It seems for now that this Theory of Waves, broken down or reduced to eight prototype human beings, offers some purchase to grip the theory that has been difficult up to now. Time will tell whether this is really the case. I just know that the three disciplines, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology and Neuropsychology, and their doorway concepts of social structure, heterochrony and balanced polymorphism, haven’t felt particularly friendly to most folks introduced to these concepts.

To review, there are eight prototype human beings.

Female
High testosterone, high estrogen (F TE)
High testosterone, low estrogen (F Te)
Low testosterone, high estrogen (F tE)
Low testosterone, low estrogen (F te)

Male
High testosterone, high estrogen (M TE)
High testosterone, low estrogen (M Te)
Low testosterone, high estrogen (M tE)
Low testosterone, low estrogen (M te)

There are natural complementary pairings. Opposite sexes are drawn to their opposite hormonal complements, not just to the opposite sex.

Female te/Male TE
Female tE/Male Te
Female Te/Male tE
Female TE/Male te

The complements naturally ally themselves into social structures, patrifocal and matrifocal, with two variations within each.

F te/M TE Conventional Patrifocal
F tE/M Te Warrior Patrifocal
F Te/M tE Contemporary Matrifocal
F TE/M te Classic Matrifocal

The eight prototype or categories of humans each come with their own characters or stereotypes not unlike the archetypes established in the Greek pantheon of gods. Certain diseases or conditions cluster around each of the eight types. Each type has an ideal mate, a person that they are naturally attracted to. There are vague correlations in terms of politics. I expect there are more and less appropriate diets for each of the types.

Each of the types is located at a hormonal extreme. Environmental effects likely influence their moods, dispositions, health and ability to concentrate. For example, smoking raises a woman’s testosterone levels. F t would likely suffer fewer repercussions from smoking than F T. The foods we eat dramatically influence our hormone levels. Adjusting diet to the specific human prototype may provide individuals a handle on their mental/dispositional experience not easily available until now.

One way to communicate the eight prototypes would be to offer an example of an actress or actor in the context of the roles that we are used to seeing that person portray. Consider that matrifocal individuals are likely inclined to gravitate to the acting profession, and there is some evidence to support large numbers of left-handers are performers. Still, their profession involves play acting what they are not.

It can be a little complicated. Rock Hudson was gay and left-handed, classic matrifocal. He portrayed heterosexual studs. Yet, in high school (New Trier), the story goes that he was expelled for riding his motorcycle up the steps and down the hallway. That act could be interpreted either way.

Still, let’s take a shot at creating a celebrity pantheon for the eight prototypes in this model.

Female
High testosterone, high estrogen (F TE)
Queen Latifah, Oprah Winfrey

High testosterone, low estrogen (F Te)
Madonna, Michelle Obama

Low testosterone, high estrogen (F tE)
Halle Berry, Scarlett Johansson

Low testosterone, low estrogen (F te)
Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson

Male
High testosterone, high estrogen (M TE)
Clint Eastwood, Viggo Mortensen

High testosterone, low estrogen (M Te)
Tom Cruise, Vin Diesel

Low testosterone, high estrogen (M tE)
Tom Hanks, Robert Redford, Barack Obama

Low testosterone, low estrogen (M te)
Matthew McConaughey, Leonardo DiCaprio

When compiling this list, I had to Google lists of celebrities. I could see faces, but I could not remember names. Perhaps I’m not the best one to be figuring out these correlations.

Visitors, what are your opinions of which celebrities go with which prototype? Break out your Tinker Toys and tell me which hub of characteristics draws which personality sticks.

For a detailed introduction to the model behinds this concept, click here.


Comments

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 10th, 2009 at 7:06 am and is filed under Sexual Selection, Social Structure, Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Comments so far

  1. Heresiarch on February 14, 2009 2:07 pm

    Andrew, Why would a shift from gesture to speech be a move from matrifocal to patrifocal? Intuitively, it would seem just the opposite. I think most people would associate the physicality of gesturing with the masculine and the manufacture of verbiage with the feminine. Or, are my stereotypes showing? But why do you say it’s the other way around?

    Do you go along with the von Baer model championed by Gould, which sees ontological development as a process of morphological differentiation and specialization? With that understanding, neoteny becomes a process of de-differentiation, the loss of specialized (adult) adaptations. An increase in the neotenous trend would lead to a convergence of types, converging on the more generic juvenile.

    You’ve gone into deep and interesting detail. My general assessment of neoteny’s significance for human evolution is that, in the wild, sexual selection for neoteny (cuteness) will hit a wall, where the reduction of adult specializations will undermine too severely the adaptive advantage of those morphological features. I see technology (domestication) having the effect of tearing down that wall, by providing neotenous humans with replacement parts for their lost morphological specializations. Technologies as extensions of the body is a theme I’ve encountered many times in my reading. As technologies proliferate, neoteny accelerates. As a result, we become hothouse flowers, increasingly ill-adapted to the wild. I think that the trend finally leads to a condition of total technological surround in the space colony. That condition re-instates the environment of the womb. The weightless environment of the space colony will constitute a historical staging of the Freudian fantasy of return-to-the-womb, which after all might be the driving impulse of history, as Freudians contended all along! In the weightless condition convergence on the juvenile type proceeds from infant to fetal to embryonic to …. ? some thoughts on this are on my site at http://www.starlarvae.org.

    Your table of high and low hormone combinations seems reasonable. Various human typologies have been suggested. Carl Jung created a typology consisting of four temperamental scales, and tests were devised to rank people on each scale. But your hormone-based typology amounts to a biological caste system, which a naturalistic explanation of human evolution and society can’t reject out of hand. But such a system is going to hit nerves the way sociobiology did. Or the way the Freakonomics guys did when they presented the correlation between the legalization of abortion and eighteen or so years later a significant drop in crime. We’re evolving animals, but the guardians of propriety don’t want us to take that idea too seriously.

    See if you can get a copy of Timothy Leary’s book The Game of Life. He proposes a typology of four main types, each divided into three phases, for twelve total, that correspond to the zodiac signs. He works up all kinds of other correlations, too, with Greek and Roman gods, tarot cards, Hebrew letters. It’s pretty ingenious.

    You would do your readers a service by providing a “Dummy’s Guide.” Distill your ideas down to a digest form, to serve as an introduction and overview. It’s fascinating material, but kind of overwhelming without a simple map up front.

    Thanks for writing,
    H

  2. Andrew on February 18, 2009 9:45 am

    Playing with the idea that the shift from gesture to speech is matrifocal to patrifocal has its origin in Chris Knights, “Blood Relations”. I don’t think it occurred to me before that, that human evolution might have been in a matrifocal context, though Eisler and Gimbutas’s work showed how we may have been matrifocal in neolithic times. Playing with the idea that we were matrifocal earlier in our evolutionary career, while we where communicating with gesture, both hemispheres the same size rather than the current brain that has the left hemisphere bigger, I played with a presuppositional foundation to see where the implications led.

    In agree with the Gould interpretation of the von Baer thesis insofar as it describes the dynamic of prolongation of infant features into later stages of ontogeny. Aspects of nondifferentiation I find less interesting than the actual features of those earlier stages. I’m not focussed on convergent of type details, across species comparisons.

    The piece from a couple weeks ago, “Introduction to the Theory of Waves” offers an overview several of these principles. I’m working on a piece now focusing on the societal repercussions of the thesis. Got a way to go. I’m having trouble making this stuff easy to jump into. All I have to work with are the established academic languages, which are arcane or idiosyncratic.

  3. skhose.kr on June 12, 2014 5:29 pm

    skhose.kr

    Tinker Toying with Celebrities – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social tran…

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom