It seems like a very individual natural selection-based idea.
I’ve personally always wondered if there could be tribe-level selection for tribes with some non-heterosexual members.
But I also have personal experience, and I’ve met others who do as well, with life experiences that make me wonder if they could somehow affect sexuality. I know it might be presumptuous of me to consider the idea, but it’s only just an idea—one I usually keep to myself.
It seems obvious to me that your childhood and especially adolescent experiences would impact what you find sexually attractive as an adult. Is this considered a radical position?
Your elementary school teacher would give you dirty looks if you said it, but your teenaged and adult friends would give you high fives and "hell yeahs" right back.
Here in Australia, hell / damn aren't considered bad words. I think americans have a perception that australians swear a lot. We do - but also, a lot of what my american coworkers considered swearing doesn't register as swearing in my head.
Here in australia (at least how I was raised), "hell" is just a word.
America is culturally all over the map (and literally too I suppose?), maybe more so than Australia. While the child-in-school thing might be universal across each state, there are many places were the word hell isn’t profane.
Hell, sometimes it would be weird and just plain confusing not to say the word!
I wish the governments of America were more consensus-oriented. Less “enough people were okay with [it]” and more “most interested and affected parties can agree to it and be okay with it.”
I think it’s more like the balloon analogy or baking bread analogy is required because there’s no good way to explain what we observe without either analogies or math or unintuitive descriptions.
That doesn’t mean there can’t be a higher spatial dimension that our observable universe is part of; we just haven’t observed it or can’t observe it.
I guess we’re sort of like ants crawling on the surface of an opaque, seemingly-indestructible balloon. We’re pretty clever ants, but we probably aren’t gonna peer inside the balloon anytime soon.
> That doesn’t mean there can’t be a higher spatial dimension
> that our observable universe is part of; we just haven’t
> observed it or can’t observe it.
Maybe we can not observe higher spatial dimensions, but we can observe a force that seems to propagate in higher spatial dimensions, thus there seems to be evidence of those dimensions.
Light intensity, gravity, and electromagnetism decay at 1/r^2, which is the same rate at which the area of the surface of an expanding 3D bubble grows. So each unit of light / gravity / electromagnetism could be seen as taking up a specific "patch" of expanding area.
However, the strong nuclear force decays much faster than 1/r^2. In fact, at some distance it goes negative and then decays back to zero. This could be (wild speculation) a force that propagates in many more dimensions. And it's not the only force that does this, the weak nuclear force also decays much more rapidly than 1/r^2 with distance.
I'm not a physicist and I would love nothing more than to hear what holes could be punched into this hypothesis.
You may not be a physicist but you’d make a convincing string theorist!
I say that partly pejoratively, with a Sabine Hossenfelder sort of jocular but judgmental tone.
I’m personally excited to see how astrophysicists will take dark matter out of its darkness and cast it into intuitive lights, like some have with the rising dough analogy for cosmic expansion.
