Religion as a mating strategy

Hugo-nominated author Catherynne Valente, via Facebook, pointed out this Psychology Today article on religion as an adaptive reproductive strategy.  In short, the studies discussed in the article suggest that:

(1) conservative values related to sex (but not to other moral issues) lead to traditional religious observance rather than the reverse

(2) people profess more religious piety when they see a lot of attractive members of the same sex.

The deduced adaptive mating strategy is that when people feel they have a lot of very attractive competition out there, a conservative approach (locking down into monogamy) becomes more practical than playing the field because in the field, you will be out-competed by all those beautiful people.  They suggest that this may provide a partial explanation as to why traditional religion persists: it's an evolutionarily beneficial adaptation not because (or not only because) it enhances communal survival or any such lofty ideal, but because it is essentially selfish.  It enhances individual reproductive chances.  For women, it gets each a man who will provide for her and her children without being distracted by other obligations.  For men, it gets each one a woman who will bear his children exclusively.  Express religious belief and get laid have mating success!  It's all about sex!

I foresee this not being a popular interpretation among the religiously conservative.

A few random observations and thoughts:

This is a polite way of saying that monogamy is fear-based: fear of being out-competed by others either by having your partner or prospective partner stolen by one of those good-looking people.  And that fear leads to conservative sexual/family values and therefore to religion.  This seems reasonably plausible to me; traditional religion seems to involve elements of fear (of hell or other punishment) in other areas as well.

An extreme but very explicit example of religion as mating strategy is the polygynous Mormon splinter sects certainly illustrate the idea of religion as successful mating strategy for the men in power positions in the hierarchy, who collect numerous wives in part by running some percentage of the sects' young men out of town.  Even assuming the religious feelings are genuine, they are certainly very evolutionarily convenient for men high in the hierarchy.  I can see the attraction of fervently practicing a religion that does so well for the winners; who ever thinks they're going to be one of the losers?  Does it work for so many women because it does provide a safe structure and support for childrearing, even though it's not the traditional "exclusive possession of one man" variety of support?  Does this apply in other polygynous societies as well, like some forms of Islam?

I suspect the studies in question are entirely heterosexual and focused only on traditional Western religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) in their more conservative forms -- I bet there was a shortage of, say, polyamorous bisexual Wiccans in their subject base.  It would be very interesting to see how the studies worked with people of differing sexuality, poly orientation, or a religious tradition that does not preach or privilege monogamy. 

Most (all?) of the poly people I know -- which do not include members of polygynous Mormon splinter sects -- are not traditionally religious.  The study results suggest to me that this is because their mating strategy is not based on out-competing everyone else -- it's additive rather than exclusive.  There's a chicken-and-egg issue here: are people using mating strategies adapted to monogamy because they have been taught by religion or just by society in general that monogamy is the desired end?  Is this really something inborn or would the strategy (religious piety) be different without that programming?  I suppose seeing what happens with children raised with non-monogamous norms is the only way to easily test this, though I don't know that we have a large enough sample size for this.

Very few people in science fiction fandom are of the conventional kind of attractiveness; there are a few hunks and fashion model types running around, but even very good-looking people in fandom tend to be a little...quirkier...about their style.  I think there is also a higher-than-average percentage of people who are notably less attractive or, shall we say, not very focused on their looks or physique.  And there also seems to be a considerably higher percentage of people in fandom who are irreligious, areligious, or at least not traditionally religious, as well as people who are poly in some fashion.  Is that an evolutionary effect of being surrounded by people whom your programmed subconscious does not look at and immediately say "danger: pretty people will out-compete me"?  In other words, fannish mating strategies don't require religion because (1) the competition is not very threatening and (2) you can congregate rather than compete anyway?

It's certainly food for thought.

Comments

[Bill G.]

I've long thought that church congregations are, to a significant extent, marriage clubs. I haven't examined differences between more and less conservative congregations, but at least in the congregations I've observed for any length of time there was a pretty obvious emphasis on bringing young people together into 'good' marriages and then being supportive of the families that resulted.

[Marilee J. Layman]

Oh, it's obvious when you're 15 and don't know yet that you can be emancipated, and your folks send you to a religious college so you can get a mate. That was specifically my father's reason for me to go to college at all -- to get a mate of the appropriate religion.

None of the long-term poly groups that I know have children.

[Neil W]

...it's an evolutionarily beneficial adaptation not because (or not only because) it enhances communal survival or any such lofty ideal, but because it is essentially selfish.

I sometimes try to frame everything people do as being due to the tension between co-operation to enhance the group/family/community etc. and the competition to improve ones status within the group etc. Usually it's after I've had a couple of drinks, and I'm, hmm, a few beyond that right now, so can't put my thoughts together right now. I may have something to say on this particular instance tomorrow, or I may regret posting anything and sit around nursing a hangover. Or both!

[Serge]

Very few people in science fiction fandom are of the conventional kind of attractiveness; there are a few hunks and fashion model types running around

Sometimes we stand still.
Sorry.
I couldn't help it.

[Susan de Guardiola]

Bill & Marilee:
Certainly there's a matchmaking element within religions; part of sustaining themselves is to get people to reproduce within the group. But that's not what the article is addressing. It's talking about a tendency towards religious belief being evolutionarily adaptive, about unconscious mating strategy being part of what makes the brain lean towards believing in a deity at all.

[Susan de Guardiola]

I do know long-term poly groups with children but can only think of one offhand where the child is an adult. There may be others whom I don't see enough to realize their children have grown up.

[Serge]

There's a chicken-and-egg issue here: are people using mating strategies adapted to monogamy because they have been taught by religion or just by society in general that monogamy is the desired end?

Until not so long ago, there wasn't a distinction between Society and Religion. It'd appear that Societies, no matter what their religious underpinnings were, found that monogamy usually led to more stable situations, and they passed on that knowledge.

[Serge]

fannish mating strategies don't require religion because (1) the competition is not very threatening and (2) you can congregate rather than compete anyway?

Am I mistaken in thinking that smarts are valued more than pecks and boobs in fandom, as far as requirements for a desirable mate are concerned?

[Susan de Guardiola]

Serge:
I'm sure plenty of fans would like to think so, but I can personally testify that the size of breasts has a direct and startling effect on the amount of male interest one gets at conventions. Reduce breast size and become invisible. It's fascinating and sort of depressing.

[Serge]

Susan... True, but such males are not worthy. Some of us do look at women above their shoulders, and we value what's in their heart and in their brain.