52fighters@kbin.social to Science@kbin.social · 1 year agoHuman Monogamy Has Deep Rootswww.scientificamerican.comexternal-linkmessage-square31fedilinkarrow-up128file-text
arrow-up128external-linkHuman Monogamy Has Deep Rootswww.scientificamerican.com52fighters@kbin.social to Science@kbin.social · 1 year agomessage-square31fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareDerisionConsulting@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up5·edit-21 year agoThat isn’t taking into the next level of complications that I’ve seen in polycules; relationships of more than 2 persons within the group. 3 persons: AB, AC, BC, ABC. 4 Persons: AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD 5 Persons: AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE, ABC, ABD, ABE, ACD, ACE, ADE, BCD, BCE, CDE, ABCD. ABCE, ABDE, BCDE, ABCDE, I’m probably missing some. Then there is the next level after that, relationships between groups within the group: How does (AB) and (CD) interact? What about (ABC) and (CD) vs (AB) and (CDE)? Honestly, it seems like far too much effort/stress.
That isn’t taking into the next level of complications that I’ve seen in polycules; relationships of more than 2 persons within the group.
3 persons:
AB, AC, BC, ABC.
4 Persons:
AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD
5 Persons:
AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE, ABC, ABD, ABE, ACD, ACE, ADE, BCD, BCE, CDE, ABCD. ABCE, ABDE, BCDE, ABCDE, I’m probably missing some.
Then there is the next level after that, relationships between groups within the group:
How does (AB) and (CD) interact?
What about (ABC) and (CD) vs (AB) and (CDE)?
Honestly, it seems like far too much effort/stress.