Comment

Gullible@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

Take it up with three separate professors at my uni and several scholarly sources. Though I warn you, they are either dead or capable of screaming far louder and more eloquently than you. Here’s a Wikipedia article

source

Sort:hotnew top

stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
That article doesn’t support your argument. The effect isn’t based on relation but on being raised together before the age of 6.

source
- chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Well yeah, but that is still “biologically ingrained to avoid incest”, since being raised separately and then reintroduced as adults is an edge case. The effect is biological even if what it’s directly testing for isn’t genetics.
  
  source
  - njm1314@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    No, your arguments about cultural and learned behavior not biologically ingrained Behavior.
    
    source
    chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    From the above linked article:
    
    In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relations. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only 14 were between children from the same peer group. Of those 14, none had been reared together during the first six years of life.
    
    And lots of other examples across different cultures that would be consistent with this being an instinctual reaction of humans, rather than a cultural thing that is taught.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
The aversion often didn’t work for royalty, since they weren’t raised with their siblings.

source
scbasteve7@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

hypothesis

Therefore not proven

source