Two interlocking models or paradigms describe how humans evolve.

In the first explanatory paradigm we are now looking at a modification of our model.  We now have two complementing dynamics.

Mother’s testosterone levels > progeny maturation rate > social structure proclivity > evolutionary trajectory.

Mother’s estrogen levels > progeny ability to exercise aesthetic discrimination and caring behavior > social structure proclivity > evolutionary trajectory.

I hypothesize two feedback loops.  Mother’s testosterone level > progeny maturation rate > social structure proclivity > mother’s testosterone level.  Mother’s estrogen level > progeny ability to exercise aesthetic discrimination and caring behavior > social structure proclivity > Mother’s estrogen level.  The environment can intervene at all three levels of both loops by influencing maturation rates and timing (via testosterone) or by influencing mate selection criteria (via estrogen), thus modifying the trajectory of human evolution.

The second explanatory paradigm involves a five-step continuum beginning with natural selection and then moving to sexual selection, with animals focusing on particular patterns when they choose a mate.  Step three begins with a bridging over to human sexual selection, where adept practitioners of novel pattern creation are selected as procreation partners by mates with sensitivity to these nuances.  This is where the first explanatory paradigm is engaged.  The fourth step is taken when novelty itself becomes desirable outside the partner selection process, and society is compelled to embrace in its productions the infinite nuances of the new.  In the fifth stage, awareness of the creation process itself becomes a target experience.

The fifth stage offers a looping around to stage one, what we think of as competitive evolution, accompanied by awareness.

1)    natural selection
2)    sexual selection (selecting for pattern when seeking a mate)
3)    human sexual selection (selection for novel pattern when seeking a mate)
4)    art (selecting for novel pattern outside of mate selection)
5)    awareness of the selection or creative process

We know that a person’s testosterone levels are set by mother’s testosterone levels six weeks before birth.  I’m not aware of any studies that support or don’t support our conjecture that a person’s estrogen levels are set by the mother’s estrogen levels in utero.  I started this thread almost two weeks ago, saying I was going out on a limb.  I didn’t expect to be climbing out this far.  Neither did I expect to find so many evocative possibilities.

Folks, this is open-source theorizing.  Post in comments your knowledge of studies that suggest that this is a fertile path (see previous entry: Tentative Conclusion to the Estrogen Discussion) or that the fruits that I am describing are imaginary.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom