"We get it. You think your opinions make you a sexy truth-teller. Congratulations. Now stop being a racist sexist asshole and study something useful to society."

*claps*

While I totally agree with your post and concern about this ridiculous article, I'm a little aggrivated with your depiction of and referral to psychology. I mean, Psychology Today is a magazine, not a well known, peer-reviewed, letgitimate journal. And while I agree that this article is completely bogus, both discriminatory and prejudice in nature and content, I don't agree with your assumption that it's because it's psych.

To me, this article could've easily been found in an edition of Cosmo.

With that being said, I do think that people with PhDs could spend their time researching something "useful to society". But that doesn't mean psychology isnt useful to society.

As a brunette [and Portuguese woman] I found the article ridiculous. And I would hope that anyone who read it would, too. But I can deifnitely see your concern as I'm sure many people would take Psychology Today as a reliable resource. I found the last section describing how sexual harassment/assault is not sexists to be incredibly "WTF?"-like.

I remember reading that article when it first came out and my jaw hit the floor. How the hell do they get away with publishing shite like this? I know Psychology Today isn't exactly an APA accredited scholarly journal, but people read this stuff and want to believe it. It's like an entire article to legitimize for a bunch of racist, sexist, heterosexual old dudes that what they like/believe is just "human nature".

I also hate that the term "politically incorrect" is like the new way to disguise racist/sexist/homophobic beliefs as okay.

The entire blonde/blue eyed thing always sounds like some Nazi eugenics. I love my dark brown hair and my brown eyes and they can shove it.

Nessa, would it make you feel better if I add that I kept psychology as a minor?

I second what Nessa said. Psychology Today is NOT psychology. It's a popular magazine and it quotes whatever researchers it feels like quoting, not necessarily well respected ones. It's more about who has a pop psych book that's controversial in some way, which usually means there's not much science behind it.

That was rather unfair and uninformed to connect the entire field of psych and that godawful magazine.

Mm... Yes Jen. After all, I wouldn't want you to be "politically incorrect" :)

Politically incorrect-ness is like the whole "no offense BUT... [insert extremely offensive comment]". It's awful what people do/say to remove guilt.

My point was mostly about how I felt initially when reading the post. Looking back, your post is important because most people are not psychology people, and therefore probably WOULD believe whatever they read in Psychology Today [and Cosmo for that matter]. This is a serious issue, as our society is relying on said news "sources" to inform and educate people.

I just wanted to defend the psychology name, haha. Your overall point is for sure right on-- this article is CRAZY.

I don't think it's fair to discredit pscyhology because of a stupid article in Psychology Today. As someone who will be receiving a BS in psychology very soon, I can't stand so much of the evolutionary psychology articles about what type of women men are usually attracted to, or "scientific" evidence that gives excuses for sexist behaviors. Fortunately, I go to a great university, and the psychology professors do not teach us in such a way as to support sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination (I'm sure most universities follow that as well). I think evolutionary psychology is very much in its infancy, but I think it runs the risk of being manipulated, which many psychologists did after Darwin's theory of evolution by trying to justify eugenics; it is definitely a dangerous study. And I agree with Nessa. It's just a magazine, not a peer-reviewed article, which requires much more research and evaluation of the research. Don't dismiss all of psychology because of this article. Their are so many PhDs doing great research within communities (and probably in your own communities) for things directly related to women, children, HIV/AIDS, the poor, post-partum depression, and ssooo much more.

Changing the subject a little, a 50-year old man who marries a 25-year old woman is having what I would call a mid-life crisis.

Two things:

First, I am not saying all psychology is sexist racist crap. Which should be obvious.

Second, a lot of people do use psychology, and a lot of sciences to support sexist racist crap. That's the point here. Sheesh.

"Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist"

Ah okay, I got it: They do it, because they are so full of love, they can't help but share it with us.
Gimme a break already!

Can't believe that this pile of whatnot was published in such a reliable paper. Is it April's Fools yet?

Mention “politically incorrect truths� and I will almost always hold you suspect. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. It’s almost always a way of saying, “you won’t like what you read and any arguments against me are moot, not because I can back up my claims, but because you’re being politically correct.�

Yep. This is one of the primary reasons I have a mental killfile.

That's a disturbing article.

I think PERHAPS, not positive, but perhaps men AND women are more attracted to symmetry (perhaps indicators of health/fertility?) but this is regardless of hair, eye and skin color, and body type. (Read Survival of the Prettiest: I don't know if i agree with everything in the book, but it certainly is interesting.) Anyone can be attracted to anyone. And I LOVE the hints that men are more attractive to women because of status while men are JUST attracted to physical appearance. I could honestly give a SHIT about what car a guy owns or how much money he makes. its offensive to me that someone would assume I, and every women, care ONLY about status and money. psh.

This whole article is ridiculous, especially about the midlife crisis thing. pissed me off. hmm.. did they say ANYTHING about a women's reason or supposed reason for a midlife crisis? didn't think so.

The scary thing is that this is not just an article in a magazine, but a published book by researchers in the field of social and evolutionary psychology. I think it is alright to call out the two people in the psych. community who wrote this book and the publisher for allowing this sexist/racist/heternormativetripe to be put on the market.

Book link here: http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399533656

Being olive skinned, seriously dark dark brunette, and juuust able to fill a B-cup, if any man I'm around prioritizes blonde, giant breasted, blue-eyed women over every other permutation of shape, size, and color that women come in (not to mention that they did not include any other qualities that may be attractive, i.e. intelligence, fields of interest, hobbies, talents, etc., etc.), then chances are he's incredibly unattractive to me. So, I guess it's a win-win.

In my experience, the phrase "politically correct" (and for that matter "politically incorrect") is never used by people who think "political correctness" is a good thing, but rather by people who want a bogeyman comparison to use to justify their disrespect of others.

I agree with Nessa, and I also got the gist of what Jen was talking about, even though I was like, "It's Psychology Today. No professional takes that rag seriously." It's kind of weird that a lot of people don't consider psychology a science, but when pychological and social experiments are used to confirm racist or sexist opinions, suddenly psychology is believable after all! I think psychology is a very influential science, and it sucks when people like those of Psychology Today use it irresponsibly.

I found the time to tear this article a new one back in September. Evolutionary psychology -- even if it's just published in a bunk magazine like this -- is just believable enough for the mainstream that it has some serious damage potential for most feminists who are social constructionists. If you're into reading a feminist, woman-friendly, anti-evo-psych writer, you should check out Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography -- she gets into hormones and how even those aren't evolutionarily controlled, among other things.

Credentials, FYI:
Dr Kanazawa is an instructor in management at the London School of Economics. [He] received his MA in sociology from the University of Washington (1987) and Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Arizona (1994). He has previously taught at Cornell University and the University of Illinois - Urbana. Prior to joining the LSE in 2003, he was Postdoctoral Fellow in evolutionary psychology at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand.

I believe Alan Miller was at the University of Hokkaido, in the department of behavioral sciences. I'm not sure where he is now.

Both have published shitty articles on evolutionary psychology in refereed journals (I like: Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved?
Author(s): Miller AS, Stark R
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 107 (6): 1399-1423 MAY 2002, which attempts to explain why women are more religious than men-- hint, it involves testosterone).

My point is, there are people that do really bogus, sexist, racist "science" and it is accepted by some corners of the scientific community. That's not a condemnation of all scientists or all psychologists. However, blowing this off because it was in "Psychology Today" misses the point.

Here's the link for my reference to Dr. Kanazawa: ahref="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/people/kanazawa.htm

Also, another think I've noted, when people put "Ph. D." after their names, their often about to say something they can't back up. The people I know with doctorates never use that label, even when publishing.

And yet somehow, defying all the forces of natural selection, my family's dark-haired, small-breasted, dark-eyed genes have not only not been bred out, but have lasted down generations and generations. Amazing.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19242

its a pdf of Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved?

Ive read the first few pages. no comment.

and i will check out that author you mentioned, laceyfish. Thanks:)

Hi. I testify as a (formerly) conventionally attractive, C-cupped, blue-eyed blonde, (who recently died her hair brown), who also has a degree in psychology: kernel of truth.

What the "researchers" forgot to point out is that while men are sexually attracted to blonde, blue-eyed women, they are largely unable to see them as anything BUT sex objects with whom they would like to copulate. Actual relationships are to be had with brunettes, which is why the world tends to be, I don't know, 80% brunet?

(The above is said with a fair bit of snark; I dyed my hair brown last month after a lifetime of blonde, and have been startled with the change: my intelligence not underestimated as much by either women or men, finding much easier acceptance with women of all ages, and a better quality of guy all around - but I'm the same damn person. Our cultural stereotypes about blondes are endlessly infuriating to me, both in the fetishization from men, and the resulting hatred targeted towards us from women.)

Not all men are attracted to that aesthetic. In fact, the mysterious brunette is fetishized as well, especially in countries where most people are naturally blonde. Granted, big boobs seem to be demanded by society as a whole (along with blondeness and blue-eyed...ness), but individual men aren't all attracted to that. Just like individual women aren't all attracted to money and status. Sure, some women are, but individual women (and men) vary as much in their preferences as they do in their shapes, sizes, and colors.

I decided to go ahead and read the linked article. Wow! What a truly asinine piece of writing. I knew from the post that it would be bad, but I was stunned at just how bad. Did they even proof-read their own article. If they're going to write bullshit, at least make it consistent. "Truth" 2 (Humans are naturally polygamous) and "Truth" 3 (Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy) contradict each other. Their reasoning on those two truths, as well as the other eight, are astounding stupid.

At one point I thought the article had to be a satire the BS was that great, but given the magazine that it was published in, the authors probably are serious. Having studied evolution of human sexuality as part of my major, I can confidently say that the authors are idiots.

Speaking as an evolutionary social psychologist in academia...

I think popular press articles such as this one really hurt the ev psych cause, and do not represent the opinions of most evolutionary psychologists.

There are little kernels of truth in that article (in my opinion). For example, I *DO* think the Trivers-Willard hypothesis is an important and interesting proposal worth investigating, and that there are evolved mechanisms for evaluating attractiveness (e.g., preferences for symmetry, shifts in women's preferences for mates across the ovulatory cycle) and other critical evolved systems (e.g., disgust mechanisms for avoiding contagions, etc.).

This article, however, is meant to be intentionally inflammatory and highlight the authors own pet hypotheses, many of which are either highly questionable or presented in a purposely offensive way. I do think it is a serious problem that the popular media likes to pick up the articles that most strongly reinforce gender dichotomies or assign evolutionary explanations to phenomenon that are completely or largely socially constructed.

But, in my opinion, evolutionary psychologists do a lot of important work in areas ranging from relationships to health to understanding psychological disorders like schizophrenia to understanding conflicts between groups to reducing crime, and more generally understanding how intelligence and the capacity for culture evolved.

http://www.bec.ucla.edu/BECSpeakerSeries.htm

http://www.ehbonline.org/issues/contents

::::Sorry, just had to step in and comment on that - I'm banishing myself back to lurker mode until I pass my preliminary orals. But hi everybody! Hope you are all doing well:::

Rachel,
As a natural brown haired girl I'm still incredibly jealous that you're blonde. I'm over the phase where I'd dislike you for it though. *sigh*

"Mention “politically incorrect truths� and I will almost always hold you suspect. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. It’s almost always a way of saying, “you won’t like what you read and any arguments against me are moot, not because I can back up my claims, but because you’re being politically correct.�

fucking seriously.

UCLA, I honestly thought you'd be here much sooner! ;o) But the exams explain it. Good luck!

You know you're in for a treat when they try to convince you that blond hair- something that less than 2% of the population of the planet has, and that, in ancient times, most of the planet wouldn't have even had a concept of- is an evolutionary advantage that most men would prefer over other hair colors. The justification, that it shows "dramtic" color change as you age? Seriously?

Suuure...

Sorry, this is WAAAAY long but here is the letter I wrote to that piece of tripe magazine in response to this article.

For a site that claims to be “here to help� I fail to see any helpful information in your recent article “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature�. In fact, as an anthropology PhD very well versed in evolutionary psychology I feel compelled to correct their misperceptions about human evolution lest anyone attempt to apply this misinformation in a clinical setting.

There are two issues with this article: first, the accuracy of the authors’ arguments and second, the modern value of evolutionary perspectives.

Certainly we evolved under a specific series of circumstances that shaped the ways that our bodies and brains function. Our shared central nervous system can explain a wide variety of human universals. In fact I would agree with some of the authors’ first point that men prefer women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. Beyond that I would suggest that every other argument made in this article is a dramatic misinterpretation of evolutionary human capacities.

For example, their suggestion that men prefer blonds because of some evolved youth detection system is laughable at best. Their central support for this argument seems to be that women in places not exposed to western media still want to dye their hair blond. Why would exposure to western media be the only reason women might want blond hair? For example, one of their supporting arguments is that women in 15th century Italy dyed their hair blond. Do the authors imagine that 15th century Italy was free of cultural beauty conventions simply because they did not have TV? Perhaps they missed the high-school class on the Renaissance. Clearly they do not know that Italy was the dye center of Europe during the Renaissance (all forms of dye including hair and clothing) and so it makes perfect sense that wealthy women would mark their access all kinds of dyes by altering their appearance, thus dyeing their majority brunette hair an unusual color. Before using historical information to support an argument, the authors would do well to research their claims.

As to the claim that humans are naturally polygamous, I would counter that humans are naturally flexible in their family structures. I am not exactly sure what the authors mean when they say polygamy is “natural� because there is no one family structure shared by all humans. It is very likely that in the earliest days of hominid evolution our non-homo sapien ancestors were polygamous, but when homo sapiens evolved, the ways in which men and women related was certainly contingent on a complex set of environmental, cultural, and social particulars. In many places polygyny is indeed practiced, in some places polyandry, pedophilia is also rather common around the world, as is monogamy. Suggesting that some vestigial trait of human physiology means something is “natural� is to misunderstand the way that human cultural capacities have evolved.

Incidentally, the authors refer to human “ancestors� during medieval times. I would like to point out that our “ancestors� evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Humans during medieval times were homo sapiens exactly like us – virtually no evolution has taken place in our species in the last thousand years and to make an evolutionary argument based on medieval times is scientifically laughable.

The argument relating sex competition and Muslim suicide bombers would carry perhaps an iota of weight if they presented any compelling support for the assertion that the vast majority of Muslim men are in fact excluded from reproductive opportunities. In fact, to conflate intra-cultural violence that arises during mate competition with suicide bombing displays a total lack of knowledge about the actual types of violence that occur in societies where there is mate competition. This mate competition violence occurs between men of the same cultural group and is very often ritualized so no serious harm is done (though there are a few exceptions to this). How suicide bombing resembles this type of violence is beyond my comprehension.

At the same time, any cursory research into actual the history of suicide bombing as a very specific cultural act could have prevented this facile association. Suicide bombing has a very specific history. Virtually every suicide attack is conducted with the same strategic goal – the forced withdrawal of an occupying force from a disputed territory.

Incidentally, it makes logical physiological sense that younger, healthier women would have more daughters and in fact the biological mechanism of this phenomena is well understood. Younger, healthier women tend to have longer follicular phases during their monthly menstrual cycle. They also tend to have healthier reproductive systems allowing fertilized eggs to travel more quickly to the uterus. Both a longer follicular phase and a shorter time between fertilization and implantation favor female offspring. Thus, younger, healthier women are slightly more likely to have daughters – this is not related to “beauty� in any way beyond a questionable association of beauty with youth.

Their suggestion that the early adulthood peak of male aggression, creativity, and general productivity is related to competition for females would also hold some water if women didn’t also have the exact same early adulthood peak. Every function of the human body peaks in the 20s and 30s. Brain function is at its highest levels, muscle tone, strength, agility, stamina, and every other measure of human capability peak and then decline as a person ages. Women are also much more likely to compose symphonies, play in rock bands, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, author books, and write new computer software in their 20s and 30s. The fact that the authors entirely ignore that this is a human trait, not just a male trait, suggests to me that they had some ulterior motive in their willful ignorance of the basic facts surrounding their argument.

The mid-life crisis and affair argument presented by the authors similarly ignores the basic facts surrounding mate selection pressures and social power. Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, a fact that does not fit in with the authors’ assertion that it is only men who might seek a new sexual partner later in life. Instead, married men are emotionally, financially, and physically better off than their single counterparts and so, evolutionarily, it would actually make more sense for men to cling to their stable mate partnership. Similarly, powerful people of high status of either gender are more likely to have a risky affair than those lacking social power.
The last point of this article is the most disturbing. First of all, the study showing that women would not have sex with a stranger in no way represents “desire to have casual sex�. Instead it more likely represents the different physical realities of sex for women. If the authors wanted to make a evolutionary argument, I would suggest that the evidence supports the notion that women are generally less willing to have sex with a stranger because the possible repercussions for women is much greater than for men. When pregnancy is a possible negative outcome women are less likely to be willing to risk casual sex. This in no way comments on desire and I have yet to hear compelling evidence that women want sex significantly less than men.

Secondly, to claim that men abusing and harassing women is a form of “equal treatment� ignores very real differences in social power as well as the way that sexual harassment applies a very specific set of gendered symbols to abuse women. I fervently hope that these authors are never allowed to treat a women who has been sexually harassed because they clearly have no grasp on the ways in which sexual harassment significantly differs from other forms of abuse.

Seriously, the authors need to take an anthropology course to balance out whatever evolutionary psychology they think they know because most of what they argue in this article is clearly culturally constructed behavior viewed through the lens of a person who has only the most rudimentary grasp of evolutionary psychology and physiology.

Finally, I question to value of these kinds of blanket “�truth� statements without any contemporary social, ethical, or cultural context. The most powerful evolved psychological mechanism is our universal human capacity to form functioning societies with cultural rules. The actual rule systems vary widely between cultures and within cultures change dramatically over time. Despite these variations, these cultural systems are the foundations upon which we construct our own moral, ethical and social values that govern our behavior. Whenever I hear an argument suggesting that “instinct� or “human nature� is to blame for bad behavior, I turn to my knowledge of world cultures. In observing the incredible variety of social systems, I conclude that the only true human universal is that we are cultural animals and that cultural values are the most powerful influence on our behavior. Any argument to the contrary simply sounds to me like someone wanting to explain away their own racist, sexist bad behavior.

Over the last couple of years, I've started to notice that in pretty much every article like this, there's always some point at which the writer lets something slip that reveals a whole other level of skeezyness:

"Men can cognitively understand that many blond women with firm, large breasts are not actually 15 years old, but they still find them attractive because their evolved psychological mechanisms are fooled by modern inventions that did not exist in the ancestral environment."

(emphasis added)

the_becca, that part made my stomach flip over.

"Since a man's mate value is largely determined by his wealth, status, and power—whereas a woman's is largely determined by her youth and physical attractiveness—the father has to make sure that his son will inherit his wealth, status, and power, regardless of how much or how little of these resources he has. In contrast, there is relatively little that a father (or mother) can do to keep a daughter youthful or make her more physically attractive."

Everything I hear about evolutionary psych is terrible. I feel like in most cases, evolutionary psych is code for "explaining why men get to have more sex and be assholes and are better." As UCLA pointed out, there are probably some people in evo psych who aren't working under these assumptions, but a lot of the things they attempt to explain could be better explained by theories about gender socialization and less by biology. I also love how he cites the random stranger study about asking people in a coffee shop for sex, without mentioning that maybe women have more fears about rape/distrust/being hurt, by a physically large, strange male, than a male might have about a physically smaller female.

kmp and the_becca, I almost missed that! This guy is a skeeze.

Thanks so much for the link. I read the original article awhile ago (I'm not sure from where; I never read the mag), and it just pissed me off that these ideas were being legitimized by being attached to a scientific field.

political correctness: http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/61030.html

being attracted to white girls:
http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/76671.html

Since a man's mate value is largely determined by his wealth, status, and power—whereas a woman's is largely determined by her youth and physical attractiveness—the father has to make sure that his son will inherit his wealth, status, and power, regardless of how much or how little of these resources he has.

Which is why no cultures have ever developed the concept of dowries. Oh, wait. They have.

I wouldn't be surprised if Psychology Today has an affiliation with the religious right. The lies that they spread in Psychology Today makes psychology look bad. This is just one more medical field that is filled with quacks. Lovely.

With all of that said, I agree with Jen. All of us can be assholes at times. But the absolute worst thing that someone can do is justify it by writing about it.

Evolutionary psychology can be used to explain a lot of things it probably shouldn't be used to explain.

It also can attempt to explain useful things, like why people are so afraid of terrorist attacks and not cars when they are far more likely to die in a car accident. So to those people saying "Evolutionary psychology only exists to further sexism," well, no, it doesn't, but science can be warped. Look around, there are many non-sexist evo psych studies.

Unfortunately, any scientific study involving humans is going to be incredibly flawed because we can't ethically set up the kind of controls we would need to actually determine this sort of thing. Basically to do this study for real you would have to take over a hundred newborn boys from all over the world, raise them in an identical environment with no external societal or historical influences, and then at adulthood, test them. Knowing this, I never fully trust this kind of study. The standard error is way too high.

Wow. Pulling all that out of his ass must have hurt.

Second, a lot of people do use psychology, and a lot of sciences to support sexist racist crap. That's the point here. Sheesh.

Glad to see some other defenders of Psychology in here, and I echo most of their points. Additionally:

1. Science is a process. Ideas are put forth, debated and (hopefully) over time better ideas come forth. Evolutionary psychologists are predisposed to see everything in terms of evolutionary adaptive biology.In response to a piece like this (or perhaps a better one), cultural psychologists and social psychologists and feminists will weigh in and debate the ideas presented. In the end, the truth (or as close as we ever get to it is probably somewhere in the middle. One person's take is not a statement of the entire field.

2. Evolutionary psychology is not about justifying patriarchy and men's "bad behavior". Evolutionary psychology is about understanding the biology that evolved to cope with life when we were eating twigs and wearing animal skins. Most of that biology is still with us, so understanding it can help us address it when it is maladaptive to life in the modern world and perpetuating ideas and behavior that our modern culture rejects.

3. Often the media presents this work in ways that seem to justify or defend men's "bad behavior". Add this to the long list of complaints about the media and how they perpetuate inequality.

4. Anyone who cites this sort of research as justification for inequality or "bad behavior" is an idiot. We don't live in trees anymore, and shouldn't behave like it. Call the idiots on it, the research is not(usually) the villian.

*facepalm* Naturalistic fallacy, anyone? There is so much bullshit flying from every side about this, it pretty much captures the suckitude of the state of popular discourse on evolution. So look, the reason this article is so offensive is because it is engaging in the naturalistic fallacy. For those who haven't brushed up on their Hume lately, the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise known as is=ought conflation, occurs when someone argues that just because something is a particular way (factual statement) that is the way it ought to be (normative statement). This, of course, is bullshit. If tomorrow it is proven that all men are biologically predisposed to rape it wouldn't change the fact that rape is ethically unacceptable. I'm suspicious about the science behind this article and pissed that they don't feel the need to cite anyone or anything to back up their claims, but ultimately the problem is that they are blurring the line between what people do and what they ought to do in an entirely fallacious way. They've taken some of the themes that a lot of terrific scholars (e.g. Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley) have gone to great lengths to discuss and produced something absurd which totally demeans the legitimate work on evolution and human behavior. They insult us all by grossly over-simplifying the nature of sexual attraction, love, and mating. For shame.

That being said, Kevin's response is also poorly reasoned. First, if by human nature he means "behaviors that are so ingrained humans can't chose to do otherwise and are therefore not morally culpable for" then he is probably right that it is a myth. However, what I think he and everyone else means is "behaviors that humans are predisposed towards by virtue of being human" then his skepticism about the existence of human nature is kind of silly. Every other animal on the planet has instincts, why would we be any different? It isn't as if the acquisition of reason suddenly made us immune to natural selection. It just makes us able to resist our instincts in a way other animals can't, which brings me back to the naturalistic fallacy. Ultimately I think Kevin is engaging in a reverse naturalistic fallacy, i.e. ought=is reasoning. There seems to be a hidden premise in his article, something like "The concept of 'human nature' supports racist and sexist conclusions, therefore 'human nature' does not exist." I'm over simplifying, but I hope you see my point. The problem with both the original article and the response is the fallacious reasoning at the center of both. Kevin accepts the fallacy of the Psychology Today article and tries to refute it with his own. I think a stronger, fallacy free, response is to say that even if, for example, men universally find blondes more attractive that says absolutely nothing about the moral worth of blondes or non-blondes, or the right of all people to be treated with respect and love. Period.

We can argue all we want about the quality of these studies (probably poor) or the conclusion the authors draw (probably spurious). What no one should be doing is trying to make any sort of normative claim based on them. Everyone need to stop trying to derive normative ethics from facts about the universe and stop trying to derive facts about the universe from normative ethics.

I didn't say it "only" exists to further sexism...however almost every study that actually gets coverage, and every single mention of evo psych in my undergraduate psych courses has had to do with mate preference (aside from the section on "natural phobias" of snakes and heights) If an undergrad psych major doesn't learn about the good side of evo psych, how are everyday people going to know it's not all sexist bs?

Stephen D Moore, just out of curiosity, are you by any chance an anthropology or women's studies major? I'm women's studies major/anthro minor, and I find that both those fields may be superbly used to debunk crazy theories about human sexuality.

As a blonde with blue eyes and fairly large breasts I've always wanted to look like my cousin. She looks like Katherine Heigl(before Katherine went blonde), and she gets all the looks from guys when we're together. I believe everyone prefers symmetry of the face, but a lot of guys like exotic looking features. It's all in personal taste combined with personality IMO.

I also find it ironic that most of my friends(and myself) go for guys with dark hair and features. I love guys who look Italian. Any idea what the science behind that is?

Wow. Pulling all that out of his ass must have hurt.

Reposted and cosigned for sheer beauty! :-D

What a bunch of racist, sexist trollop.
Hey author, writing a pseudoscience article justifying why it's okay for old men to have sex with large-breasted 15-year-old white blonde girls just makes me think that you personally want to have sex with large-chested 15-year-old white blonde girls and you're looking for a reason to justify it. You can't just make up whatever bullshit excuses you imagined up, call it science, and make it morally/legally right.
Asshat.

Haha, I just thought of something. If men are attracted to 15 year old girls, or at least to women who look 15 years old, then wouldn't they be attracted to women who had a lot of pimples? Seems like that would be a good indicator of adolescence, much better than hair color or breast size.

"I believe everyone prefers symmetry of the face, but a lot of guys like exotic looking features."

By "exotic features" I am sure you are referring to those people without symmetrical faces? Let's not get into the racialized/racist overtones of such phrases.

Again with the stranger sex study. Yes, to FemiDancer's comments about being injured and to the earlier comments about the negative effects of sexual contact on women (pregnancy, more likely to recieve than spread disease, etc).

Another thing we often leave out is the inequity in positive effects. Men are much more likely to be satisfied by a random encounter than women. Our culture insists that men "get off" and (hetero) sex happened. Whether or not the woman involved has pleasure is not an automatic part of the equation. Of course, we evaluate more -- to make sure we actually reap some sexual pleasure from the encounter. It doesn't mean our desire is lower. It just means we are more likely to satisfy our own desire better than some stranger in a coffee shop.

the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise known as is=ought conflation, occurs when someone argues that just because something is a particular way (factual statement) that is the way it ought to be (normative statement). This, of course, is bullshit.

I somehow missed Hume as an undergrad . . . thanks for this! It gives me a bona fide philosophical reason to get all pissed off when ever someone says guys "naturally" this or girls "naturally" that.

Meaghan, the problem with human nature (as opposed to duck nature) is not that it may be sexist or racist. The problem is that the existence of culture makes it impossible to know what is "human nature." Of course there are pieces of human behavior that are all natural (eating, elimination, sneezing) but the way we do those things is culturally influenced. There is no vacuumn where we can ever get to true human nature because every human is raised in some sort of culture or society or another. Thus, the idea of deciphering human nature is inherently flawed.

"By "exotic features" I am sure you are referring to those people without symmetrical faces? Let's not get into the racialized/racist overtones of such phrases."

No. I was refering to darker skintones and features. I meant that attractiveness really isn't about whether someone is a blonde Swede or Italian with an Olive complexion. It's a the symmetry of the face that really determines attractiveness. This is why there are ugly and attractive people of all races and ethnicities.

By the way, the word "exotic" is generally meant positively. It's usually meant as the opposite of dull and common. I don't know of anyone who would be offended by being called an exotic Brazilian supermodel. It's only racist to those who are just looking for a confrontation.

It's only racist to those who are just looking for a confrontation.

Ava, I don't think it's fair for you to make that sort of generalization. "Exotic" as a concept has a long and tangled history, much of it tied up with European imperialism and racism. While you're right in noting that it's often used, in a pop culture sense, as a "positive" term, it's also objectifying and usually a form of "othering"--if "exotic" is not-normal, not-common, it's a form of marginalization to label someone that way.

Perhaps some people are interested in reclaiming the term, or making creative use of it in a positive sense . . . but I don't think you can argue it's neutral.

Fiz, I love the letter you wrote, bravo!

I'm working on the first issue of a new feminist oriented e-zine right now and was wondering if I could repost it, with proper credit to you of course. It does such a wonderful job countering each point in the article and I think it would be a wonderful thing for people to get to read alongside the original article.

I just know I'm going to regret this, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

*Without* taking any stand on *any* of the positions stated in the article, except to state that where there is any truth in it that truth has been over-extended and stripped of context, I want to point to something more insidious that goes to the root of why I often find myself on the other side of debates with Feministing's readers/authors, even though I agree with most of their ideals and goals.

Whether a conclusion is politically unacceptable has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. If you start from ideology, and that defines what is both "true" and "correct", and nothing that is not correct can be true regardless of real evidence or lack thereof, then pretty soon you have the sort of diconnect from reality that has made "Third Wave Feminism" into a fringe political movement, almost a self-parody.

There is good, solid, *meaningful* work being done in EvoPsych that holds the promise (especially in combination with equally groundbreaking work being done in Neuro-Cognitive Psychology) for making psychology a true "science of the mind". Along the way, it's exposing truths that upset our rationalizations. The same methods that show that homosexuality can be genetically influenced set boundaries on how *much* it is genetically influenced.

You cannot embrace science only when it agrees with your ideology. You cannot assert reason only when it agrees with your prejudices. You cannot point to science to debunk abstinence-education as a way of preventing early pregnancy and transmission of STD's, but turn your back on it when it tells you things you don't want to hear about why we sleep with who we do.

People rationalize their behaviour and their ideals. Sometimes in smooth continuity, sometimes with hypocrisy. Making ideological purity your goal only increases the level of hypocrisy and accelerates the disconnect from reality.

--Dave

Well I wasn't going to even give them a hit, and then I wasn't going to write a reply, and I certainly wasn't going to post it here -- but Fiz, you inspired me to share mine, though it is far inferior. Voila:

That article had so many holes I could strain my spaghetti through it.

I have just a few feedback questions. I expect answers for every one of them:

What do you make of natives of, say, Alaska, who have dark skin and hair, despite their cold climates and heavy clothing? Why didn't they evolve to be blond? If the blond, blue eyed characteristics are just to help men pick out women, why are there blond, blue eyed men? Are you aware that the pigment melanin determines the coloration of human skin, hair and eyes? Do you understand that it deflects sun damage, but that too much of it in regions of cloudy or mild weather (such as Scandinavia) negates the positive aspects of sun exposure, such as the production of bone-fortifying Vitamin D?

What about the class issues of racial and aesthetic preferences? What about the Aryan ideology of superior races – that didn't have to do with fecundity. Isn't it possible that people are, if anything, attracted to minority groups for the purpose of diversifying the gene pool, not because said minorities (read: blonds) have evolved to genetic superiority?

What about the drastic differences of beauty ideals throughout times and cultures? (Pale skin, tan skin, large foreheads, toned calves, tiny feet, plucked eye lashes, small breasts, big butts, long labia, pointed tongues, body hair, etc.?)

Why do you suppose women will only have sex if men trick them into it? Perhaps that's been your experience?

Do you realize that Barbie would not be able to stand up, let alone reproduce, were she a real woman? Doesn't this indicate that your "evolutionary theory" has backfired? Which do you think got it wrong: you or nature?

What exactly was this "study in Iran" and how was it funded and conducted it?

How can you discuss the pros and cons of polygamy and think to mention the "competitive pressures on men," and not address the obvious pressures on and disadvantages for women? Do you honestly believe that women's only concern is to secure a man to posses her? Have you any research for this beyond your own fantasies and the cultural constructs of patriarchal societies?

When you say "feminists," who are you talking about? Liberal feminists? Radical feminists? Marxist feminists? Individualist feminists? Post-structural, post-modern, or post-colonial feminists? Eco-feminists? Riot Grrl feminists? Sex-positive feminists? Conservative feminists?

Could part of the reason martyrdom has gained prominence in Islam be because it is based in resource-rich regions of perpetual turmoil, where death is so constant and allegiance is so critical that war strategy and coping mechanisms underwrite the lifestyle?

How can you talk about women declining sex in an article supposedly about evolution, and not mention the fact that women are discerning because they don't want to get stuck with an asshole's baby, not because they're frigid bitches who loath sex with handsome strangers?

If wealthy people have more sons and low class people have more daughters because of a correlation between genetics and resources, wouldn't the sex ratio in America be closer to 2 males to every 98 females, per the enormous class gap? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that families with sons are more likely to retain wealth, than to say that rich people have more sons? And remind me again how that is linked to evolution?

Why do you assume that divorce is only caused by a father abandoning the family? Do wives not leave? Don't couples get divorced after the kids are grown and out of the house? What about childless couples? Maybe maybe the divorce rate is lower because those couples are more financially stable, since you are so convinced that boys bring good fortune. Can't you come up with some awesome sexist stereotype about how men are inclined to stick around to guard the virtue of their daughter's fragile hymen?

Are you even aware that Paul McCartney is the most commercially successful musician in history, with 60 gold discs -- and a platinum record released this year. (Not long after the birth of his fifth child, by the way.) Perhaps you were confusing him with John Lennon, who hasn't had a hit in almost 30 years! Oh right, that's because he was shot dead three weeks after the release of his #1 album, Double Fantasy, which was inspired by his experiences as a father and husband.

So. Men have midlife crises not because they are aging, but because their wives are becoming infertile wastes of flesh? What of middle-aged bachelors, do they never have new cars or career changes? Are women the only ones who become infertile with age, or could their husbands also become wrinkly-faced, tired old limp dicks? Could the universal fear of death have anything to do with a desperate reach toward youth? What about men who approach their senior years gracefully in cultures that do not marginalize the elderly or exalt the possession of women as the ultimate status symbol?

If men are biologically justified in sexually harassing women because that is the "mating strategy" of their ancestors, are they also justified in raping them? Or beating them, or trading them for that matter? Are they justified in stealing from each other, forming vigilante mobs and sitting in their own shit because that's what cavemen would do? Are the husbands of these working women justified in coming into the office and cracking some skulls, because men are sooo programmed to be barbaric?

Since you're so excited about justifying sexist stereotypes, why didn't you go to any lengths to defend typically female habits that are so sneered at? Nature only makes excuses for American chauvinists?

If you can't give me a credible response to these simple questions, I suggest you change the name of the article from "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature" to "Ten Scientifically Incorrect Theories about Why White Heterosexual Men Can Do Whatever the Hell They Want."

@ Dave Rickey,

Have you even read our comments? People aren't upset because science has shown us disturbing truths. We are upset because this article is, for the most part, complete anti-science.

It presents fundamentally flawed theories as "facts" (Scandinavians are blond because winter coats hide their perky boobies). It cites virtually no sources. Not to mention it takes the position of justifying rather than explaining why men do "politically incorrect" things, such as harassing women and abandoning their children.

Furthermore, it is only interested in male behavior. Apparently females have never evolved except for the purpose of keeping up with male desires? THAT is sexist balogne.

When will people get it? Men are NOT "the original" human. We are all humans. I've never seen an article display ignorance of that better than this heap o' crap today.

"You cannot embrace science only when it agrees with your ideology. You cannot assert reason only when it agrees with your prejudices."

You're right, Dave, and I really appreciated your post. I guess you put your finger on an unidentifiable feeling in my gut I've felt while I've been a visitor to this site, but I have seen enough diversity of lifestyle and opinion to know that this is not some bastion of man-hating.

A tendency for people in general to be receptive to that which they are inclined to agree with, and to tune out that which they do not agree with, is hardly an unusual trait. I consider it being human. Perhaps someone would care to do a study on that.

In any case, as we have seen in this series of posts, First Amendment rights aside, there are certainly enough posters with the academic background or logical function to call things as they see fit. No matter how compelling a reason "how" we got to be the way we are, it does not dictate a "why" we cannot choose to be otherwise, is there?

Well, I had a few things to say, but between Fiz's letter (which would be better categorized as a refutation), Meaghan's comments (and thanks forever for introducing me to Hume's Guillotine), and maatnofret's quite brilliant reposte, there's not too much more to be added. I'll just toss in two comments:

- wow, am I glad I discovered this site. What a wonderful, articulate, well-informed group. Thanks to everybody for playing.

- I'll take my 46-year-old, brunette, brown-eyed, brilliant, funny wife over any 15-year-old in the world, regardless breast size or hair color. Pardon me while I go gargle my brain to clear away the most horrifying implication I've had hurled at me in many years. Blecch.

@lizadilly:

Yes, I have been reading the comments. Your rebuttal of the article right below my post, for example, is a good example of the *right* way to attack the arguments made in the article (which engages in the traditional pitfall of EvoPsych, the "Just So" reverse-engineering of isolated conclusions of questionable merit into absolute truths).

But the original post here, and the posting it points to, do not do that. They point out that the conclusions of the article are "Rascist, sexist, ablist, and heteronormative" and therefore as a matter of ideological neccessity *must* be untrue. The original posting dismisses psychology in general, several of the comments dismiss specifically EvoPsych.

--Dave

Ravenfire, you’re welcome to post my response, just attribute it to fiz.

Lizadilly, I thought that was a great response – I think asking legitimate questions in the fact of bad science is the most clear way to show the flaws in any argument.

Dave, hi, you are clearly not reading what people are saying. I don’t see anyone here suggesting that the original article “must be untrue� based on some ideologically simple response to “ real science�. That article was tripe, pure and simple. There was no genuine science there and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. This was sexism and racism dressed up as science.

Part of what I DO could be considered evolutionary psychology so I think I can comfortably say that I don’t dismiss it out of hand because of some misplaced “ideological purity� (whatever that means). However, I do evaluate “scientific� claims and when I see such claims being based on bad science I say so. If you prefer, I’m very happy to engage you in a discussion about the actual scientific merits of anything mentioned in the original article. Please read my response and let me know what “true science� I dismissed based on ideological reasons.

To simplify in case you still don’t quite understand what I’m saying – the women here initially rejected this article because it does not hold true for them, ergo, it cannot be a cogent and comprehensive explanation of “human nature�. Though not everyone here might have the background to refute this article point by point, it is possible to recognize crap when we see it.

Fiz and lizadilly, your longer comments detail exactly my problems with the article. I thought about going into such detail (and length) but decided to keep my first comment brief.

Andrea, my major is Archaeology & Palaeoanthropology, with a minor in Philosophy, which has included some feminist/gender studies. I agree with you that such disciplines are well placed to debunk crazy theories (based on Naturalist Fallacies, as Meaghan pointed out) about human sexuality.

Hello everyone. I'm Kevin, the author of the post quoted here. I want to thank everyone for a great discussion.

I also would like to address Meaghan's concerns about what I mean when I say "human nature is a myth."

I do indeed mean by human nature the idea of "behaviors that are so ingrained humans can't chose to do otherwise and are therefore not morally culpable for." Why? Because that is how I see the term being used most of the time. The PT article is a perfect example of this. I agree that it's silly to argue that humans are totally free from instinct. You'll notice that I left a footnote saying that I would further explain what I mean when I say I don't buy human nature arguments. That was me both thinking that a regular reader of my blog would raise the question you raised and me being too lazy to address it at the time.

And yeah, what Mirm said too.

Also, I have a hard time seeing myself arguing something along the lines of "even if, for example, men universally find blondes more attractive..." because it's so demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to give the argument the benefit of the doubt to say that if it were true it would be morally wrong because it simply is not true. My problem with the article is that it is promoting fucked up standards of beauty, relationships and mating (yeah, that 15-year old bit is TOO fucked up; and again, can I mention how heteronormative it all is?), and a bunch of other foul shit that is cultural (and obviously with it's own problems) as some universal, natural phenomenon, all backed up by science, when clearly it is not.Hello everyone. I'm Kevin, the author of the post quoted here. I want to thank everyone for a great discussion.

I also would like to address Meaghan's concerns about what I mean when I say "human nature is a myth."

I do indeed mean by human nature the idea of "behaviors that are so ingrained humans can't chose to do otherwise and are therefore not morally culpable for." Why? Because that is how I see the term being used most of the time. The PT article is a perfect example of this. I agree that it's silly to argue that humans are totally free from instinct. You'll notice that I left a footnote saying that I would further explain what I mean when I say I don't buy human nature arguments. That was me both thinking that a regular reader of my blog would raise the question you raised and me being too lazy to address it at the time.

And yeah, what Mirm said too.

Also, I have a hard time seeing myself arguing something along the lines of "even if, for example, men universally find blondes more attractive..." because it's so demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to give the argument the benefit of the doubt to say that if it were true it would be morally wrong because it simply is not true. My problem with the article is that it is promoting fucked up standards of beauty, relationships and mating (yeah, that 15-year old bit is TOO fucked up; and again, can I mention how heteronormative it all is?), and a bunch of other foul shit that is cultural (and obviously with it's own problems) as some universal, natural phenomenon, all backed up by science, when clearly it is not.

Stephen - Yay archaeology! Studying the evolution of societies has been essential to my understanding of the big picture in my gender studies classes. I think biological anthropology is fantastic as well. The best class I had for being able to counter the particular kind of crazy presented in this Psychology Today article was Human Variation. Utter deliciousness.

/end shameless plug for anthropology and gender studies/

Maybe along with the disclaimer that the article is politically incorrect they should have added it's logically incorrect also.

according to point number 2, all humans are polygamous. And according to point number 4 most suicide members are muslims because Islam allows polygamy!!! Doesn't that mean that all humans are naturally inclined towards becoming suicide bombers!!!
Maybe people who write such articles, should READ their OWN writing once before publishing them.

Not to defend a lot of the crap this article shovels, but I can take a crack at some of Lizadilly's questions:

What do you make of natives of, say, Alaska, who have dark skin and hair, despite their cold climates and heavy clothing? Why didn't they evolve to be blond? If the blond, blue eyed characteristics are just to help men pick out women, why are there blond, blue eyed men?

Evolution is a long complicated process, and just because two groups of people were in similar environments, we shouldn't assume they must independently evolve the same mechanisms for coping with the challenges of their environment. Further, I believe Alaska was settled later than Scandenavia, thus allowing less time for that mechanism to arise.

Isn't it possible that people are, if anything, attracted to minority groups for the purpose of diversifying the gene pool, not because said minorities (read: blonds) have evolved to genetic superiority?

Absolutely, that is another explanation, and there is research to show that under certain threatening environmental conditions, mate selection shifts to favor diversifying the gene pool. However, why is being blonde or blue eyed a desirable sort of minority? It would seem easy to come up with many examples of when minorities are not considered more attractive. That would seem to lead back to the question of what is it about being blonde and blue eyed that is attractive. His answers are speculative (advertises youth & attraction), but not without merit.

Do you realize that Barbie would not be able to stand up, let alone reproduce, were she a real woman? Doesn't this indicate that your "evolutionary theory" has backfired? Which do you think got it wrong: you or nature?

Evolutionary pressures do not specify what cup size they prefer, they just say "more". At some point, the mate attraction value gained from having "more" or "bigger" is outweighed by the detriment to basic functioning and survival. Thus this pressure is kept in check. Think of the peacock's tail. Is it outrageous and imperiling to survival? Yes. But it's mate attracting potential just outweighs this. Females may be attracted to males with even bigger tail feathers, but they would not survive long enough to reproduce.

While I find fault with the offensive presentation, there aren't as many "holes" in the details as you'd like to think.

I read (part of) the linked "Gender and religiousness" article (before I had to give up because it's my day off and I don't need this kind of stress).

Here's some of the stuff I gleaned and had to share:
1) The authors decided to study why men were less religious than women, rather than why women were more religious than men, which put the focus of the study on men. Well, I'm sure that's a new and unusual viewpoint for science. Studying men's behavior? What a concept!

2) The first theory/guess is that men aren't religious because they are the sex more inclined to taking risks, and being irreligious is risky behavior, because you are going to induce God's wrath.

Which, even I can recognize as bullshit, because I know for sure the athiest I'm dating doesn't view ignoring what he perceives to be a non-existent entity as all that risky.

Man, these guys are just dumb. It's like they're entirely incapable of seeing things from any perspective other than their own. Is empathy not part of human nature either? Who gave them advanced degrees?

question for those much more well-versed in the science than me:

I've read that a woman's hip to waist ratio has is something that tranlates through all cultures and minorites, I dont remember what the ratio is, 1.8?, but it held true for nearly all cultures and races that this was the overall most preferred ratio.

If this is true, couldnt it also be true that other physical traits such as height, body type, breast size, and others could have a most preferred type?

question for those much more well-versed in the science than me:

I've read that a woman's hip to waist ratio is something that tranlates through all cultures and minorites, I dont remember what the ratio is, 1.8?, but it held true for nearly all cultures and races that this was the overall most preferred ratio.

If this is true, couldnt it also be true that other physical traits such as height, body type, breast size, and others could have a most preferred type?

"2) The first theory/guess is that men aren't religious because they are the sex more inclined to taking risks, and being irreligious is risky behavior, because you are going to induce God's wrath."

"Which, even I can recognize as bullshit, because I know for sure the athiest I'm dating doesn't view ignoring what he perceives to be a non-existent entity as all that risky."

For one thing, that one person's experience is anecdotal. Otherwise, my wife would be proof that contrary to what scientists say, women are taller than men. My mother in-law-would be proof that women do not live longer than men, or that Japanese women do not have the longest lifespan of any people in the world.

Significant to that study, however, despite surveying hundreds or even tens of thousands of people around the world, researchers did not ask them why they were or were not religious, or anything to determine how likely they were to engage in "risky behavior," which was also not defined. So his reasoning is questionable.

In addition, you say the man you are dating is an atheist. According to the Catholic Church, for example, atheism or "voluntary doubt of faith" are grave sins, which if committed with the "full knowledge" and "deliberate consent of the sinner" could constitute a Mortal Sin, permanently removing one from God's grace, and condemning them to damnation in Hell. If an atheist (or non-Catholic) wanted to avoid going to Hell, according to the Catholic Church, they would need to confess and repent their sin.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Therefore, an atheist (or non-Catholic) could either become a practicing Catholic and die a practicing Catholic, or choose to ignore Catholic teachings and God entirely, in which case they would be free to think or behave as they wished, risky behavior or no.

"Man, these guys are just dumb. It's like they're entirely incapable of seeing things from any perspective other than their own."

Advancing one's career as an academic may involve exploring or promoting new ideas no matter how outlandish, if they feel they can be supported. For example, if not for very recent advances in psychology and psychiatry, women like Andrea Yates who methodically kill their children soon after a childbirth would simply be considered cold blooded murderers, not perceived as possibly experiencing mental illness and in need of assistance.

In a number of ways, the article is crap.

Purely formally, each point is make like that "XX at University ZZ wrote that most of men (women) prefer blah blah".

A single cite is a rather thin argument, as 1% of folks have serious mental problems and several percent is utterly dishonest, thus you can find a single article defending any claim you can imagine, ESPECIALLY

if the claim requires very little imagination.

Second part of the pattern is lack of any numbers, and no references to methodology of studies (sample sizes, geographical and social spectrum, etc.)

It is nice to have a non-sexist item, that most of suicide bombers are Muslim. Well, 20 years ago most suicide bombers were Hindu fighting Buddhists in Sri Lanka. 60-something years ago they were mostly Shintoists fighting Americans. Those things clearly change. Do people who commit mass killings in USA followed by suicides believe in 72 virgins?

Danandanica: I recall ratio 1.4 to 1.5, (cf. 1.4 on "Full Frontal Feminism" cover), and the point was that there were hardly any other consistent characteristics. [1.8 ratio, OMG! This was achieved ca. 100 years ago with a. very tights corsets at the waist, b. very generous padding at the hips (was it called bustle?).]

dananddanica - the ratio is .7 w to h or 1.4 h:w.

This ratio is found because it's one of the only physical characteristics that's consistently found attractive across known cultures (spanning different regions and times).
A couple of others are clear skin and healthy hair.

As an argument for evolutionary psychology it's a bit specious; it's generally considered attractive, but it's also omnipresent. Most women who've reached childbearing age will be close to this ratio, regardless of size or overall shape. So essentially the finding is that people who are attracted to adult women find adult women attractive.

But it highlights the overarching problem with a lot of "evolutionary psychology". A large portion of the "findings" are simply circular rationalizations; i.e. we found this effect, therefore this effect must be advantageous. It exists so it must be inevitable. The field often ignores the true theory behind evolution (the process by which species diversify) and instead starts with the candidean philosophy that we must live "in the best of all possible worlds".

That's not how real evolution works, so it's silly to assume that human behavior would work in such a manner. Fortunately, people in many other fields work to understand how human behaviors are shaped by our environment: Biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, sociologists, and psychologists to name a few.

People shouldn't hate all psychology because one branch of it makes claims that are impossible to test and some in the field rely on circular logic to make those claims.

But people should feel free to call out people so high on entitlement that they feel compelled to write books hailing their personal beliefs as inalienable truths that apply to all humanity.

It was kind of ignorant of you to chalk this up to the field of psychology, EVERY field can be sexist. So you can be involved in them and help change that or you can write them off.

There was a question: why would Europeans of the Atlantic coast evolve to have a very fair skin, and Arctic people did not?

I understand that the advantage of fair skin is the ability to synthesise vitamins D and A in persistently cloudy and cold weather.

Arctic people probably had more than enough of those vitamins in their diet if they were fishing and hunting marine mammals. Hunters of the interior Arctic probably had enough of those vitamins from bird eggs and liver.

Before agriculture, the Atlantic people were relatively numerous because of shellfish which is not a good source of vitamins A and D, and probably had good access to wild carrots etc.

About evolutionary psychology: one can combine the anthropological knowledge about hunter-gathering societies with observations about primates to arrive at some non-trivial conclusions. However, the danger of transfering our industrial age notions to evolutionary setting is high, and a good scientist needs some sound philosophy to avoid pitfals.

The article assumes for example that women in a polygamous marriage share the wealth of the man. This assumes (a) fix marriage, (b) possession of wealth, (c) men as possessors of wealth. Three wrong assumptions in quick succession.

In fact, hunter-gatherers had few posesions, and what apparel and utensils women needed they made themselves. They also gathered at least as much food as men brought from hunting. A pattern that I read about was that young females were most attractive sexual partners, as well as the older men who were the best hunters, so older men were partners of younger women, and younger men were partners of older women.

As sexual abstinence was not practiced by any member of the group, there was no awareness that sex leads to pregnancy. All women were sexually active, only some went pregnant, so it was much more reasonable to explain the pregnancy by little spirits entering female bodies in streams and pools.

Thinking about it, the situation was perhaps more symmetric than presented in the paper I have read. Mature individuals were good producers and less attractive sexually, and young ones were more attractive sexually and worse as producers, so the natural pairing was of kind of equitable exchange.

Even so, the observations suggested that women cooperated in the vicinity of the camp, and men were more individualistic and competitive, and when they were cooperating, they needed the leadership of the best trackers and tacticians.

Piotrek's conjecture: in a primitive society of 20-40 people knowledge was the most critical resource. Members of the group were utilizing hundreds of food sources, were producing tools, weapons, poisons and medicins. So inteligence and age were at premium. Correspondingly, large braincase was sexually attractive, and it could be displayed either with a shaggy mane, exagerating the size, or as a shiny dome. Thus the quick, in evolutionary terms, growth in the size of the brain could be a kind of hypertrophy typical for sexual competition (peacock tails, deer antlers etc.).

The author lost me with the claim that women have been "dying" their hair for 2,000 years. Any scientist, researcher or journalist who doesn't know the difference between dying and dyeing, really has nothing to teach me.

And then there's the fact that dark hair cannot be DYED blond. So you're claiming that women did something 2,000 years ago that modern technology doesn't allow us to do today? Interesting.

As for the 50yo man married to the 25yo woman, of course he doesn't "have to" go through midlife crisis. How do you think he ended up married to a 25yo woman? (Sorry, I guess that was sexist, ageist and pigheaded.)

On a lighter note, I have a different suggestion for why many men prefer large-breasted women. It's because women today wear shirts. The large breasts are the ones that get noticed. I bet the correlation is not there among tribes that still go shirtless. Many men like breasts. When they see them, they like them. If they are bigger, they're more likely to see them, and like them.

Besides, the researchers could have just as easily correlated big breasts with lactation rather than youth. (Who links big breasts with youth anyway? Older women are more likely than teens to have large breasts.) They're right that bigger breasted women don't necessarily produce more milk than smaller breasted women -- but it is true that the huge(no pun intended)majority of breasts get bigger during lactation. Our society forgets that lactation is attractive, but any caveman would know that.