Researchers Robin Dunbar and Leslie C. Aiello have estimated that a prehistoric human community would be economically viable if it contained between 150 and 225 individuals. Considering the number of women, children, disabled, and aged, the hunting party would have consisted of nine to twelve men in their prime. Society is organized on this principle. There are eleven on a football team, nine on a baseball team. In ancient Greece twelve deities formed the Golden Circle. There were twelve Christian disciples, and eighteen Lohan in Chinese Buddhism to carry Shakyamuni’s message over the Himalayas. There are ten in a Jewish prayer minyan, twelve on a jury, and twelve on a board of directors. One man out of twelve equals the percentage of 8 percent.
If the hunting group was lucky enough to bring down a large mammal and one of the twelve was an ESSP, he would not have the obligation to bring his share home to feed his woman and children. Consequently, there would be 8 percent more meat to distribute to the remaining women, children, and elderly at the home base.
One hunter out of twelve who was color-deficient would be better able to see lurking predators or prey blending in with the background. In World War I and II, armies on both sides sought out color-deficient soldiers because they could see right through camouflage.
Prey would be hunted so that they could be chased to the right of the hunters, giving them a spear-throwing advantage. But occasionally the prey turned left. One hunter out of twelve who could throw more accurately to the left than the right would be a considerable asset to eleven right-handers. (Watch the awkwardness of a right-handed quarterback trying to throw the ball to his right to see why hunters needed a left-hander.)
And the strange loss of hair only on the top of their head in 8 percent of men in their prime would make it easier for hunters to stalk and confuse game.
The interrelationship of ESSP, color blindness, left-handedness, and baldness can be ascertained by the increased incidence of each trait within the other. More ESSPs are left-handed compared to straight males. More ESSPs are color-blind than straight males. ESSP-ness indicates a profound difference in brain anatomy.
I proposed my Theory of Eights more thoroughly in my earlier book in an attempt to explain why only the human species expresses homosexuality so floridly. Originally, it was common to believe that ESSP was peculiar to humans, but then this type of behavior was identified within the animal community. Creatures large and small seem to indulge in same-sex sexual behavior. To date some two hundred species of animals have been observed to manifest what to ethologists might be considered homosexual behavior. However, it can never be known for certain that the animals are not merely engaging in displays of dominance.
In some of the more complex animal species, both males and females will occasionally use sex to defuse tense social situations, gain advantage, make allies, and barter for food. Bonobo chimps of both sexes engage in behavior that could be construed as homosexual, but the animals involved do not limit their sexual advances to members of the same sex. When the females enter their estrus period, they will only mate with males—100 percent of the time. This points out the uniqueness of humans. It appears we have a higher percentage of ESSP than any other species.
But what would be the explanation? A critical reason: No other species exists with such enormous responsibilities to ensure that the next generation survives to reach the reproductive age. The addition of gays and lesbians are a means of helping to make that happen. Having an uncle or aunt that does not have the burden of raising his or her own children is an asset to a child. ESSP may have originally served the function of putting more meat in the mouths of mothers and babes, but its purpose has evolved into something else.
From an evolutionary point of view, ESSP is a supreme paradox. If one assumes it is driven by genetics, one would quickly conclude that the gene controlling it guarantees the trait’s extinction. How could a homosexual gene survive if the person possessing it does not desire to reproduce? A nonreplicating “unselfish” gene is an oxymoron. In theory, such a gene should be winnowed from the genome within a few generations.
There is something about a feminine nature in men and a masculine nature in women that aids in creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi commented in his book, Creativity: Flow and Psychology of Discovery and Invention, that these traits were related:
In all cultures, men are brought up to be masculine and to disregard and repress those aspects of their temperament that the culture regards as feminine, whereas women are expected to do the opposite. Creative individuals to a certain extent escape rigid gender role stereotyping. When tests of masculinity/femininity are given to young people, over and over one finds that creative girls are more dominant and tough than other girls, and creative boys are more sensitive and less aggressive than their peers.
This tendency toward androgyny is sometimes understood purely in sexual terms, and therefore it gets confused with homosexuality. But psychological androgyny is a much wider concept, referring to a person’s ability to be at the same time aggressive and nurturant, sensitive and rigid, dominant and submissive, regardless of gender. A psychologically androgynous person in effect doubles his or her repertoire of responses, and can impact the world in terms of a much richer and varied spectrum of opportunities. It is not surprising that creative individuals are more likely to have not only the strengths of their gender but those of the other one too.
In 1993, researcher Dean Hamer and his colleagues identified a gene that they believe plays a critical role in determining homosexual behavior. Research in the field is still in its infancy, but increasingly scientists have arrived at a consensus that one’s genes determine whether a male or female will be homosexual.
Richard Schwab, a Dutch researcher, believes he has pinpointed a clump of cells (called the BSTc) within the amygdala of the brain that may determine sexual orientation. Straight men have a larger BSTc than straight women, and this area is half again as large in women than it is in transsexual women (who believe they are women trapped in a man’s body). Smaller still is this minute portion of the nervous system in gay men. Simon LeVay, a gay neuroscientific researcher, has also claimed progress in identifying where in the hypothalamus “gayness” resides. Hamer may provide an answer as to the question of “how” and Schwab’s and LeVay’s research may give us insight as to the “where” of ESSP, but neither provides a compelling evolutionary theory of “why.”
For many years, it was commonly held that psychological factors played the leading role in sexual preferences. Many theorized that a disconnected father and an overbearing mother caused boys to become gay. Recently, this Freudian view has been stood on its head. Instead of being the cause for why boys become gay, some have speculated that it may be the result of boys expressing their gayness. Many fathers, observing that their sons are less manly than they expect them to be, distance themselves emotionally. The boys’ mothers, to compensate, become more protective. Blaming mothers for deficient nurturing has been a convenient excuse that fathers have often used to deflect from themselves any possible responsibility for their sons’ sexual orientation.
Many in fundamentalist religions believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gays will be punished by a God who is displeased by what they consider to be an offense against nature and religion. Because fundamentalists claim that their God is omniscient and omnipotent, it is not clear from their arguments why a deity who possesses such power and foresight would create mortals who were born to sin against Him. The Renaissance humanist Erasmus considered this line of reasoning to represent the direst blasphemy. He believed that such a God would be a monster, unworthy of worship. The tortured argument used by many fundamentalists to justify their intolerant public denunciations of gays and lesbians proves only that the Dark Ages have not entirely been dispelled.
Until relatively recently, the gay and lesbian lifestyle was considered to be a mental disease in Western societies. Not until 1973 did members of the American Psychiatric Association, in an exceedingly contentious session,
vote to remove homosexuality from its list of pathological mental conditions.
If we try to analyze Leonardo’s brain, there is little that we can know with complete confidence. However, there is much circumstantial evidence on this delicate subject that has been provided by contemporary accounts, Leonardo’s own writings on the subject, and clues that abound in his many drawings. We are confronted by both the enormous variety of skills that he possessed and, at the same time, evidence that he did not fit into the standard ESSP profile. When approaching the extraordinary creativity of a man like Leonardo, we must take into account his unconventional attitudes about sexuality.
We know from the descriptions of others that the handsome Leonardo was an extrovert who wore fashions that challenged the strict rules of the culture. While most wore long cloaks in somber colors, Leonardo wore bright, short tunics. His behavior would be described as exhibitionistic.
He was sought after as a companion; he was by all accounts agreeable, a charming conversationalist, and an accomplished singer, musician, and songwriter. Hanging out with Leonardo at this time in his life must have been similar to Hemingway’s description of his youth in Paris—a “movable feast.” The difference being that with Leonardo, there was a notable absence of women.
And then a setback. Leonardo’s attitude toward sex was likely affected by the episode in which he and five others were charged with sodomy and spent some time in prison while awaiting the verdict. The charge was never decided either in his favor or against him. We do not know whether this had an impact on his feelings about sexual intercourse, or whether he had an aversion to it in the first place.
Later in his life, he convinced the father of a ten-year-old boy, Giovanni, to let the boy live with him. It was not the boy’s talent that attracted Leonardo but his exceptional beauty. There are many portraits and profiles of a young man drawn in Leonardo’s hand that were surely this boy; he seems to have been consumed with the boy’s looks. Salai (“little devil”), as he called the boy, stole from him and caused him no end of troubles. It is not clear, however, whether Leonardo indulged his homosexual inclination. “He who cannot control his desires is no more better than a beast,” he wrote.
It is not clear from the record whether or not Leonardo ever engaged in heterosexual intercourse. There is a suggestion in the literature that he did not. He made anatomical drawings of the genitalia of both sexes, and a singular drawing of a couple engaged in the act. Unlike his other anatomical drawings, some of which are masterpieces of art, the one he devoted to understanding sexual intercourse contains a number of inaccuracies that are uncharacteristic. He drew the male sexual organs with greater detail and greater accuracy than he did the organs of the female. Unlike the male, who was fully drawn, he completed only the female’s pelvis and breast. The image also had distortions that were strange for an artist with such a keen eye and sense of proportion.
The most striking thing about this drawing is that the couple is using an upright stance for intercourse. The world over, couples making love have preferred a recumbent position, more natural for enjoyment. In those few examples in Hindu art in which the couples are shown standing, the legs are arranged in a position to achieve maximal penetration, and the participants wear expressions of ecstasy and appear to be thoroughly enjoying themselves.
Not so in Leonardo’s depiction of the act. We can draw no conclusions about whether the female is experiencing pleasure or not. We can, however, surmise what the man is experiencing; Leonardo chose to depict his eyebrows knitted in a grimacing expression, his mouth turned downward to indicate that he was not experiencing bliss. Adding to the confusion of this drawing is the fact that the man’s head is adorned with long curly locks that extend far down his back. If only the top half of this figure were to be viewed, most would surely identify the figure as a woman.
Another feature indicating Leonardo’s disdain for the feminine was the unpleasing manner in which he chose to draw the woman’s breast. He also included an inaccuracy that could be forgiven in an age of ignorance about anatomy, but is difficult to explain in a man whose insatiable curiosity drove him to personally scrutinize the objects of attention. If he examined the nipple of a lactating woman, he would have noted that the milk issues from many small ducts rather than one large one. If he was too shy to ask a woman to closely examine her breast, then he could have easily examined the nipple of a cow or a horse, something he did not hesitate to do when it was difficult for him to find specimens to dissect.
In a cadaver, the intensity of Leonardo’s interest did not extend to this feature of female anatomy. He imagined the milk coming from a single duct connected to the womb, an inaccuracy difficult to explain in a man who was the first to discover the connection between nerves, muscles, and other objects of anatomical dissections.
Leonardo devotes considerable attention to drawing the male’s testicles, spermatic cord, and the tiny epididymus that sits on top of the testis. In comparison, he drew the vagina and uterus of the female with a noticeable lack of detail. Leonardo’s many examinations of interior of other animals would have afforded him the opportunity to see the relationship of these two organs which he drew with startling inattention.
The clumsiest blunder, however, occurs when he positioned the lower extremities of the two lovers. Keeping in mind that the big toe is always on the inner side of the foot, Leonardo appears to have drawn the foot in the opposite position. Some have attempted to explain this mistake by claiming that the legs in this drawing are part of another drawing, but it is a weak argument, because the legs do appear to belong to the intertwined lovers. That Leonardo would make this mistake is a good indication that the drawing was an emotionally charged subject for him, and one he found difficult to portray accurately.
There is more. His notebooks do not contain a single reference to a friendship or relationship with a woman. “The act of procreation,” he wrote, “and everything connected with it is so disgusting that mankind would soon die out if it were not an old established custom and if there were not pretty faces and sensuous natures.” Accompanying a drawing of two bodies twined as though proceeding from a single trunk represents a contest between virtue and envy. From the accompanying comment we are led to judge that he did not think much of women:
In the moment when virtue is born the woman gives birth to envy against herself, and a body shall sooner exist without a shadow than virtue without envy. . . . She is made with a mask upon her face of fair seeming. . . . She is made lean and wizened because she is ever wasting in perpetual desire. She is made with a fiery serpent gnawing at her heart. She is given a quiver with tongues for arrows because with the tongue she often offends, and she is made with a leopard’s skin, since the leopard from envy slays the lion by guile. She is given a vase in the hand full of flowers, filled beneath with scorpions and toads and other venomous things. She is made riding upon death, because envy, never dying, has lordship over him; and death is made with a bridle in this mouth and laden with various weapons, since these are all the instruments of death.
And this from the man who painted the Mona Lisa’s smile, the love of a mother for her child, and a woman’s beauty.
Among the most prominent features of Leonardo was his left-handedness. Continuing from the Middle Ages, the Renaissance authorities would strike a child’s left hand when he or she tried to use it. The common prejudice in nearly all Christian societies toward left-handers manifested itself by the Church declaring ominously that the left hand was the agent of the devil. So how did it occur that a natural leftie was allowed to maintain his inclination? Did he not receive a formal education in a Catholic school? If so, was the teaching in the country more lenient than it was in the city? Or was his natural inclination toward the left side so powerful that he resisted the treatment he received? The sources are too incomplete to answer these questions. At any rate, Leonardo entered his early teenage years a committed left-hander. His earliest drawings indicate he had retained his strong incli
nation.
Throughout history, a higher percentage of artists have been left-handed. If the general population is only 8 to 10 percent leftie, then art schools represent a skewed percentage of 30 to 40 percent left-handers. Also, a higher percentage of ESSPs are left-handers, which accentuates the difference in brain organization between RHHMs and ESSPs. In addition, ESSPs and left-handers exhibit a greater tendency toward ambidexterity, indicating mixed brain dominance.
There is also a new finding that left-handers have a larger corpus callosum than right-handers. Leonardo was left-handed but also ambidextrous. This means that although he preferred his left hand, he was near equally accomplished in using his right hand in carrying out fine-motor tasks. Most people who are right-handed do not let their left hand become involved with fine-motor movements. It is simply too clumsy.
Leonardo was the only historical figure we know of who wrote backward. There have been many theories about why he employed his unusual method of writing, but the simplest remains the best: He did not want the ink to smear when he wrote. Left-handers must employ hook handwriting to avoid this distressing trait when they write from left to right. Using a right-to-left orientation and writing backward solves this problem. Leonardo never thought his notebooks would be read by anyone else, or if he did, that they would take the time to hold them up to a mirror to read them. He wrote them in a style that was convenient for him but confusing for others.
Occasionally a word that was written in the conventional manner would be inserted into his right-to-left orientation, an indication of his ambidexterity.
Leonardo's Brain Page 20
