We are playing with the concept of four prototype pairings, with eight prototype human beings. We are estimating that because the mother, at six weeks before birth, sets her children’s testosterone levels based upon her own testosterone levels (mother with high testosterone T creates a low t male and a high T female while a mother with low t creates a low t female and a high T male) that estrogen will run a similar dynamic. The result will be natural mated pairings resulting in across-sex matchings of testosterone and estrogen that will be complementary opposites. We are hypothesizing that there will be exceptions, but they will not be the convention in that society.

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

F te/M TE means low-testosterone & estrogen females, high-testosterone & estrogen male. Domineering, caring, discriminating men choosing cooperative women.

F tE/M Te means low-testosterone, high-estrogen female, high-testosterone, low-estrogen male. Domineering men choosing cooperative, caring, discriminating women.

F Te/M tE means high-testosterone, low-estrogen female, low-testosterone, high-estrogen male. Commanding women choosing creative, cooperative, caring, discriminating men.

F TE/M te means high-testosterone & estrogen female, low-testosterone…

Geschwind and Galaburda in their 1987 Cerebral Lateralization noted a number of patterns across studies that seemed to support a relationship between lateralization, handedness and a number of diseases and conditions. Follow-up studies often led to results that were ambiguous. Still, the work of Simon Baron-Cohen and his colleagues have come to conclusions that have suggested connections that Geschwind and Galaburda alluded to. Specifically, mother’s testosterone levels inform conditions characterized by male maturational delay. Marian Annett continues to pioneer an understanding of a paradigm characterized by random-handedness balanced by conventional handedness that she calls Right Shift Theory.

In other essays on this website (i.e., Evolutionary Theory, Neuropsychology and Autism), I have described the integral connection between heterochronic theory and the neuropsychological patterns observed by Geschwind and Galaburda, developed by Annett and Baron-Cohen. Heterochronic theory describes how species evolve when influenced by changes in the rate of timing of maturation and development. Neoteny is one of six heterochronic patterns, the prolongation or lifting of infant or embryonic features from ancient ancestors into the features of adult descendants, resulting in the slowing down of maturation, with features of early ontogeny appearing later in ontogeny over generations. One does not…

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…

Ten days ago we waded into what little information we have on estrogen to estimate if we know enough to inform an understanding on the influence of estrogen on human evolution and current societal formations. Eight days ago we came up with the following matrix of relationships…

Patri Female low T, low e Male high T, high e Asian
Patri Female low T, low e Male high T, low e
Hybrid Female low T, low e Male low T, high e Scandinavian?
Hybrid Female low T, low e Male low T, low e Scandinavian?

Patri Female low T, high e Male high T, high e
Patri Female low T, high e Male high T, low e
Hybrid Female low T, high e Male low T, high e Scandinavian?
Hybrid Female low T, high e Male low T, low e Scandinavian?

Hybrid Female high T, low e Male high T, high e
Hybrid Female high T, low e Male high T, low e
Matri Female high T, low e Male low T, high e
Matri Female high T, low e Male low T, low e

Hybrid Female high T, high e Male…

We’ve established in earlier entries the following evolutionary paradigm:  Mother’s testosterone levels > progeny maturation rate > social structure proclivity > evolutionary trajectory.

Now, let’s consider a complementary addition.

Continuing yesterday’s discussion, let’s assume Scandinavian female Te, male tE where…..

T = high testosterone
t = low testosterone
E = high estrogen
e = low estrogen

If it is the case that in Scandinavia both sexes evolved the biological, neurological and societal features of neoteny over 5,000 years, then it would seem anomalous according to a foundation hypothesis of this blog and the Theory of Waves.  I am estimating that over the course of human evolution we tended toward matrifocal social structure (females TE, males te) or patrifocal social structure (females te, males TE).

We’ve discussed how Asian patrifocal cultures manifest neoteny in both sexes by encouraging female te and male TE by shifting all hormonal thresholds downward, allowing cooperation within a patrifocal context.  You’d also get a highly aesthetic society with male high E embedding refined discrimination, a matrifocal female attribute, with the male.

It seems possible that low female estrogen might be a powerful determinant of neoteny in females.  This might be the case biologically,…

If Scandinavians are highly neotenous based upon mutual sexual selection (Miller, 2000), with both sexes choosing mates exhibiting those blue-eyed, blond-haired, pale skin markers of a person able to thrive off dairy and sunlight (Harris, 1989), then one would also expect to see larger brains (Tobias, 1970) and a cooperative, care-based society (Eisler, 2007).  Long arms and legs can also go with a low-testosterone neotenous constellation.

Asian societies, specifically Chinese peoples, also exhibit neoteny (Montagu, 1989), with perhaps both sexes choosing small-sized mates to manage limited nourishment sources.  Female estrogen levels are low (Diamond, 1986) and left-handedness is low (Dawson, 1974), with the males’ testes size almost half of a Scandinavian population adjusted for size (Diamond, 1986).  These are all patrifocal markers.

Chinese populations mature far faster and reach puberty sooner (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976) than Northwest Europe populations, an acceleration consonant with a patrifocal frame, yet they exhibit neotenous or maturational-delayed features such as relatively larger brains and flat-faced, diminutive features.

I am hypothesizing that Asian populations that require large-scale, multilevel cooperation encourage the societal cooperation bonuses that come with neoteny, while small size and fast maturation are demanded by intense agrarian population concentrations.  In this highly patrifocal context…

Last night was a weird night.  I was not exactly sleeping.  My mind was deep into the pattern-trolling mode.  A part of me feels a certainty that estrogen and testosterone/estrogen constellations in mate selection (see “Estrogen Conjecture Inspired by Asian Neotenous Patrifocal Society”) lead to a deepened understanding of human evolution and the particular physiological/neuropsychological/hormonal/psychological features of the human ethnic spectrum.

At these preinspiration sessions I find myself operating with several presuppositions.  The presuppositions suggest that this process is far more artistic than scientific.  It’s more than an “as if” frame where I make a hypothesis and then follow where the existing data lead.  I’m assuming several things.  One, I assume that I can know the answer.  Two, I assume my unconscious already has the answer.  Three, I assume my unconscious is connected to the larger consciousness.  Four, I assume the solutions are available to me in a form I am schooled to assimilate and not a form beyond my education, such as genetics or higher mathematics.

That is a lot of presuppositions.  What this boils down to is that, feeling blessed, I can allow myself to experience, identify and communicate the patterns just beyond the barriers…

Riane Eisler in her Real Wealth of Nations describes the Scandinavian countries as featuring many of the characteristics of a matristic, or partnership, society vs. the way a domination or patrifocal society operates.  She uses four categories to describe the differences among the paradigms, what I would describe as matrifocal and patrifocal social structures.

A partnership society has a structure that is equitable and horizontal vs. a dominator society that is rigidly hierarchical.  Relations in a partnership society are characterized by mutual respect with little fear, while in a domination system fear, abuse and violence are common.  In a partnership society, the genders are equal, with an emphasis on caring and caregiving, while in a domination society the male gender is ranked over females.  Last, the mythologies differ, with partnership society stories and beliefs emphasizing caring relationships, while domination-based societies idealize violence and control.  Eisler sees structure, relations, gender and beliefs as integral to understanding the differences between these two kinds of societies.

Eisler goes into some detail describing the ways that Scandinavian societies manifest features of a partnership society in a modern economy.  The social net is wide and firm, offering health care, employment security, education, child care, old…

I’d like to consider a counterintuitive conjecture, a hypothesis suggesting that the possible natural hormonal constellation for a matrifocal culture is a high-testosterone/high-estrogen female mating with a low-testosterone/low-estrogen male. The patrifocal complementary opposite would be low-testosterone/low-estrogen females pairing with high-testosterone/high-estrogen males.

It feels counterintuitive for several reasons. First, you’d expect in a matrifocal culture that the males be attentive to the children. As neotenous males, they would be attracted to children. Of course, you could have matrifocal cultures where the convention and the hormonal constellation of the males provide ongoing positive attention to children. But, if there is a natural matrifocal paradigm, I’m not so sure that males with relatively high estrogen necessarily fit. In my mind, I’ve always figured the males were attentive to children. I assumed this partially because in a society featuring females exhibiting female choice, I figured females would pick males that were attentive to the children. I figured that this quality fit in with neotenous males. I’m starting to wonder.

One indication of the counterintuitive perspective is that in matrifocal aboriginal societies, men often live in their own enclaves with relatively little contact with children. In avuncular societies characterized by men not often knowing who…

I’m posting some excerpts and abstracts that support or contest the conjectures from the last three posts hypothesizing that estrogen may influence our evolution.  I’m searching for studies that might explain, along with testosterone, specific ethnic physiological, psychological and neurological differences.  For those folks following this thread, jump on in.  Post in the comments section what you might have found that makes clearer (or less clear) what we are discussing.

Note we are looking for evidence of hormone levels in premenopausal women, those whose uterine environments influence the maturation rates of their children.

[citations removed]  “Schacter reported that women exposed in utero to the synthetic estrogen diethylstilbestrol had a handedness distribution on the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) that was shifted away from strong right-handedness.  Nass et al. found that females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a disorder that results in increased androgen production during gestation, displayed a lesser degree of right-hand preference than unaffected sibling controls on the EHI.  However, males with CAH displayed a trend in the opposite direction.  More recently, Helleday et al. reported that females with CAH did not differ from controls in either degree of right-hand preference or in dichotic listening asymmetry.” (Moffat, S.D. & Hampson,…

To suggest I’m out on a limb here would be to understate the situation. This website and its three sister websites (see lower left) outline the details of an alternative theory of evolution based upon all three of Darwin’s theories of evolution integrated with an understanding of the relevance of recent discoveries in neuropsychology. This theory began when I hypothesized that we evolved within matrifocal societies driven by runaway sexual selection choosing cooperative, dancing males, following a neotenous trajectory. In my readings I had discovered that brains have been growing smaller for many thousands of years as we’ve turned patrifocal. I looked for evidence that there are males alive today, males that would be examples of an ancient matrifocal larger brain type with difficulty speaking, having been wired for gesture. I discovered that many autistic males have larger brains.

I immersed myself in the neuropsychological literature surrounding these issues. This was ten years ago. Geschwind and Galaburda’s Cerebral Lateralization opened the door. Reading Geschwind and several hundred additional books and papers, I discovered details revolving around that fact that at six weeks before birth, the mother’s testosterone level sets the testosterone levels of her children, establishing their maturation rate for…

A hazy dynamic is emerging in my mind.  This possibility has bounced around in my rear thoughts for several years along with the riddle of Asian patrifocal neoteny.  The dynamic is as follows.

As outlined on numerous occasions within this blog, testosterone levels are hypothesized to compel human neoteny and acceleration-driven biological and social evolution, on occasion compelling extreme maturational delay such as autism, simulating what appears to be teleological intervention (evolutionary overarching patterns that have been hypothesized to represent the presence of an interventionist deity).  At six weeks before birth, mother’s testosterone levels establish her child’s lifelong maturational trajectory and which social structure will feel like home when that child is grown.  High testosterone mothers birth high testosterone daughters and low testosterone males who fit into a matrifocal paradigm.  Low testosterone mothers create low testosterone girls and high testosterone boys feeling at home amongst patrifocal folks.

Consider that estrogen levels also compel progeny trajectories based on the mother’s estrogen levels at a certain point in her child’s embryonic career.  Let’s hypothesize that low female estrogen levels result in small body size and an inclination toward patrifocal social structure where female infanticide is common.  High female estrogen would incline the…

At this particular moment, I am feeling attracted to another riddle.  Anomalies can serve to disprove a theory or open doors leading to solutions that draw the theory deeper.  Over the course of these entries, I’ve made a number of predictions.  The predictions that don’t hold true when experiments are conducted will suggest intuitions that have gone awry, threads of theory that need adjusting or hidden insights waiting for integration.

The riddle is as follows.  Nordic culture displays lanky females and males displaying a variety of neotenous features that include blond hair, blue eyes and astonishingly egalitarian societies.  Both sexes display these neotenous features.

In Asian societies, females and males exhibit a completely different assortment of highly neotenous features but are short, black haired and dark eyed.  Societies are not egalitarian but highly patrifocal.

If we assume that features exhibited reflect cultural visual predilections, visually based sexual selection criteria or tendencies, we have an easy answer to the riddle, but that answer feels unsatisfactory to me.  Let’s follow the pathway of pattern to see where pattern leads.

“As I explained earlier, the northern dairying people lived in a mist-shrouded environment and had to bundle up against the cold most of…