you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Identity forms in roughly the same way as sexual orientation does but for identity instead of attraction. Certain physical features cause an infant to in some way mentally bond and begin to form a individualized group identity with the organisms who posses the same features. I’d imagine part of the evolutionary reason for this is part of the same reason that chimps and bonobos form sex-trait linked groups.

This is of course an averaged model. Just as there are people who have little to no sexual attraction there are presumably people with little to no physical trait group identification.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And what evidence do you have for this word salad of a model? Or are you back to make grand sweeping theories and then act like we’re fools for doubting your expertise?

Which sexed features do infants latch on to knowing they will develop the same ones? How does this happen?

How is it roughly the same as identity formation but what you describe is totally unique and nothing like identity formation?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The fact that bonobos and chimps both segregate into sex groups at least some of the times. No one is a fool.

It's said that infants have the ability to discern different types of sex traits at a young age, so presumably this system would work in tandem with how that sex trait identification function works.

It is a form of identity formation.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And your sources for this claim are chimps? And to think I wasted my time with Piaget and Erickson