People sometimes lob anemic criticisms at me for mentioning Zerzan, and that’s probably rooted in some kind of fair notion that he’s perceived as too readily jumping the is-ought gap. It seems pretty common for primitivist theorists to provide a few positive historical and anthropological examples, set them against some negative relatively modern examples, and argue that the primitive way was the better way. That’s somewhat of a problem logically, but it’s easily bridged by adding one clause between the examples (the is) and the conclusion (the ought). I’m not arguing for Zerzan’s primitivism, but I am arguing that his and similar ideas should be on the table for consideration, and that we dismiss them at our own risk.

The clause I suggest bridges the gap between the is of our hunter-gatherer evolution, and the ought of increasing our connection with nature, is the concept of Nature relatedness (NR). I’m only providing two references here, and both with the same lead author, but the references they contain build a robust picture and framework of the psychology itself, and the associated evolutionary context. Alternatively, I can also recommend the review in the first couple chapters of The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution.

(all emphasis that follows is mine)

Article One

One of my favorite things about this article is that it’s an article about nature and references a paper by C. H. Feral. Three studies are discussed examining the subjective well-being of individuals and how nature has the potential to change these feelings. Positive correlations were found in positive affect, vitality, autonomy, personal growth and purpose (meaning) in life, and overall life satisfaction.

Abstract
Nature relatedness (NR) describes the affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of human–nature relationships. Evidence from three studies suggests that individual differences in NR are associated with differences in well-being. In study 1, we explore associations between NR and a variety of well-being indicators, and use multiple regression analyses to demonstrate the unique relationship of NR with well-being, while controlling for other environmental measures. We replicate well-being correlates with a sample of business people in Study 2. In study 3, we explore the influence of environmental education on NR and well-being, and find that changes in NR mediate the relationship between environmental education and changes in vitality. We discuss the potential for interventions to improve psychological health and promote environmental behaviour. Nisbet, et al (2011)

Conclusion
“We suggest that the benefits of a strong connection with nature permeate into broad areas of life, and provide evidence consistent with this idea… NR also predicted well-being better than other environmental measures, and with environmental education people maintained their sense of connection with nature and experienced greater vitality over time. The results… support the notion that NR—the affective, cognitive, and experiential connection with the natural world—may contribute to psychological health…” Nisbet, et al (2011)

Article Two

I’ve read this paper a zillion times, and written about it elsewhere, but I still can’t put it any better than the authors introductory paragraph(s):

People habitually neglect the natural environment, yet contact with nature has considerable benefits. Research has shown that contact with nature can restore  attentional resources , improve  concentration in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, speed recovery from illness, and reduce stress; it may even reduce mortality risk (Mitchell & Popham, 2008). Psychologists often explain these findings by drawing on sociobiologist E. O. Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis, which suggests that because humans evolved in natural environments and have lived separate from nature only relatively recently in their evolutionary history, people possess an innate need to affiliate with other living things. Although researchers cannot directly test the evolutionary origins of an affinity for natural environments, people’s fondness for natural scenery and the popularity of outdoor activities, zoos, gardening, and pets are evidence of biophilia. Nature can also be a source of happiness. Humans evolved in natural environments and still seem to thrive in them.

Modern lifestyles, however, may erode people’s connection with nature, leaving them unaware of nature’s potential benefits. By limiting their contact with nature, people fail to maximize the advantages it offers for cognition and well-being.

That pretty much sums up my general thinking on the matter. It’s all there… psychology… evolution… nature… scientific equivocations… everything.

Abstract
Modern lifestyles disconnect people from nature, and this may have adverse consequences for the well-being of both humans and the environment. In two experiments, we found that although outdoor walks in nearby nature made participants much happier than indoor walks did, participants made affective forecasting errors, such that they systematically underestimated nature’s hedonic benefit. The pleasant moods experienced on outdoor nature walks facilitated a subjective sense of connection with nature, a construct strongly linked with concern for the environment and environmentally sustainable behavior. To the extent that affective forecasts determine choices, our findings suggest that people fail to maximize their time in nearby nature and thus miss opportunities to increase their happiness and relatedness to nature. Our findings suggest a happy path to sustainability, whereby contact with nature fosters individual happiness and environmentally responsible behavior. Nisbet & Zelenski (2011)

Conclusion
Contact with nature has clear benefits for humans….this effect is a window to a larger process in which human disconnection from nature is linked to environmental destruction and suboptimal well-being… At the individual level, we strongly recommend more contact with nearby nature: It will likely make you (and the planet) happier than you think. Nisbet & Zelenski (2011)

The research mentioned here measures individual exposure and relationship to nature on very limited levels, and is only the tip of the iceberg. Humans are wild animals, and living in boxes is not optimal for health… whether physical or mental.

Is a push-up in your living room the same as a push-up in the forest? Is a sprint down the street in front of your gym the same as a sprint in that perfect sand just above the waterline as the tide is going out?

If you found this article at all interesting, please consider backing my expedition documentary project — at the end of Day (2 of 22) we were already at 34% funding. The entire goal is to show people how to reconnect with nature in a major way, and some of the rewards (Hyperlithic in particular), are also directly related to this topic. Even if you can’t back the project financially, please share this post — even if you think it’s marginally interesting.

Thank you! I welcome your thoughts below.

Personality traits that predict women will get cheated on (sample size = 850)

The MIDUS Study asked respondents if their spouse had ever been unfaithful. The Inductivist blog sorted out the personality characteristics that were associated with being cheated on. Without access to the data and/or more information about these calculations, I can’t really vouch for the data’s reliability, but here are their results…

Logistic regression coefficients

Extraversion -.11
Negative emotionality .01
Conscientiousness -.44
Agreeableness -.03
Openness to experience .43
Age .00
Social class .00
Religiosity -.14
BMI .01

(red = Big Five traits; bold = statistically significant)

As with the men, being religious appears to provide some protective effect against being cheated on. And as with the men, this could say as much about the mate doing the cheating as it does about the mate being cheated on. In any case, religiosity isn’t a Big Five trait, so we’ll move along.

The largest personality trait predictor of women being cheated on was Openness…

Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. The trait distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs.

People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion or even view these endeavors as uninteresting. (source)

There’s nothing obviously inherent in Openness that screams “please cheat on me”. There’s no immediate reason to believe people who are into diversity, new experiences, and art would rather be cheated on than those at the more conservative end of the spectrum. However, there is a hint of “I’m more likely to cheat” inherent in Openness. This again seems to be a case of dual long-term/short-term mating strategies colliding.

If we make a basic assumption in alignment with assortative mating that women with high Openness prefer men with high Openness, we quickly arrive at a reasonable explanation. Women could be selecting men with high Openness, who in turn are more likely to cheat. Studies have shown that women find men with high levels of creativity more attractive while fertile (Haselton and Miller 2006). This wouldn’t necessarily lead to extra-pair copulations if both partners were practicing short-term strategies. However, if the woman was practicing a long-term strategy by convincing the man to commit long-term, and the man continued to practice short-term strategies, we would see precisely the effect that the Openness-Infidelity data here show.

Unlike the data for men, there was also a second statistically significant Big Five trait associated with being cheated on. In this case, high levels of Conscientiousness appeared to provide a protective effect against being cheated on.

Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement against measures or outside expectations. The trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. (source)

Going back to the previous idea of short-term/long-term strategies rooted in parental investment theory, the data again fit almost perfectly. High levels of Conscientiousness would tend to lead women to more carefully select for men who are also practicing long-term strategies. In some sense, this may provide a trade-off between “good dads” and “good genes”, but it may also reflect increased discretion leading to higher overall mate value.

Confounds and questions

While BMI wasn’t statistically significant, it would be interesting to know if there was an effect associated with increased differences in BMI. I would hypothesize that while a higher BMI wasn’t significant on average, it would be increased in couples with large differences in BMI. I would expect the effect to be present for both men and women.

Similarly, it would be interesting to see the numbers for those couples with varying “Social class” and/or individual earning power. Based on the 2008 paper by David Buss, I would expect the numbers to change more with the difference in social class than the absolute value.

Knowing the mix of highly Conscientious individuals in the sample would be helpful. There may be some selection bias at play where + Contentiousness individuals are more likely to be in committed relationships. Conversely, ultra-high levels of Conscientiousness may preclude committing to a long-term relationship.

Evolutionary angle

As previously mentioned, most of the effect in these data fit nicely with predictions expected within the frameworks of female mate choice and parental investment theory. It would have been advantageous over evolutionary time for men to engage in extra-pair copulations in order to maximize their reproductive success. Not only might we expect men with higher levels of Openness to engage in extra-pair copulations, we would also expect them to be afforded more opportunities because of increased perceived attractiveness by women (Haselton and Miller 2008).

Application

The data themselves provide no reliable causative link. As such, prescriptive strategies are bound to be tentative.

One possible strategy is already provided by the data. Increased Conscientiousness during mate selection may counteract the effect of increased Openness. Since Conscientiousness is nearly 50% heritable (Bouchard and McGue 2oo3), it’s likely that this strategy would have to be intentionally stressed. Perhaps we can call it the Conscious Cognitive Conscientiousness strategy.

Another strategy would simply to be to not practice strict monogamy when involved with men displaying high levels of Openness. In other words, recognize that men practicing short-term mating strategies are not practicing long-term mating strategies. While trite and obvious when framed thusly, failing to recognize that humans aren’t always practicing long-term mating strategies is a short path to infidelity.

What other strategies can you come up with to counteract the Openness effect?

Related: The one personality trait that makes your girlfriend want to cheat

References

Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences.Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4-45. [full-text pdf]

Buss, David. (2008). Attractive Women Want it All : Good Genes , Economic Investment , Parenting. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134-146.

Haselton, M., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence compared to wealth. Human Nature, 17, 50-73.

Skin Color and Beauty

Tanning seems like an obvious case for the social constructivists to prove, once and for all, that our conceptions of beauty are products of immersive socialization. We hear the arguments about pasty skin being attractive in times when the bourgeoisie lounged indoors counting money and adjusting powdered wigs while the proletariat labored in the fields. The story goes that having a tan was a dead giveaway that one was a low-status individual. Of course, we’ll momentarily ignore that this narrative tends to leave out the part that darker skin also carries varying racist overtones. In any case, the social constructivist points to modern society in which very few people know farmers, let alone have ever labored on a farm.

Since the cultural milieu has shifted away from an agrarian dominated context, the stigma of sun-induced dark skin has lifted. With the swing in culture, the attractiveness pendulum has swung the other way as well. This is evidenced by the widespread obsession for the “healthy glow” gained from spending time in the sun. The narrative has subsumed this observation and explained that, in fact, tans are now a signal of bourgeois status because, clearly, proletarian office drones don’t have expendable leisure time to spend laying around on the beach. Doesn’t the story fit together so nice and commonsensically!?

The Color Theory of Tanning

Design nerds, get out of CMYK, RGB, or HSV mode for a second. Scientists working with human visual perception use the (aptly named) Lab color space to most accurately replicate the way our eyes process inputs. For non-uber design geeks, Lab represents a 3-axis color system represented by L, a, and b. The L-axis describes the spectrum from Lightness-darkness. The a-axis describes the spectrum from red-green. The b-axis describes the spectrum from yellow-blue. I’ll try to just use “red-green”, et cetera when possible, but the shorthand is woven into all of the charts and quotes from the papers.

Sun tanning primarily changes values along two axes, the L (lightness) and b (yelowness). The increased melanin resulting from tanning results in a decrease in lightness and an increase in yellowness (Stamatas, et al. 2004). Therefore, we can make the simple prediction that if people indeed prefer tans resulting from the sun, we should see a preference for relatively darker skin and relatively yellower skin.

Though tanning has now been popular in Western culture for decades (Melia & Bulman. 1995), studies haven’t isolated the color variables necessary to test the “tan is beautiful” hypothesis until now. Ian Stephen, PhD and colleagues presented research in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior that address this question. Their study involved a group of white UK-based students who rated white faces, and a group of black South African students who rated black faces. The data from both groups was similar, and both are shown below…

South African rater’s adjustments of black face and similar results of Scottish rater’s of white face

The picture on the left is an example of the extremes available in the adjustment along both axes for the black faces. Note that the UK raters were rating a different face (not shown here).

Both cohorts show a strong grouping to the same quadrant. However, the quadrant selected was not what we’d expect if the “tan is beautiful” hypothesis was true. We should expect to see both groupings shifted to the top-left quadrant. It turned out that yellowness was perceived as a positive indicator of health, but relative lightness was preferred over darkness. Based on these data, we must conclude that the “tan is beautiful” hypothesis is incorrect.

The social constructivist narrative is also refuted by these findings. Since tanning behaviors are heavily influenced by socialization, we would expect to see a preference in the data for darker relative skin tones. Further, a constructivist explanation seeking to simultaneously explain pro-darker skin tanning in white individuals AND pro-lighter skin attitudes in black individuals would require the data to show the South African data to be in a different quadrant than the UK data. These data refute the existence of a culturally imparted ideal of beauty or health that can be plotted on the spectrum from lightness-darkness.

Since the “tan is beautiful” hypothesis and social constructivist arguments both fail, what explanations are we left with?

The Pasty Veg*ns Are Sexier than Sun-Bathed Carnivores Hypothesis

Enter the carotenoid. Sun exposure isn’t the only thing that affects skin color. Significant consumption of [carotenoid-containing] plant matter also impacts coloration. Stephen, et al conducted a study (results in the same paper) measuring the relationship in fruit and vegetable intake with skin color and the change in skin color resulting from carotenoid supplementation. They found that both supplementation and fruit and vegetable intake correlated with, and increased skin yellowness as measured by spectrophotometer. Further, the measured colorations were inconsistent with coloration changes from melanin (sun tan) and hemoglobin. The carotenoid coloration data fit with the results above; namely, an increase in yellowness without an decrease in lightness. This lead to another study (also reported in the same paper).

This time, rather than isolate the axes for lightness and yellowness, they provided raters with the ability to optimize for health along one axis corresponding to melanin coloration and another corresponding to carotenoid coloration. The results…

Scottish raters’ adjustments of Caucasian face. Melanin on the vertical axis. Carotenoid on the horizontal.

In a post about the same study on his blog Primal Wisdom, Don Maetz provides a heading “Carotenoid Complexion and Sun Tan Not Mutually Exclusive”. While that is literally true, it is also possible that the perception of health signaled by carotenoids and sun tans are mutually exclusive. In fact, that is what the cumulative data in Stephen, et al seems to indicate.

As the preceding image shows, when given the option to specifically optimize the appearance of health for melanin and/or carotenoids, raters unanimously preferred higher levels of carotenoid, but were almost equally mixed in preferences for melanin coloration. This adds support to the refutation of the “tan is beautiful” hypothesis, and opens the door for the “pasty veg*ns are hot” hypothesis.

Methodology

The usability of data in similar previous studies has been questioned on the grounds that giving raters the choice between two options on each axis, then asking them to choose between them, is prone to errors. Stephen, et al first narrowed the image samples to ranges that might be seen in normal populations, then allowed 13 variance points along each axis. Rather than showing all at once, raters were asked to adjust the spectrum up or down to optimize the appearance of health. When plotted across both axes, this results in 39 possible selections. This seems sufficient, but I’m not sure why they didn’t allow infinite adjustments along each axis.

Other criticisms have been made that the use of Photoshop® does not provide an image representative of real-world faces. However, it’s difficult to provide a wide range of skin tones for one individual with photographic accuracy. Surely, using different individuals with different skin tones would introduce myriad variables that would render coloration assessments useless. So while there is some validity to this line of criticism, I find it rather thin.

Criticisms/Improvements

• I’m not sure that South Africa’s history makes it the best choice for disentangling variables concerning race-based perceptions. So while I do think the method employed limits cultural influence somewhat, I’d like to see the study done where the two countries involved weren’t formerly linked via colonization. Also, the level to which South African college students are subject to “Westernization” is difficult to know.
• Since individuals’ colorations were tested before and after carotenoid supplementation, it would have been nice to see ratings of photos of this cohort before and after. Many other variables have the potential to spoil the results, but the hard parts of that experiment were mostly done by default.
• I don’t like celery.

Tanning Obsession: Evolutionary Misfire

Based on this research, I would suggest that visually perceivable results of carotenoid consumption were a reliable signal of health, and that preference is a serious candidate for positive selection that continues to influence our perceptions of health and beauty today. It is difficult to disentangle how much of this selection pressure may have been influenced by direct benefits to health and reproduction, and how it may also be an indirect signal of resource gathering ability. The data support the former…

“Carotenoids are associated with immunocompetence anddisease resistance in humans. Supplementation beneficiallyaffects thymus gland growth in children and increases T-lymphocyte number andactivity in healthy adults. Carotenoid levels become reduced in individuals with HIV and malaria, and in individuals with elevated levels ofserum α1-antichymotrypsin.”

…but the indirect role in sexual selection is a question for another day. For now, chalking up the motivation toward sun tans as an evolutionary misfire seems reasonable. When given the option, raters prefer carotenoid pigmentation to melanin. However, when not given a choice…

“In the single-pigment transforms, all faces were increasedin carotenoid and melanin color to improve healthy appearance. No effects of face sex or participant sex, or theirinteraction were found. Participants increased melanin and carotenoid color more in faces that were initially low in b*. Initial L* and a* values had smaller effects. Participants increased carotenoid more than melanin coloration.”

This demonstrates that the yellow gained through tans somewhat outweighs the darkening that comes along with it. Thus, “yellower is better” and “lighter is better” do not appear to be equal in heuristic value and could signal other things not considered here.

Application

My current interpretation of the health implications is that a veg*n diet is inferior to a paleo diet in important categories. At the same time, strictly carnivore interpretations and/or meat & potatoes interpretations of the paleo diet seem to be inferior to veg*n diets with respect to healthy carotenoid levels. For me, that means taking the best of the veg*n and paleo approaches and eliminating the worst of both approaches. Sure, you paleo-leaning veg*ns out there can disagree, but the meat & plant paleo camp will have better looking bodies. Sure, you anti-plant-matter-leaning paleos out there can disagree, but the veg*n-leaning paleos will have better looking skin. So… do you want to be right, or do you want to be healthy and hot?

Sun exposure appears to be best used as a tool for optimal levels of vitamin D and secosteroids, not a shortcut to health or hotness. Don’t argue with me, take it up with the data. You should definitely get some sun, but you probably can’t use color as an indicator that you’ve reached an optimal level.

Summary (Just Do This)

• If health is your goal, eat a ton of carotenoid-dense fruits and vegetables.
• If looking healthy is your goal, eat a ton of carotenoid-dense fruits and vegetables.
• Get sun for the vitamin D and the secosteroids.
• Don’t get sun just for the color.
• Oh, you should probably subscribe so you don’t miss adding another dimension to the equation with the findings from this study: “Who is the fairest of them all? Race, attractiveness and skin color sexual dimorphism“

References
Glenn, E. N. (2008). Yearning for lightness: transnational circuits in the marketing and consumption of skin lighteners. Gender & Society, 22, 281–302. *also appears as a chapter in The Kaleidoscope of Gender: Prisms, Patterns, and Possibilities‘  (2010).

Melia, J., & Bulman, A. (1995). Sunburn and tanning in a British population. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 17, 223–229.

Stamatas, G. N., Zmudzka, B. Z., Kollias, N., & Beer, J. Z. (2004). Non-invasivemeasurements of skin pigmentation in situ. Pigment Cell Research, 17, 618–626.

Stephen, Ian D., Vinet Coetzee, and David I. Perrett. “Carotenoid and melanin pigment coloration affect perceived human health.” Evolution and Human Behavior 32, no. 3 (May 2011): 216-227. [full-text pdf]

The attractiveness of facial symmetry seems to have woven itself thoroughly into the nerdier shallower echelons of pop culture. Long-story short: symmetry is a reflection of developmental stability via genetic quality and/or resistance to parasites that would cause asymmetrical development.

In the eternal quest for defense of my own ego via self-justification, I need a loophole. You see, my brother did me the favor of breaking my nose via airborne frozen pine cone when I was about 13. Hence, the ol’ schnoze is somewhat lacking in symmetrical perfection on the Y-axis. Don’t get me wrong, the nose remains perfect, but the angle relative to my face is no longer exacly 90°. Fortunately, it’s almost balanced out by the scar bestowed upon me after my cousin tagged my face with a “snowball” (ice-packed dog bone embedded in the faintest veneer of snow).

Side Note: The comparing scar stories conversation has to be one of the Top 10 moments of any human relationship. So no, I’m not going to tell you about the rest of them now. Why are you trying to progress our relationship so fast? I’m starting to feel suffocated.

Prerequisite

Short-Term vs. Long Term Mating Strategies

Human matings can last a few years, a few months, a few weeks, a few days, or even a few minutes. One end of this temporal continuum may be called short-term mating. This temporal dimension turns out to be critical to many components of mating, perhaps none more central than the qualities desired. Furthermore, humans display remarkable creativity in their ability to mix and match mating strategies. It is not uncommon, for example, for a person to engage in one long-term committed mateship with heavy investment in children, while simultaneously pursuing an extramarital affair, or series of affairs, on the side.

Humans, in short, are neither solely monogamous, nor solely promiscuous; neither polygynous nor polyandrous. Which items on the menu of strategies a particular person chooses is heavily dependent on contexts. (Buss 2002)

Chicks Dig Scars: Sometimes

Post-traumatic scarring has been shown to increase perceived social worth in certain circumstances. In particular, women find facial scars on men more attractive in the short-term mating context, but not in the long-term context (Burriss et al. 2009). In a straightforward study, attractiveness ratings were gathered by showing images of non-scarred faces to raters. The same images were shown and rated with scars digitally added.

The increase in attractiveness was significant, but not overwhelming. The authors noted that the relatively light scarring used for the test may have tempered the attractiveness gain of the scarred faces in the short-term context. The image above shows the maximum intensity of digital scarring used in the study.

The Folk Wisdom of Scarification

In modern Western cultures, scarification can be associated with generally negative connotations. This makes sense when noting that modern Western cultures place higher values on strict monogamy (legal marriage) by way of religion, politics, and other reproductive-interest-driven mechanisms of socialization. As such, short-term mating strategies are taboo and hard to disentangle from the cultural framework. However…

In many non-Western cultures, scars derived from ritual scarification (intentional scarring) are prized. Scarification is employed to enhance beauty and symmetry in men and women and its use is positively associated with polygyny, warfare against other cultural groups, and with pathogen prevalence. Scarification is also employed to mark rites of passage in men and women, and in particular the passage from childhood to adulthood. It has therefore been suggested that intentional scarring, as well as other forms of visible body modification such as tattooing, may serve to promote solidarity amongst men as well as advertise or simulate genetic quality, signal sexual maturity, and aid in attracting and securing mates. (Burriss et al. 2009)

For those who’ve earned their scars the old-fashioned way, don’t hide ’em…

Yanomamö men often shave their heads and rub red pigment into their scalps to increase the visibility of their scars, thus demonstrating their bravery and ability to withstand and recover from an enemy’s blow. (Burriss et al. 2009)

Mechanism

Consistent with the practice of ritual scarification in non-Western cultures, Burris et al suggest scarification acts as a costly signal for heroism. In a study pitting heroism (and/or bravery) against altruism, women found heroism more attractive in men than altruism in both short and long-term mating contexts. However, the attraction to heroism was again more pronounced in the short-term context (Kelly & Dunbar 2001).

In every comparison between brave and non-brave potential partners, both for the short-term and long-term, bravery was always preferred. In evolutionary terms, there must have been some considerable advantages to choosing a brave mate. Sexual selection theory offers two general reason why bravery might be selected for in males. One is that such males can offer benefits to a female in terms of provision of food and/or defense. Anthropological evidence supports both suggestions. In traditional societies, the provision of meat acquired by hunting is generally a male province. Hunting for game often involves some degree of personal ris, either from the prey itself or from a dangerous environment. The best hunters enjoy social respect and increased sexual favors… Alternatively, brave men may simply provide better protection for women and their offspring against both marauders and from neighboring tribes and other members of their own group. Among the Ache, for example, the risk of infanticide by other males increases dramatically if a woman’s husband dies or leaves the group. The second advantage for a female of selecting a brave male may be that bravery is an honest cue for good quality genes, not least because only those males with good genes will be able to withstand the costs imposed by risk-taking. (Kelly & Dunbar 2001) *also see my post on The Adventure Gene.

It seems very likely that scars do act as a proxy for heroism, and that heroism is evolutionarily valuable. However, a dose of inductive reasoning to connect the dots until more research is done. What women found attractive about men with scars wasn’t explicitly studied here (or elsewhere as far as I know).

It would also be interesting to further explore why women don’t find men with scars more attractive in the long-term mating context. If scars are a proxy signal for heroism, and heroism is attractive in both contexts, then scars should be attractive in both. Perhaps stigmatization or other social mechanisms mitigate the effect. It’s also true that scars are an imperfect signal of heroism. Since we do see a rise in women’s ratings of men’s attractiveness in altruism in the long-term context, this could combine with the noise in the scarification signal to reduce its effect enough to be rather easily offset by social influence.

As far as my own self-justification, it looks like bad news. Off-axis broken noses are more likely to be read as developmental instability (bad) than any sort of heroism or ability to survive attacks. “Frozen projectile wounds don’t always heal. Chicks dig scars. Sometimes beauty is only skin deep.”

References
Buss, D.M. (2002). Human Mating Strategies. Samfundsokonomen, 4, 47-58. [pdf]

Burriss, R, H Rowland, and a Little. “Facial scarring enhances men’s attractiveness for short-term relationships.” Personality and Individual Differences 46, no. 2 (January 2009): 213-217. [pdf]

Kelly, Susan, and R I M Dunbar. “Who Dares, Wins: Heroism versus Altruism in Womenʼs Mate Choice.” Human Nature 12, no. 2 (2001): 89-105.

Other Articles In This Series
Male Physical Attractiveness Part I or: You Shallow, Shallow Ladies

Applied Evolutionary Psychology: Male Attractiveness

Over the course of running a few blogs, I’ve met some of the most interesting and fun people I know. When I started evolvify, I reached out to them for ideas for products that might be a good fit to advertise here. In general, the response was along the lines of “I have no idea what an evolutionary psychology blog would look like, and I’m not sure if I even know what evolutionary psychology is”. It seems that there’s not a huge market for “applied evolutionary theory” when spoken of in the abstract. Shocker, right? Yet two people mentioned some guy Clay who was working on some sort of bodybuilding or fitness program that had something or other to do with evolution so it might be a fit. Upon further inquiry, I discovered that this was a Clay that I’ve known for over a year. Note: Clay and Derek are both pictured (shirtless, ladies) in the product link later.

Anyway, shortly after hearing that Clay was working on “some evolution related thing”, I got an email from the man himself. It turned out he had been studying the evolutionary psychology relating to what makes men physically attractive to women for a couple years. And when I say studying, I don’t mean that he just read an article in Maxim. In fact, one of his college professors was none other than one of my Top 5 Favorite Evolutionary Psychologists, Martie Haselton…

[cft format=0]

In addition to her work on attractiveness, Dr. Haselton is one of the developers of the infinitely insightful Error Management Theory which deals with the evolution of human cognitive biases and heuristics. But I digress…

Clay’s work was focused on a synthesis of the evolved physical cues women find attractive in men and the application of that to bodybuilding. Upon hearing this, I was immediately intrigued. In fact, when we compared notes, I already had three of the journal papers he was using for references in my personal library. So we were quite literally “on the same page” with all of this. A component of this that I’d totally missed was the tie-in to the male Hollywood actors that all men love to hate. You know, the Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig types with the abs and the shoulders and the swooning adoration of women they’ve never met. Yeah, those guys.

It turns out that those guys happen to develop their physiques to dimensions that match up perfectly to what evolutionary psychology predicts women will find attractive. It’s not clear that the trainers of the Hollywood physiques are consciously aware of the evolutionary relationship of their clients’ physiques and what women find attractive, but the correlation is uncanny and the results are undeniable. Clay developed a combination paleo friendly, whole foods, no supplement training program to build bodies that women find attractive according to Hollywood and the best data evolutionary science has to offer. But let’s take a step back and look at what women find attractive…

Keys to Male Physical Attractiveness

Fist things first: This is article not about “status”. Status is important and I’ll write about how women find it attractive in the future. For now, I’m focusing on physical attractiveness. This topic is particularly important to me for a few reasons.

1. Men have body image issues too. In fact, fashion advertisers use photos of more muscular men in men’s magazines than in women’s magazines. Men tend to think women find bulkier men attractive than what women generally find attractive (Frederick et al. 2005)
2. The generally douchebaggy pickup community is often superficially based on evolutionary psychology to a greater or lesser degree. In many instances, it’s actually based on sociobiology. Unfortunately, the roots of sociobiology are in entymology (the study of bugs) and don’t necessarily apply to humans. Further, much of the pickup stuff is based on models of alpha-male dominance found in other primate species that don’t look anything like the social dynamics of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Finally, I haven’t seen any pickup guru who didn’t say that “looks don’t matter. While it’s true that looks aren’t the only thing that matters, it is absolutely incorrect to say that “looks don’t matter”. To say as much demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution.
3. Whether faked or real, status is a subjective social metric. By definition, it doesn’t exist without respect to other individuals.
4. Status seeking is generally seen as negative and can be inferred whether said status cue is fake or real.
5. Status is often disconnected from legitimate fitness cues in the modern world because of inheritances, luck (e.g. winning the lottery), et cetera.
6. Physical attractiveness can be improved by simple means. As we’ll see later, this is even true of facial attractiveness.

Women Have Been More Superficial than Men Across Evolutionary Time

Despite the 20th century encroachment of men into superficiality, and the subsequent backlash by women at having their tactics aped, women have been judging men on the metrics of wealth and physical beauty for millions of years. This isn’t a judgment call, and there are no moral implications intended in that statement. It is a simple fact of evolutionary biology that the sex that invests most in reproduction is almost invariably the most selective about mating. In mammals, this is almost always females. In humans, the biological investment is drastic – 9 months (minimum) for women versus a few seconds for men. Thus, we would expect women to be more leery about mating with men of low mate value.

With status in our out of the question, women use superficial cues to determine the genetic quality of potential mates.

Let’s be clear; this is not necessarily a conscious calculation. Emotions are evolved motivational heuristics that preclude the need for intentional analysis. Instinctual attraction is not a choice. Love is not a choice. Lust is not a choice.  Certain physical attributes simply act to signal the genetic quality of individuals. I’ve previously discussed the relationship of female attractiveness to waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and similar cues can be applied to male attractiveness. This is merely a standard principle of Darwinian evolution. In particular, Darwin termed this “sexual selection”, and more specifically, “mate choice.” It has been updated and integrated into parental investment theory.

Known Points of Male Physical Attractiveness

There is no doubt that nuances and specifics of male physical attractiveness are yet to be discovered. For now, they can be grouped into three main sensory categories.

1. Olfaction (smell)
2. Auditory (hearing)
3. Physical (vision)

Let’s go ahead and set aside taste, touch, and ESP for today. Numerous studies have been conducted to assess what, if any, role smell, hearing, and vision play in women’s assessments of male attractiveness. All have been shown to have measurable and predictable impact. Perhaps more interestingly, these sensory inputs tend to shift and increase in intensity during the peak fertility of a woman’s cycle. Aside from possible mentions of smell and hearing in passing, we’re going to look at visual cues.

This isn’t an arbitrary decision. Just as in my critique of racism as misguided sensory bias, it makes sense that our mating assessments be made based on our most perceptive sense(s). Most humans are heavily visually biased so the decision is made for us. (Foster 2008) Before proceeding, we need to break things down one further step. Studies have shown significant differences in attractiveness cues between face and body. Since there is little to be done about facial attractiveness outside of surgery (facial plastic surgery may be the number one evolution thwarting measure), we’ll mostly focus on physical cues found in the body.

“We found two factors that captured face and body attractiveness, respectively. Together they accounted for 49.9%… of the total variance in the variables . The first principal component in the male PCA was a body attractiveness factor that loaded significantly on body attractiveness, body sexual dimorphism and body averageness… The second principal component in the male PCA was primarily associated with attractive face traits and loaded significantly on face attractiveness and face sexual dimorphism. This study showed that rated face and body attractiveness contribute independently and substantially, with no interaction, to overall… male attractiveness. Importantly, face and body attractiveness did not significantly interact in predicting overall attractiveness in males or females. These results are critical because they confirm and quantify the assumption that the face and body both contain independent cues to overall attractiveness. Thus, even though our preferences have evolved by viewing the whole person, overall attractiveness judgements are based on separate, unique contributions of the face and body, with no interaction between the two.” (Peters et al. 2007) [emphasis mine]

Caveat: Since the previous study was done, another study found something particularly interesting:

“Humans are also good at assessing strength based on the face alone. Even though no part of the men’s bodies was available for inspection in these photos, the subjects were able to successfully perceive strength. Indeed, in our data, upper-body strength independently predicted facial ratings of strength, while leg strength did not. [M]any anthro-pologists might expect that humans would learn to exploit culturally specific cues through exposure. However, our subjects were just as good at judging strength from the faces of men of other cultures as from their own. That is, thousands of times more experience with members of one’s local culture had no effect on the accuracy of the system.” (Sell et al. 2009) [emphasis mine]

Clay doesn’t know I’m subjecting him to this impromptu and highly biased “study”, but see if you can detect a difference in his face in the before and after photos. Granted, his facial expression is slightly different, but aside from that…

Now, in the referenced study, the faces were isolated so even the neck couldn’t be seen, and the bodies were isolated and rated separately. Like I said, showing the pictures like this biases the study, but can you see a difference? It turns out that having a sexy body is contagious enough to at least reach your face.

Sexual Dimorphism: Surprise! Men and Women Look Different

Physical differences between the male and female of a species give a general indicator of the amount of sexual selection that has taken place – the more sexual selection, the greater the physical difference. These are often referred to as ornaments. Common examples of this are the antlers of male deer, the large canine teeth of male gorillas, the audacious plume of the male peacock, and the increased height and upper body musculature of male humans. In strict evolutionary biology terms, sexual selection is broken down into male-male competition and female mate choice.

Technically, these mechanisms often overlap into feedback mechanisms so I’m going to gloss over the minutia of that distinction momentarily. Briefly: In some species, men compete to show off and be chosen by females. In some species, men compete to dominate resources and mating opportunities. In some species, these overlap to varying degrees. To further complicate things, some traits in a single species may be acted on more by female mate choice and others by male-male competition. (Hunt et al. 2009)

Implications of Women’s Mate-Choice

Have you put the pieces together? This is a big point: Like natural selection and artificial selection (breeding), women have literally shaped the physical characteristics of men to their taste over the course of human evolution. That’s right, women find men physically attractive because men are shaped by female mate choice. Which leads to an obvious question…

How do women “know” what to choose?

Sexual selection can seem like a bit of a circular argument at times. However, it’s important to remember that it operates in concert with natural selection. Women who chose men with evolutionarily advantageous genes would have had more successful offspring. In this way, natural selection has a way of shaping the preferences of females over time. Because of the interplay, women will tend to evolve preferences that compel them to choose traits that correlate with “good genes.” Hypotheses on what is being signaled by each physical trait vary.

Since one of the main points women report as attractive is sexual dimorphism (masculinity), testosterone is a likely candidate and is studied often. A man’s ability to produce and regulate optimal levels of testosterone (and all other hormones) is advantageous for survival and reproduction. Cortisol has been the subject of studies of hormones and attractiveness as well, but have not yielded results as strong as those focusing on testosterone (Moore et al. 2010).

One other line of regular inquiry into adaptive benefits of mate choice is fluctuating asymmetry (FA). This the general assumption that symmetry is good, and asymmetry is bad. The locus of asymmetry may vary from trait to trait and may have multiple influences in any one particular trait. Oxidative stress at the genetic level may be responsible for some FA, and individuals with greater capacity for reducing oxidative stress may have survival and reproductive advantages (Gangestad et al. 2010).

Other hypotheses around sexual selection focus on fighting ability between individuals and its technical corrolary resource-holding potential (RHP). Without putting to fine a point on it, being big and strong has advantages in multiple domains. And guess what influences strength? Yes my astute lovelies… testosterone. It keeps coming back to the testosterone.

The proof is in the ____ing

The studies above relating to facial attractiveness versus body attractiveness relied on women’s ratings of attractiveness. There’s value in that, but conscious assessments aren’t necessarily a perfect substitute for how people behave in the real world. In the real world, the most effective measure of attractiveness is… um… apparently the PhDs call it “mating succcess”…

“Overall, body attractiveness was a better predictor of self-reported mating success than facial attractiveness. In line with our main hypothesis, we found a positive relationship between a composite measure of men’s physical fitness (PF) and men’s body attractiveness. This was obtained not only for aggregated attractiveness ratings but also for all 27 female raters individually. This finding is remarkable because individual attractiveness judgments reflect a strong idiosyncratic component, at least for faces. Attractiveness judgments were made fast and effortless. The strength of the attractiveness-fitness relation- ship obtained here suggests that signalling physical fitness may be one of the key functions of male attractiveness.” (Honekopp et al. 2006) [emphasis mine]

Not surprisingly, physical fitness “may be” important for physical attractiveness. You learn something everyday I guess. Thanks science!

Back to Clay’s Evolutionary Body-Hacking Program

I’m already approaching the 3,000 word mark in this article and I haven’t even gotten to the specifics of what exactly makes for a body that women find attractive. Fortunately, Clay has already done all the work of synthesizing this research into a clear physical model ( to be fair, he claims that the trainers and actors in Hollywood did the work for him, and he just reverse engineered it). So rather than talk about the numbers, here are the blueprints representing the intersection of Hollywood and Darwin.

The Hollywood Physique Blueprint (1 of 8)

Why the “Hollywood Physique”?

Clay found that essentially every feature in the research here is demonstrated in nearly every Hollywood actor after one of their scrawny-to-superhero transformations. In other words, although we have no proof it’s intentional, Hollywood trainers are leveraging the same principles in all of the research consciously or unconsciously. The system is designed to sculpt precisely the aspects of muscle necessary to highlight that exact cue and maximize the evolutionary factors most responsible for natural attraction. Most are simply emulating physical features associated with naturally elevated testosterone levels and other indicators of key fitness features related to survival purposes.

The name “The Hollywood Physique for Men” is designed for an audience not limited to the enlightened anthro-evolution nerd readers of evolvify. However, Clay himself is somewhat of an anthro-evolution nerd, but I haven’t yet asked him to change the name to “The Uber Abstract Darwinian Compendium of Hyper-Copulatory Hypertrophy.” While the system itself is built on a foundation of paleo and evolutionary psychology principles, Clay has designed it for a more mainstream audience. In other words, he’s cleverly disguising the stuff we love and bringing it to the masses.

What the Hollywood Physique is NOT:

• A fitness program designed around evolutionary movements
• A strength training program
• A functional fitness program

What The Hollywood Physique is:

• Methodical, detailed, and specific regarding food and workouts
• Applied evolutionary psychology
• 100% Paleo diet friendly
• Whole food nutrition plan
• Supplement free
• A completely aesthetic bodybuilding system designed to strategically achieve a body that’s naturally attractive to women in a short amount of time

How do Andrew and evolvify tie into this?

As I mentioned before, I worked with Clay on this for a couple months before he launched it. However, it’s totally his brainchild. My contributions have been reviews and suggestions regarding the evolutionary theory and minor tweaks (if anything). I had pre-release access to the materials and have gone over everything contained within. I’m not going to comment on any of the training methodology or jargon, but I have seen Clay’s and Derek’s results and they’re pretty amazing.

Here’s the thing… and it’s not a sales pitch, just the info. Clay is just now making this publicly available. He hasn’t even set up a full page selling it quite yet, and he’s not promoting it on a very grand scale at the moment because, simply put, he wants to make sure the information jives with a more intelligent, savvy crowd who are driven and ready to APPLY it and PROVE it works before unleashing it on a wider scale. I’m glad he came to me about this a while ago because it’s allowed us to team up to give evolvify readers to get the first crack at it.

UPDATE (August 2012): I ended up using THP for a couple months shortly after writing this originally, and I’ve since checked in on the progress of others. I can reissue whatever recommendations I had at the beginning. Theory shmeory, it works.

If you’re looking for an aesthetic approach to quickly building muscle that’s based on the evolutionary principles of physical attractiveness, then you can’t go wrong with The Hollywood Physique for Men.

Check Out Clay’s Site »

*don’t miss the individual muscle blueprints and topless Derek!

References

Foster, Joshua D. “Beauty is mostly in the eye of the beholder: olfactory versus visual cues of attractiveness.” The Journal of Social Psychology 148, no. 6 (December 2008): 765-73. [PDF]

Frederick, David a, Daniel M T Fessler, and Martie G Haselton. “Do representations of male muscularity differ in menʼs and women’s magazines?” Body image 2, no. 1 (March 2005): 81-6.

Gangestad, Steven W., Leslie a. Merriman, and Melissa Emery Thompson. “Men’s oxidative stress, fluctuating asymmetry and physical attractiveness.” Animal Behaviour 80, no. 6 (October 2010): 1005-1013.

Honekopp, J, U Rudolph, L Beier, a Liebert, and C Muller. “Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men.” Evolution and Human Behavior 28, no. 2 (March 2007): 106-111.

Hunt, John, Casper J Breuker, Jennifer a Sadowski, and Allen J Moore. “Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection.” Journal of evolutionary biology 22, no. 1 (January 2009): 13-26.

Moore, F R, R E Cornwell, M J Law Smith, E a S Al Dujaili, M Sharp, and D I Perrett. “Evidence for the stress-linked immunocompetence handicap hypothesis in human male faces.” Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, (September 2010).

Peters, M, G Rhodes, and L Simmons. “Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness.” Animal Behaviour 73, no. 6 (June 2007): 937-942. [PDF]

Sell, Aaron, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Daniel Sznycer, Christopher von Rueden, and Michael Gurven. “Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face.” Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 276, no. 1656 (February 2009): 575-84. [PDF]

Henceforth, I trust I shall hear nary a word of such contrivances of abominable nonsense. No dear sirs and madams, not so much as a peep.

This article isn’t about a full analysis of the philosophy of the naturalistic fallacy, the nuances that distinguish it from Hume’s “is-ought” problem, or Hume’s extensive, reasoned, and persuasive arguments on the topic. This is a precursor for my upcoming writings that will leave naive regurgitators of Hume behind. I’m not going to [intentionally] violate Hume’s arguments, but people who invoke the is-ought problem too often don’t understand him. This article, and its references, are where I will direct the unsophisticated who attempt to speak Hume’s name in vain in attempts to dismiss my endeavor out of hand by rhetorical slight of hand.

And no, the irony of quoting others arguments to make my argument in light of the first paragraph is not lost on me. However, be advised that I have read these papers and generally understand the arguments within.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

In a nutshell, the fallacy is typically reduced to “ought cannot be derived from is”. Things that evolved through Darwinian selection are natural, or what “is”, but that doesn’t mean we can justify them by then saying that they “ought” to be simply because they’re evolved characteristics.

*King James, a Scotsman, really should have gotten this right the first time.

To take one of the most emotionally charged examples to illustrate the legitimate concerns… Some have argued for rape as an evolved strategy for increasing reproductive success in humans and other animals. The emotional nature of that question tends to preclude rational discussion, but it hasn’t been definitively answered one way or another. However, it becomes a political discussion when some assume that an ought can be derived from an is. The scenario as it stands would be invalid even if factually true (a premise that’s factuality is debatable).

Invalid structure:

Sexual rape of another person to increase reproductive success is an evolved behavior (factual premise).
Sexual rape of another person is right (ethical conclusion).

Hume would regard the following argument as deductively invalid:

Torturing people for fun causes great suffering (factual premise).
Torturing people for fun is wrong (ethical conclusion). (Wilson et al. 2003)

The problem is that Hume’s name and the naturalistic fallacy are often invoked any time something “is” or is natural is being discussed – as an implied refutation or an attempt to silence discussion. That’s not a problem in the two previous scenarios, but Hume explicitly outlined a path to making the connection. And… it’s not a complicated path so it’s easy to misapply the fallacy when its use is attempted without understanding it. Simply: one additional clause is required. Unfortunately, the argument is often dropped from the sky whenever an argument begins with a natural “is” and ends with an “ought” without respect to one, two, or a zillion additional clauses between them. This is a fundamental flaw in argumentation that can be (and regularly is) exploited for emotional and political purposes, then spread through the minds of those naive to what Hume actually said.

Various arguments obscured by the term “naturalistic fallacy”

*Section quoted from (Curry & Oliver 2006) but arranged in normal style for formatting and readability

“The first thing that anyone wishing to investigate the naturalistic fallacy discovers is that there is not one but many arguments that go by this name. A survey of the literature reveals not one but (at least) eight alleged mistakes that carry the label “the naturalistic fallacy”:

1. Moving from is to ought (Hume’s fallacy).
2. Moving from facts to values.
3. Identifying good with its object (Moore’s fallacy).
4. Claiming that good is a natural property.
5. Going ‘in the direction of evolution’.
6. Assuming that what is natural is good.
7. Assuming that what currently exists ought to exist. 8. Substituting explanation for justification.
8. Substituting explanation for justification.

Hume already resolved the “problem”

As I said earlier, Hume’s only requirement to proceed from “is” to “ought” was than an additional clause must be added to the equation.

More generally, a factual statement must be combined with an ethical statement to derive an ethical conclusion . Hence, ought cannot be described exclusively from is. The word “exclusively” is a crucial part of the naturalistic fallacy. If we remove it, the statement “ought cannot be derived from is” implies that the facts of the world have no relevance to ethical conclusions. (Wilson et al. 2003) [emphasis mine]

To resolve the invalid inductive example a few paragraphs back:

if we supply an additional premise, the argument can be made deductively valid:

Torturing people for fun causes great suffering (factual premise).
It is wrong to cause great suffering (ethical premise).
Torturing people for fun is wrong (ethical conclusion).

The addition of the ethical premise takes this from fallacy to logically stable footing. It certainly leaves open challenges to the premises, but not in terms of Hume’s critique.

My use of “is-ought”

I’m going to outline the general structure of my premises and conclusions, but be aware that this structure is not in itself necessarily complete. It can’t always be used alone to derive an ought from an is. Further, it appears problematic in that the grammatical construction appears somewhat circular. However, Darwinian evolution is a feedback mechanism. Thus, the circularity is not without merit.

Human nature is shaped by evolution (factual premise).
Judgments of right and wrong are made based on evolved biases and influences (ethical premise).
Examining human nature can lead us to insight on right and wrong (ethical conclusion).

In other words, if we’re using brains that have evolved ethical cues, all ethical premises are influenced by evolution. Thus, knowing about our evolved biases can help us answer questions in this realm. Further, this can help to spot sociocultural mismatches and assist in reconciling them with human nature apart from power structures.

A less nebulous example:

People evolved psychologically under politically egalitarian hunter-gatherer arrangements (factual premise).
Authoritarian structures are wrong because they limit freedom (ethical premise).
Imposing authoritarian structures on people is wrong (ethical conclusion).

Plainly, my conclusion that authoritarian structures are ethically wrong is subject to the factual premise and the ethical premise. As such, my conclusion are open to falsifiability in the face of sufficient damage to the premises. However, dismissal by illusory chants of “naturalistic fallacy” and clinging to the scraps from Hume’s table are not enough to lodge a successful complaint. At least… not according to Hume. Perhaps your intellect surpasses his, but I’m happy to bet against that occurrence.

Looking at this example more deeply reveals that I am merely adding a factual premise to a commonly asserted ethical premise. Paradoxically, this both bolsters the ethical premise while opening the endeavor to scrutiny by misapplication of Hume’s observations. This trick opens the door to questioning the ethical conclusion by the mere addition of the “is” to the equation. Beware incantations along any of these critical lines; cries of naturalistic fallacy violation may the be simple cries of ignorance.

My goal in future work is to continue to add and refine factual premises to bolster other commonly held ethical premises. Some will take Hume’s name in vain, but do not be distracted by the decontextualization of the is-ought problem and Hume’s own resolution.

Epilogue

Yes, that heading is a bit dramatic. I just wanted to point out that the two references not specifically invoked above have specific bearing on the application of evolutionary psychology in the way I’m using it. There is no doubt that the nurture Nazis will complain that evolutionary psychology is a hoax bla bla bla. If that’s your position, you’re wrong (Teehan et al. 2004; Walter 2006). But more on that later.

References
Curry, Oliver. “Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?” Evolutionary Psychology (2006): 234-247. [pdf]

Teehan, John, and Roosevelt Hall. “On the Naturalistic Fallacy : A Conceptual Basis for Evolutionary Ethics.” Evolutionary Psychology (2004): 32-46. [pdf]

Walter, Alex. “The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy : Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts.” Evolutionary Psychology, no. 1999 (2006): 33-48. [pdf]

Wilson, D.S., Eric Dietrich, and A.B. Clark. “On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology.” Biology and Philosophy 18, no. 5 (2003): 669–681. [pdf]

Aside from Richard Dawkins interviewing Stephen Pinker, there’s not a lot of evolutionary psychology related video content online. So I was pretty excited to find this recent talk from Wonderfest. An added bonus is that it’s not by evolutionary psychologists, but a pair of paleoanthropologists. Since critiques of evolutionary psychology are often levied by non-anthropologists by dismissing EvPsych for making too many assumptions about life in the paleolithic, this has a different flavor of credibility.

One point that I appreciated was Dr. Gilbert’s view on the “job” of scientists. Some scientists (and its critics) are fond of implying that us laymen should just sit around and wait for scraps of knowledge to be tossed our way. Here’s a more enlightened view:

“[As scientists], our business is not to speculate stories that you can then think about. Our business is to give you empirical evidence that you can go home and have all that fun of speculation yourself.”  – Henry Gilbert, PhD.

Protagonists

David DeGusta is a Research Paleontologist at the Paleoanthropology Institute.

Henry Gilbert is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at California State University, East Bay.

[cft format=0]
[Link (from RSS feed)]

Topics

• Studying the Evolution of Human Traits
• The Science of Human Origins
• Examining How Evolution Has Shaped Behavior
• Landmarks in Human Evolution
• The History of Evolutionary Psychology
• The Rise of Behaviorism
• Cognitive Psychology and the Refinement of Adaptationism
• Nature vs. Nurture and Modern Evolutionary Psychology
• The Dangers of Discussing Hardwired Behavior
• Studying the Evolutionary Origins of Language
• Studying Language Through the Fossil Record
• Studying Language Through the Genetic Record
• Studying Language Through the Archaeological Record
• Discussion on the Evolution of Language
• Studying the Evolution of Culture
• Possible Causes for the Development of Culture
• Discussion on the Evolution of Culture
• The Evolutionary Origins of Art
• Signs of Neanderthal Culture and Language
• Animals and the Neurological Basis of Lan

Just as there’s truth underlying what makes comedy funny, there’s some truth in stereotypes. Rather than a reflection of truth, stereotypes typically represent a cultural amplification of minor differences. As such, it’s difficult to disentangle what’s real from what’s cultural (yes, I just said culture isn’t real). In the realm of stereotypes, the association between men and meat is pretty strong. From the [debunked] “Man the Hunter” hypothesis to the staple imagery of Dad “manning” the grill, we have no shortage of references from which to draw. Maybe it’s the fire, maybe it’s the meat, but I’ve always embraced the opportunity to run the grill. I’ve also been curious about where cultural indoctrination gives way to instinct in this area. Recently, my attention was directed back to this from a strange direction.

As part of the ongoing paleo debate about the amount of animal products vs. plant products we should consume to achieve optimal health, I turned my attention to vitamin C. The topic is doubly interesting to me because, from a “why evolution is true” standpoint, the genes to synthesize vitamin C singlehandedly refute the notion of an “intelligent” design. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is necessary for certain biological functions, and therefore, most animals have evolved to synthesize it. Humans have the gene coding for vitamin C synthesis, but it has been deactivated. The [almost certainly correct] hypothesis is that it was deactivated during a period of high dietary fruit consumption in distant primate evolution. Since vitamin C was ample in the diet, there was no positive selection pressure for the activated gene. Which brings us to scurvy…

Scurvy

Acute vitamin C deficiency in humans leads to scurvy. I noticed a strangely consistent risk-factor for scurvy while doing preliminary research on the condition. It seems that being a single man is itself a risk factor. It was listed in every result I saw from a basic Google search on the topic so I’m chalking this one up to common knowledge for medical professionals. Not only is being male and single a risk factor, but it’s also referred to colloquially, and in medical literature as “bachelor scurvy” (Connelly, 1982) or “widower scurvy” (Hirschmann, et al. 1999).

One of the hypotheses forwarded to explain why men are more prone to scurvy is that they don’t know how to cook. That seems strange considering that cooking destroys vitamin C. It’s found in high concentrations in a wide range of foods (raw fruit in particular) readily available to any grocery store culture. If a single guy can get to the store to buy hot dogs, he can buy an orange. Thus, I have to emphatically reject the “single guys can’t cook” hypothesis before even considering whether it’s factually accurate to say that “men can’t cook”.

Since vitamin C is ridiculously easy to consume, I’m inclined to view “bachelor scurvy” as a result of voluntary food selection choice. It seems the “single” part is because women opt for an increase in fruit/vegetable consumption rather than a Leave it to Beaver cliche of women in the kitchen. As it turns out, quasi-scientific studies confirm a certain level of disdain for vegetables by men…

Most Vegetarians Are Women

I think it’s safe to say that the go-t0 resource for wisdom related to evolutionary based diets is Vegetarian Times (VT). Thus, I’m happy to report that a study they commissioned in 1992 found that women are more than twice as likely to be vegetarians as men. At that time 68% of vegetarians were women compared to the remaining 32% of men. They went on to speculate that this difference is because women care about health and men don’t. There may be some truth to that, but since the assertion was unsupported, I remain highly skeptical. There are certainly other explanations available.

The premise of the VT article was that the president of the North American Vegetarian Society (a heterosexual female) couldn’t find a suitable vegetarian man to date (understandable, as I have recurring nightmares of this guy and his hat). Tapping into folk wisdom once again, I refer you to Pulp Fiction…

“…my girlfriend is a vegetarian, which pretty-much makes me a vegetarian.” – @ 0:53 below
[cft format=0]

Rather than assuming that only 32% of men are vegetarians, I wonder if it isn’t true that less than 32% of men would be vegetarians if they weren’t influenced by, or trying to impress, vegetarian women.

In a sidebar of the same VT article, a referenced study surveyed individuals in the 18-35 age bracket regarding their food cravings. The results showed that 33% of men craved meat or fish in the previous year, compared to only 9% of women. It seems that when thinking about taste and/or satisfaction, men display an almost fourfold increase in a desire for meat when compared to women. So aside from the ideas that men can’t cook and don’t care about health, what evolutionary explanations are available?

Hunter-Gatherer Explanation?

If the bulk of human evolution consisted of hunter-gatherer tribes in which men did most of the hunting (and therefore killing), and women did most of the gathering/foraging, could natural selection have favored mental traits that favored men with less reservations about killing animals? Could this have resulted in males more comfortable with processing, and ultimately in eating, meat? In environments in which hunting and eating animals afforded survival and reproductive advantages, it would make sense for males who psychologically objected to this practice to suffer increased selection pressure. In other words, quasi-moral vegetarian tendencies would be a direct disadvantage to men in hunting societies.

The meat craving study referenced in VT also found that the gap in cravings between men and women decreased from 24% to 16% in populations over the age of 65. While the 36-64 age group is missing from the article, we can make some assumptions about the 65+ group. Perhaps most importantly, this is beyond the reproductive age of nearly all women. Women’s cravings for meat more than double from the lower age bracket to the upper one. Thus, there could be a relevant factor in the consumption of plant matter in relation to fecundity (fertility) and/or diet during pregnancy and breastfeeding. The data in this study is insufficient to clarify this, but it’s an interesting question worthy of further study.

Parting Ponderings

First, I’m interested in any research or insight that may be relevant to this question. I find it unlikely that there isn’t research that I simply missed. If you can point out other information that may shed more light on this, please add it in the comments below.

As I said in the beginning, I can’t commit to a solid hypothesis on this. There seems to be some instinctual inclination toward increased meat collection, preparation, and consumption in men. There’s certainly a significantly larger percentage of women who are vegetarians. I find current explanations of why men would shun consumption of vitamin C containing foods to be absolutely unconvincing. So… what’s the deal?

References
Connelly, T. J., Becker, A. and McDonald, J. W. (1982), Bachelor Scurvy. International Journal of Dermatology, 21: 209–210.
Hirschmann J.V., Raugi G.J. (1999), Adult Scurvy. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 41(6): 895-906.

Beauty is an area of interest for me in general, but the timing of this piece is directly related to the Esquire magazine cover that has supposedly caused Apple to refuse to offer the offending issue for sale through its channels. It all kind of hearkens back to the “I Dream of Genie” midriff drama of the 60s. In any case, the pictures included here are to provide context.

My Bias Backstory (Optional)

Some may be tempted to cite Sir-Mix-A-Lot’s preemptive attempt to divide men’s perception of female attractiveness along racial lines. As a white, heterosexual, male, I am part of a group that represents a scant 1.47% of the human population that is supposed to prefer “big butts” marginally less. I submit that any supposed difference in this regard is a cultural influence that may correlate to race (because cultural influences often correlate to race), but is ultimately an exaggeration of a shared human nature. Further, I proffer that my preference for “abs” over “butt” (and/or “breasts”) is closer to the instinctual default.

Now, as a white dude, it would be easy to dismiss everything I say as bias. Perhaps that’s fair, but at least hear me out. One area in which I’m not particularly biased is against Sir-Mix-A-Lot. Like him, I’m “from” Seattle. In a geographical sense, we’re in-group. Recent studies have shown geographical in-groups to be more powerful than race on some levels. It does happen that I was always a bigger fan of his album Swass. Further, I’m one of probably 15 people who bought Kid Sensation’s solo album featuring Ken Griffey Jr. in his short-lived rap career. I can’t say I’d recommend it, but this is a historical fact.

I wouldn’t play this if I were you…
[cft format=0]

As far as “Baby Got Back” back is concerned, Mix-A-Lot did slip the correct answer into lyrics. And to be fair, “I like a toned midriff and I cannot lie” is not nearly as catchy as “I like big butts and I cannot lie”. Here’s where he got it right:

“…Cause your waist is small and your curves are kickin…”

“…when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist…”

Here’s another telling tidbit… I discovered evolutionary psychology while researching beauty norms. In the wake of the postmodernist dominated social science of the 20th century, I’d been told that my conceptions of beauty were the mere result of socialization countless times. Now, the thing about that is that I’m not supposed to be aware of such biases… and I get that. However, I specifically remember being told that beauty preferences were arbitrary time and again since a young age. Now, we could get all Society of the Spectacle and maybe even wax philosophical on semiotics, but I don’t want to get mired in this. My question (to myself) was this: If I’m being socialized to a certain set of beauty norms, why do I recoil when I’m told my conception of beauty is “wrong?” If culture is the sole influence, shouldn’t I absorb both messages equally and feel comfortable with a norm somewhere in the middle? Under competing messages, why did I only ever absorb one side of the argument?

So the first exposure I had to evolutionary psychology was in relation to beauty. One of the key areas of female attractiveness that’s been studied is referred to as waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). The EP hypothesis roughly states that a small waist in relation to slightly wider hips is a visual cue communicating reproductive benefits. Figuring out what the cues signal isn’t as easy as testing whether or not the cues exist, so we’ll start with the latter.

The “Science”

A widely referenced cross-cultural study on the WHR preferences of men found that men tend to find a ratio in the range of .69 to .71 visually attractive (Singh 1993). Since this finding was quite problematic to the “there’s no such thing as non-cultural human beauty” camp, this was hotly disputed. Methodological challenges were levied, and subsequent research has been done. Another study comes even closer to the “butt or abs” question by measuring whether altering the ratio by waist or hips made more of a difference in perceived beauty (Rozmus-Wrzesinska, et al. 2005). They confirmed Singh’s hypothesis and found the “Sir-Mix-A-Lot hypothesis” to be incorrect. Waist size was more important to men than hip size. This still wasn’t good enough for the “beauty is a power structure plot” folks, so more research was done. This time researchers used 3-D models from varying angles and determined that men prefer 3-D flat stomachs when rotated to a side-view even more than the front and rear views tested by previous research (Rilling, et al. 2009). In yet another study, it was found that blind men also prefer a WHR in the same range as sighted men (Karremans, et al. 2010). In aggregate, the research seems fairly convincing to my culturally indoctrinated mind.

There are quite a few studies testing men’s preferences for breast and butt size specifically. Here are some excerpts from the same, fairly recent study:

“The findings of this study suggest that both male and female observers show a preference for small breast size… The finding… is particularly interesting, as it stands in contrast to previous studies which show a general preference for medium or large breast size.”

“Buttocks size, however, does not seem to play a significant role in determining female physical attractiveness.” (Furnham, et al. 2007)

I’m not going to delve into the specifics now, but there are multiple hypothesized reasons for the value of a WHR. An obvious one, especially in the light of the 3-D preference study, is that a flat midsection is a pretty good indicator that a woman isn’t pregnant. Other lines of inquiry are typically related to hormone levels. In both men and women, the flood of hormones during puberty are known to influence a variety of physical traits.

Lingerie Exaggerating WHR

Since these same hormones are related to fertility, any cues that signal a genetically optimal hormone level would be candidates for evolutionarily selective pressure. This has been studied and the average preferences of men are close to the theoretically optimal WHR. The main criticism is that men tend to prefer abnormally small waists in relation to the theoretical optimum. The argument against that criticism is the same as the argument against the “Sir-Mix-A-Lot hypothesis”.

Fitness signals tend to be heuristics. That is, shortcut rules that are generally helpful, but are not 100% accurate in all cases. For example, a useful heuristic in nature would be for men to simply prefer a low WHR if a low WHR is a more statistically valid assumption in terms of survival or reproduction. Thus, the heuristic is more amenable to cultural influence on the low-side. The “big butt” hypothesis exaggerates the WHR in the same downward direction. “Baby Got Back” points out both wide hips and an “itty bitty waist” as requirements. Thus, it follows the heuristic. Mix-A-Lot just put the “importance” of waist and hips in the wrong order. This fits with the tendency of culture to exaggerate natural instincts rather than exist in a completely arbitrary vacuum. And NO, I am not saying that all culture is based on natural instincts. I am saying that in domains in which natural instincts exist, culture will tend to amplify them through social reinforcement.

I didn’t get around to referencing one of the studies below (Confer, et al. 2010). It’s pretty interesting, but covering it would make this piece about twice as long. Another time…

So… Is this all just another hierarchical power structure conspiracy, or do humans have a beauty instinct?

Male Physical Attractiveness: Part I

References

Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 348-353.

Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2007). Perception of female buttocks and breast size in profile. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(1), 1–8. Scientific Journal Publishers.

Karremans, J. C., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 182-186.

Rilling, J. K., Kaufman, T. L., Smith, E., Patel, R., & Worthman, C. M. (2009). Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1), 21–31.

Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., & Pawlowski, B. (2005). Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size. Biological psychology, 68(3), 299-308.

Post Sponsored by The Hollywood Physique for Men

I hate postmodern feminism. As a man by birth, not by choice, I call shenanigans on the idea of a vast male conspiracy in which I’m hopelessly complicit. The charge that I am conditioned from birth to oppress all of the women I love, all of the women I know, and all of the women on the planet is not one with which I’m likely to acquiesce. The notion that I’m doomed to omni-directional socialization smacks of Christianity’s putrid communicable mind-disease of “Original Sin”. But while Christianity offers potential salvation through authoritarian subjugation of our minds and the rest of our human nature after a life of guilt, postmodern feminism offers nothing more than perpetual guilt and a labryinthian trial of futility that would lead Josef K to rejoice in the relative clarity of his nightmare of Kafka’s prison. Like the magical monotheisms’ strategic defense by placing its rules outside the observable world and beyond the understanding of feeble brains, postmodern feminism holds its truths just on the other side of spectacular society’s aim or grasp. We are all inside the conspiracy, and thus, forever powerless to question its pervasive hold with our tainted minds.

But let’s get to the bad news…

Apparently, I am guilty as charged. I openly view women as different from men… and I like it. What’s worse, I have been known to love women precisely because of their femininity. And I probably shouldn’t admit this, but I have been successful in being smitten by oppressing women to degree that they have appreciated my undying appreciation of said femininity. Thus, I have apparently pulled off the masterstroke of Pavlovian conditioning by convincing women that there is something special different about them worthy of distinction, and that that inherent beauty defect is a point of delineation warranting irrepressible affection and admiration objectification.

Yet despite my actual loathing for postmodern feminism, and tongue-in-cheek embrace of their accusatory program, I consider myself a Darwinian feminist. Let’s be clear… that is a political position of feminist bias influenced by Darwinian science. This is not to be confused with the scientific position of feminist Darwinism, in which scientific hypotheses are formed through the perspective gained by freeing oneself from the scientific community’s irrepressible patriarchy (Vandermassen 2008). I take this position of political bias because since the agricultural revolution, feminists have an indisputable point (generally speaking). One of the first sociopolitical developments of agricultural society was property. Besides land, women were subjected to the forefront of the legal ownership construct. It’s difficult to disentangle the development of agriculture, writing, law, oppression, and theistic religion. This difficulty is explained in their mutually supportive natures (the Matrix beta version?).

In my overlap into the paleosphere, I wonder about the influence of gendered conflagrations of caveman romanticism. I think the first of Melissa McEwan’s posts I ever read was on the question of ‘Sexism and Paleo‘. Though I disagree with a few of the points in that piece, I share a disdain for the popularized caveman stereotype. On one level, I’ve wandered around a lot of wilderness looking for caves, and I can verify that they’re not a reliable strategy for shelter from the elements or protection from predators. Thus, I vote for burying the “caveman” concept along with agricultural dominance hierarchies and the vegetarian myth. On the psychosocial level, I see the caveman image of a clubbed woman being dragged off to be used as a reproduction machine as an overt misogynistic cultural amplification of testosterone-drunk wish-thinking. As a man, I’m also not going to pretend that I can’t imagine where that impulse comes from. If you take that last sentence as a justification, you don’t understand me and should probably stop reading now.

*Much of what follows was influenced by a 4-participant, 5-article throwdown in the “Feminist Forum” feature on the intersection of feminism and Darwinism in a 2008 issue of Sex Roles…  a peer-reviewed, openly feminist leaning journal. The journal is offering free and direct access through December 31, 2010. Rebecca Hannagan wrote the target article which was reponded to by feminists Laurett Liesen, Griet Vandermassen, and Celeste Condit. Hannagan also provides a follow-up on the others’ comments.

“Ignorant” Evolutionary Psychology vs. “Ignorant” Feminism

And thus begins the typical impasse between evolutionary psychology and feminism. Feminists charge evolutionary psychologists with indiscriminate justification of evil, and evolutionary psychologists accuse feminists of misunderstanding that the “job of scientists is to find out how things work, to try to be evenhanded with the evidence, and to present their findings…” (Vandermassen 2008). The project of science is understanding. The project of evolutionary psychology is understanding psychology in the context of evolution. Beware anyone who conflates understanding with justification.

“Evolutionary psychologists’ continued ignorance of feminism and their ongoing failure to recognize the vast contributions by feminist evolutionists is at worst the continuation of male bias, and at best scholarly negligence.” (Liesen 2008)

“[P]reviously considered an “archaic debate” [, genetic determinism], turned out to be a real concern still in the minds of many feminists. As Jonathan Waage and Patricia Gowaty (1997) write in their conclusion, “[t]erminology, politics, and ignorance are, inretrospect, major barriers to the dialectic of feminism and evolutionary biology” (p. 585).” (Vandermassen 2008)

Darwin: More Feminist than the Feminists

Darwin’s world-view was certainly steeped in a world of Victorian ideals. As such, he tended to ethnocentrize, anthropomorphize, and Victorianify a bit too frequently. However, behind the now anachronistic veneer, his wisdom was potent.

“Darwin also attributed a more important evolutionary role to females than did most evolutionists for nearly a century after him: female choice in sexual selection. Since females bear the greater parental investment through pregnancy and lactation, they have more to gain from being highly selective about with whom to mate than do males. As a result, certain traits are selected for in males if, over time, females choose to mate with the males that bear those traits more than those who do not.” (Hannagan 2008)

That first sentence could have also read, “Darwin also attributed a more important evolutionary role to females than did most feminists for nearly a century after him.” In the concept of sexual selection, we have a solid foundation from which to sweep away all attempts to legitimize gendered patriarchy. In the concept of sexual selection, we have a power structure that, excepting violence, is nearly irrefutable for men. Across the millions of species of the animal kingdom, females exercise ultimate say in selecting with whom to reproduce. The whims of females have given us everything from the peacocks’ tail (Darwin 1972) to the bowerbirds fantastic nests and 12 foot antlers of the Irish elk (Coyne 2009) to our very creativity and intelligence (Miller 2001). Sexual selection is almost universally ignored, and when it is considered, is often misunderstood as a patriarchal mechanism for herding women. Competition between men acts as a fitness cue that aids women in selecting mates (intrasexual sexual selection). Direct displays by men to women also act as fitness cues to aid women in selecting mates (intersexual sexual selection). This isn’t to say that dominance hierarchies don’t exist in various species, but it is necessary to question the assumption that intrasexual selection is a dominance hierarchy rather than a fitness cue. Intersexual selection is always the latter.

The positive implications of sexual selection for a Darwinian feminism are many. Yet ironically, and to the detriment of their program, postmodern feminism has attacked evolutionary biology after missing the point.

Another area that’s often ignored or assigned to the evils of patriarchy is competition between females. It would be naive to assume that sexual selection is unidirectional. It is true that females have the highest degree of choice, but men also gain reproductive advantage by choosing the “best” mate. Intrasexual female competition has serious negative consequences. Stereotypically female behaviors from fashion to makeup to anorexia have been attributed to competition between females (Li, et al. 2010). Interestingly, Li, et al also found this intrasexual competition functioning similarly in homosexual men. Activities motivated by intrasexual female competition have traditionally been prime targets for postmodern feminists to assign to patriarchal power structures. However, it seems that this may be a misguided confusion of intrasexual and intersexual competition.

Men and Women Are Different

That is not a claim or implication that a male brain or a female brain is better, it is a statement of fact. While – Top 5 target of anti-evolutionary psychology deniers – Steven Pinker had already convincingly refuted “blank slate” conflagrations in his 2001 book, “The Blank Slate” (linked below), neuroscience has since been demonstrating differences via fMRI and other brain studies. Sexual dimorphism (differences) in brain development have been observed to be directly influenced by differences in XX vs. XY chromosome factors (that is at the genetic, pre-hormonal level), and by gonadal hormone differences (e.g. testosterone) (Arnold 2004).

“Genes that are found on the sex chromosomes influence sexually dimorphic brain development both by causing sex differences in gonadal secretions and by acting in brain cells themselves to differentiate XX and XY brains. Because it is easier to manipulate hormone levels than the expression of sex chromosome genes, the effects of hormones have been studied much more extensively, and are much better understood, than the direct actions in the brain of sex chromosome genes. Although the differentiating effects of gonadal secretions seem to be dominant, the theories and findings discussed above support the idea that sex differences in neural expression of X and Y genes significantly contribute to sex differences in brain functions and disease.” (Arnold 2004) [emphasis mine]

“Many neurological and psychological diseases vary in incidence or severity between the sexes. Some of these diseases are known to involve X-linked genes. The vulnerability of males to mutations of X-linked genes is an obvious source of sex differences in diseases. However, more subtle variation of the same loci probably accounts for some of the differences in psychological and neural function among populations of males and females.Recent improvements in methods to manipulate and measure gene action will lead to further insights on the role of X and Y genes in brain gender.” (Arnold 2004)

Recent theoretical developments in neuronal plasticity have given the postmodern feminists and other blank-slaters a new angle to make us all the same. Some now claim that the overarching and nefarious social construct causes brains to physically develop gender identities based on patriarchal domination by way of language faculty alteration (Kaiser, et al. 2009). That’s right folks, males are so crafty that we’ve figured out how to physically alter the neuronal structure of women’s minds to do our bidding as hapless automatons. To say that gender bias goes deep is apparently an understatement of mind-bending proportions. Curiously, all such studies seem to recognize, or ignore, sex differences in the brains of all other animal species, but resort to neck-down Darwinism when considering humans. Again, the postmodern feminist position parallels that of religion in its insistence that evil forces corrupt us on unseen levels, and by excluding the human brain as the one thing Darwinian considerations can’t mustn’t be applied to.

Years after Pinker’s work, Hannagan is still comfortable enough about sex differences to say: “Broad personality constructs, such as neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, are heritable and there are small but consistent differences between men and women on two of the big five personality constructs—extraversion and agreeableness.” (Hannagan 2008b) [emphasis mine]

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding physical (brain included) and psychological differences.

Against the Caveman Mystique

It’s hard for me to imagine the caveman stereotype existing without the logically flawed, but evolutionarily advantageous, human cognitive availability bias (or heuristic). In short, since we find evidence of humans in many caves, but not out in the open, we tend to assume humans were more often inhabiting caves than out in the open. The art and human remains found in caves are not found there because a majority of our ancestors were “cavemen”. They are found there because caves offer protective value for preservation, and because caves are geographically obvious places to look. Thus, the probability we’ll look in caves multiplied by the probability of evidence being preserved in caves skews cave evidence to secure an artificially elevated place in our consciousness. It’s also the case that human remains are dragged to caves by whatever ate them, or humans died in caves by becoming trapped. All of this is further multiplied by the caveman narrative in culture… it’s easy to picture, and therefore remember, and therefore spreads.

The following excerpt is from a review of the apparently poorly received book, ‘The Caveman Mystique‘ by Martha McCaughey. While it’s directed at the McCaughey’s view of the caveman stereotype, I suggest that it should also be tested against feminist theory.

Perhaps the most curious omission in the book is any discussion of the evolutionary psychological view of the human female. We are repeatedly told the dubious notion that the evolutionary view of the male is that of the stereotypical caveman who drags women off by the hair for sex. But what is the corresponding picture of the female? Evidently McCaughey doesn’t think this is informative. If men are interested in having sex with as many women as possible, what does this say about women? It is a fact of simple arithmetic that the average number of sexual partners must be identical for males and females (assuming a 50-50 sex ratio). So if men have X female partners on average, the average woman must also have X male partners. What does this logic imply about the female side of mating? (McBurney 2009)

Hunter-Gatherers: Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism

The hunter-gatherer stereotype often does no better than the caveman tripe. Rather than the overt “masculinity” of clubbing all women of one’s choosing, it’s replaced by the overt “masculinity” of killing a wily beast and the implied “masculine” domination associated with bestowing such a gift upon the rest of the band. Unfortunately, the “Man the Hunter” hypothesis that was forwarded to explain human cognitive development has been considered inaccurate almost consistently since the 1970s (Hannagan 2008).

In discussing sexual selection above, I argued that there is a fundamental refutation of patriarchy inherent in the Darwinian framework. That itself should sound the death knell for any attempts at misogyny or gendered political dominance. However, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer existence takes that a step further. It is likely that the prevailing form of social arrangement for the bulk of human evolution was social anarchism in the context of small hunter-gatherer bands. It is important not to assume contemporary stereotypes of socialism and anarchy here.

As found by anthropological studies of recent hunter-gatherer bands, hunter-gatherer bands exhibit high levels of communitarian and cooperative behaviors combined with an often explicit rejection of hierarchy. To observe this clearly, we also need to make a distinction between immediate-return hunter-gatherers and delayed-return hunter-gatherers. The immediate vs. delayed distinction refers initially to the timeframe in which they consume hunted and gathered food. With immediate-return bands, we see daily consumption of most food, little storage, and a tendency to an almost perpetually nomadic existence. Delayed-return hunter-gatherer bands tend to differ in that they are geographically isolated, or have borders imposed upon them by surrounding populations . In this transitional stage between ancestral hunter-gatherer existence and agriculture, we see more evidence of hierarchy, despite a lack of private property relative to modern agrarian cultures (Gray 2009).

Overall, we see a general lack of ownership or conceptions of private-property within hunter-gatherer social arrangements. The division of labor is an economic strategy that benefits both individuals and the group. Value is not necessarily assigned a priori to male or female, or to hunter or gatherer.

In some examples, anthropologists have noted a significant degree of male group control over “marriages”. This is often imposed not by potential suitors, but by the male family members of the woman. This is misleading as it’s often an ethnocentric assignment of our notions of monogamy on cultures which don’t necessarily share the same sexual norms. Even in societies with supposed marriages, females exercise a high degree of mate choice when it comes to actual reproduction:

“Having high status as a good hunter has been shown to raise a man’s reproductive success everywhere the relationship has been investigated, one of the pathways being that it gains him sexual access to more and higher quality women, whether officially or in extra-marital affairs.” (Vandermassen 2008) [emphasis mine]

At first glance, this would seem to refute my comment a couple paragraphs back about non-assignment of value to the hunter role. However, it merely reinforces my qualification that such value is not assigned a priori. Hunters, as a category, do not automatically benefit. Hunters who excel are assigned a higher fitness value and therefore tend to be selected by females to father offspring. This does however, refute the claim that arranged marriages act as true control over women’s reproduction.

Autonomy

In another word, freedom. Why is every sovereign individual (by that I mean every individual) in the 21st century born not as a human, but as a proprietary asset on the balance sheet of a nation-state? Why do all agricultural societies suffer from drastically diminished levels of freedom? Why do geographically and otherwise isolated delayed-return hunter-gatherer bands tend toward political hierarchy while their immediate-return analogues do not? The atomization of individuals within the supra-organism of culture has been elevated over the autonomy our ancestors were born with, but why?

For 99%+ of human evolution, every able-bodied human has had the option of leaving oppressive regimes. Every individual had the choice to opt out of social games stacked against them. The fact of human migration across the totality of earth is proof that this strategy was employed many times. However, it would have happened more rapidly if remaining in a group was not generally more advantageous for each individual. The ability to round up a group of like-minded individuals to leave was somewhat balanced by the group’s recognition of a general strength in numbers. Call it the invisible hand of exploration, or call it migration, but it acted as a perpetual check on all forms of unwelcome domination. Their complete lack of the geographical and legal boundaries we’re faced with today allowed an entirely different paradigm for human social interaction. This concept is not new. The right to cross all borders to leave oppression is legitimized in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, it is ignored by every country on earth for reasons beyond the scope of this piece. Further, the concept loses its actual value when there is no more frontier, but only trading one domination hierarchy for the flag of another.

The temptation to form in-groups and out-groups along lines of gender, ethnicity, education, running skills, or other coin flips is a curse of a stone age brain in an information age world. Yielding to such temptations will invariably lead to error. The unbearable lightness of paranoia that accompanies postmodernist cynicism is a direct path to your own distracted energy. You’re all formally invited to ditch the postmodern feminist doomsday machine for a refreshing trip to the history of the Galapagos…

Hey! I finished in under 4,000 words! Is this the part where I get called a misogynist then burned at the altar of Margaret Mead, or… perhaps you have other thoughts? (If you have questions or comments that you think are too far off topic, you can also post ’em in the forum.)

References
Arnold, Arthur P. “Sex chromosomes and brain gender..” Nature reviews. Neuroscience 5, no. 9 (September 2004): 701-8.
Curry, Oliver. “Who’ s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?”. Evolutionary Psychology (2006): 234-247.
Gray, Peter. “Play as a Foundation for Hunter- Gatherer Social Existence s.” The American Journal of Play 1, no. 4 (2009): 476-522.
Hannagan, Rebecca J. “Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach.” Sex Roles 59, no. 7/8 (2008).
Hannagan, Rebecca J. “Genes, Brains and Gendered Behavior: Rethinking Power and Politics in Response to Condit, Liesen, and Vandermassen.” Sex Roles 59, no. 7-8 (September 2008): 504-511.
Kaiser, Anelis, Sven Haller, Sigrid Schmitz, and Cordula Nitsch. “On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research..” Brain research reviews 61, no. 2 (October 2009): 49-59.
Li, N. P., Smith, A. R., Griskevicius, V., Cason, M. J., & Bryan, A. (2010). Intrasexual competition and eating restriction in heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 365-372.
Liesen, Laurette T. “The Evolution of Gendered Political Behavior: Contributions from Feminist Evolutionists.” Sex Roles 59, no. 7-8 (July 2008): 476-481.
McBurney, Donald H. “REVIEW – The Caveman Mystique: Pop Darwinism and the Debates over Sex, Violence, and Science.” Sex Roles 62, no. 1-2 (June 2009): 138-140.
Trivers, R.L. . Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (1972) : 136-179. Chicago, IL: Aldine. ISBN 0-435-62157-2
Vandermassen, Griet. “Can Darwinian Feminism Save Female Autonomy and Leadership in Egalitarian Society?.” Sex Roles 59, no. 7-8 (August 2008): 482-491.
Waage, J., & Gowaty, P. (1997). Myths of genetic determinism. In P. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections, and frontiers (pp. 585–613). New York: Chapman & Hall.
Walter, Alex. “The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy : Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts.” Evolutionary Psychology, no. 1999 (2006): 33-48.
Wilson, David Sloan, Eric Dietrich, and Anne B Clark. “On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology.” Evolutionary Psychology (2003): 669-682.