Tuesday, May 24, 2011

"There is precise evolutionary logic behind the image of ideal female beauty."

Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, Alan. S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa


I will start this post with prefacing that I have had an interest in evolutionary psychology perspectives since 2004 when I signed up for an undergraduate psychology course taught by a professor who would ultimately become one of my most memorable and inspiring teachers of all time.  The course was entitled "Psychology of Motivation" and it was led by Dr. Dev Singh at the University of Texas at Austin.  Essentially, the course viewed human behavior (whether it be in regard to food, mating, family rearing, etc.) as a result of innate nature that had evolved over millions of years for species survival.  I found the material intriguing to say the least, however since I completed that course almost 7 years ago I have had little contact with the topic of evolutionary psychology. So, as I was browsing the local bookstore the other day and spotted this book on the shelf, I knew I had to have it!

First of all, doesn't the title of the book just make you want to read it?!  Well, I won't give away the spoiler to the author's response to that question but I promise it is included in this quick read.  Instead, I'll pick out a few of my favorite theories presented....

Why are 36-24-36 continually cited as the ideal female measurements?  A small waist-to-hip ratio (.7 to be exact) was found to be the most desired female measurement by males.  This makes sense because women with a smaller waist-to-hip ratio tend to be overall healthier, more fertile, and younger.  Remember, from an evolutionary perspective, humans are attracted to potential mates based primarily on their chances of reproductive success (often subconsciously).

Why are almost all violent criminals men?  In general, males tend to be more competitive than female counterparts.  The authors contend that there is a reason behind this inequality that can be explained by the previous need for males to compete (physically at times) for mates.  Even though physical competition for mates is no longer needed, the psychological mechanism still remains.

Why do we prefer sweets and fats? Way back when, malnutrition and starvation were quite common.  Over time, humans developed a preference for high-caloric foods in order to increase chances for survival.  Of course, this once adaptive mechanism proves to be a problem in a modern society where we now have an over-abundance of fatty foods. Hence, the rise of obesity.

The authors propose that since our society has dramatically changed so rapidly over the past 10,000 years, human evolution has not been able to keep up causing once adaptive mechanisms to actually become maladaptive (ie: preference for sweets).  This theory is known as the Savanna Principle ("Why Our Brains Are Stuck in the Stone Age").


I'll conclude this post with the acknowledgment that some of the theories presented in this book are controversial in nature.  Not all of them outlined make sense to me either, and I do not want to discount the role of the individual experience which I believe also largely impacts human behavior.  Since the book is speaking about the entire human race, the authors tend to stereotype or use broad generalizations however they also make note that there are always individual exceptions, as well.  If you are curious or open-minded of a new take on the nature vs. nurture debate, this one is for you!

1 comment: