as a prey species and the ancestors of the dog as a predatory species, both dependent on running, it is tempting to speculate that natural selection operated on the running ability of both males and females of these species. In contrast, archeological evidence suggests that human ancestors were tool users and may have had gender-specific tasks at least as much as one million years ago, possibly lessening the importance of running speed particularly in females. This analysis is strictly speculative, yet it is clear that humans have selectively bred both racehorses and Greyhounds for speed in both genders for several hundred years, whereas humans do not select their own mates based solely on running ability.

In conclusion, although male horses and dogs do hold a slight speed advantage over conspecific females, the difference is an order of magnitude smaller than that seen in humans (one percent versus 10 percent). Factors other than physiological differences may explain why horse races are traditionally segregated by gender.

It's a mistake to attempt to apply the article's thesis to individual acts. The point is that polygyny leads to greater social competion for mates, which is just common sense, and that in Islamic society specifically (as opposed to say traditional mormonism), martyrdom is actively promoted as a ligitimate outlet for that competitive aggression.
Given that thesis, it makes sense that even the most successful indivduals would continue to act competitively. One could even argue that they would be the most likely individuals to pursue the competative urge to the extreme.

... and that in Islamic society specifically (as opposed to say traditional mormonism), martyrdom is actively promoted as a ligitimate outlet for that competitive aggression.

Rubbish.

Islamic society doesn't do that, a tiny subset of Islamic society, which gets all the attention, does that. Have you ever visited Indonesia, Malaysia or Turkey? Unless you meant something else by "ligitimate"

One more thing.

Karl, assuming what you say is correct, Islam must be the worst practiced religion in the world. Try dividing the number of Islamic suicide bombings per year by the number of Moslems worldwide and figure this out for yourself.

One would think every Moslem walking out of a mosque has only one desire - to blow up. I guess we can equally blame the MSM and the right-wing for this view of life. It makes a good story line.

On a related note, the "fact" that women talk three times as much as men (20,000 words per day vs. 7000) has just been disproved.

It turns out the psychologist who popularized that statement did not base it on an actual study but a "variety of secondary sources." In other words, an urban legend.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4947103.html

A relevant quote: "When a pop psychologist or journalist starts to tell you something about the biological or social differences between groups — men versus women, old people versus young people, black people versus white people — put your hand on your wallet."

The article is an interesting introduction to human behavior.

I will, however, as a usually nonpracticing social psychologist, point out a few interesting things. For instance, the article tells us that Bill Gates and Paul McCartney aren't the pioneers that they were when they were young. That's true. But lacking in creativity? Hmm. Bill Gates, whatever you think of him, could be seen as engaging in a different kind of creativity than he pursued in his 20s. The same thing can be said about Paul McCartney. Consider a third example: John Carmack. As a teenager, he engaged in criminal behavior. Then he got into creating computer games. Now he's working on space technology. He's also married and has a child. In short, these things can all be viewed as differing ways of expressing creative impulses.

I thought polygamy wasn't really all that common anymore among Muslims? Whether for economic reasons or social forces or whatever, although it is lawful and still practiced, my impression was that the vast majority of Muslim men these days have only one wife. Of course, I could be wrong...

http://aqerdfdfrqgeq.host.com
desk3
[url=http://aqesdfdfrqgeq.host.com]desk4[/url]
[link=http://aqeadfdfrqgeq.host.com]desk6[/link]