@xwaldie (Katy Waldman) advises us to beware of evolutionary explanations that rest on what men find attractive. In Another Dingbat Sexual Selection Theory (Slate Feb 2013), she comments on a theory that explains the evolution of small breasts in East Asian women.
Women may well be insulted by the suggestion that the reproductive success of East Asian women depends on the mammary preferences of East Asian men. Waldman argues that women's choices are at least as important as men's - indeed, women may have more reason to be choosy in their sexual partners than men - and notes that in most species it is the male that invests in display (e.g. fancy plumage), while healthy females can get laid without needing to develop unwieldy protruberances.
Meanwhile, men may be insulted by two contradictory propositions - either that they will have sex with anything that moves, or that they will only have sex with women whose chest fits some predefined norm.
As I see it, one of the main problems of evolutionary biology is that for any plausible hypothesis, one can invent any number of equally plausible alternatives.
For example, let's start with the idea that a male seeks to produce as many viable offspring as possible. The survival prospects of his genetic line are surely improved if his offspring are as genetically varied as possible, which means that the male should try to maximize the variety of his sexual partners. Thus if the majority of the available women have one characteristic - say small breasts - then the pursuit of genetic variety might attract him to woman with the opposite characteristic - namely large breasts. But this pursuit of variety might equally be satisfied by variation in other physical characteristics, or even non-physical characteristics such as personality and intelligence.
Of course females also benefit from having genetically varied children. There is some evidence of what scientists call "negative frequency-dependent preferences" - in other words, fancying the unusual. A recent experiment suggests that the relative attractiveness of bearded and clean-shaven men goes in cycles: the more beards there are, the less attractive they become.
However, variety needs to be balanced against other factors. There are many reasons why a woman may prefer to have all her children with the same man. And there are also reasons why a man may prefer to have all his children with the same woman rather than casually impregnating many different women.
So even if sexual attractiveness is based on some genetic programme, we cannot infer the logic of the programme either from observing actual and attempted couplings, or from asking subjects to rate photographs of the opposite sex. Such evidence may lead us to dismiss some hypotheses as unlikely, but do not help us choose between equally likely alternatives.
It may be fun for scientists to speculate why a particular characteristic developed in a particular group of humans at a particular point in prehistory, and it may help the scientists get noticed by journalists, but theories based on sexual attractiveness are highly unreliable. After all, sexual desire is so polymorphous.
Updated 17 April 2014
Katy Waldman, Another Dingbat Sexual Selection Theory (Slate Feb 2013).
James Morgan, Beard trend is 'guided by evolution' (BBC News 16 April 2014)
Zinnia J. Janif, Robert C. Brooks and Barnaby J. Dixson, Negative frequency-dependent preferences and variation in male facial hair. Biol. Lett. April 2014 vol. 10 no. 4 20130958 16 April 2014 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0958
Showing posts with label evolutionary biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolutionary biology. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sex and Death
Evolutionary psychologists have found another link between sex and death. Apparently death makes men more interested in sex.
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
See also Wynne Parry, Why thoughts of death may be good for you (LiveScience, 4 May 2012)
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
See also Wynne Parry, Why thoughts of death may be good for you (LiveScience, 4 May 2012)
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Satoshi Kanazawa
@PsychToday descended to new lows of #badscience and #titillation this week when it published Satoshi Kanazawa's latest blogpost on the physical attractiveness of black women, complete with some pseudoscientific tosh about evolutionary psychology and testosterone. Following a storm of protest, Psychology Today has removed the offending blogpost (although it is still available elsewhere, for example on Quora); its other bloggers (Daniel Hawes, Nathan Heflick, Scott Barry Kaufman, Robert Kurzban, Mikhail Lyubansky, Melody T McCloud, Michael Mills, Stanton Peele, Steven Reiss, Gad Saad, Sam Sommers, and others) have felt the need to gang up on Dr Kanazawa, as if that somehow redeemed the reputation of the website. Commentary and criticism elsewhere includes BBC News, Nanjala Nyabola (Guardian). PZ Myers names Kanazawa "among the many reasons that I detest evolutionary psychology".
This is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa's pseudoscientific musings have provoked criticism from his fellow bloggers at Psychology Today. In November 2008, Christopher Ryan argued that Sloppy methodology is the Achilles Heel of evolutionary psychology. I myself took issue with Dr Kanazawa in my piece on Footballers Wives and Evolutionary Psychology.
But is it just Dr Kanazawa who is at fault here, as some of his more cautious critics suggest, or is there a fundamental methodological flaw at the core of evolutionary psychology? Dr Ryan has also recently criticized Stephen Pinker, suggesting that he may have used misleading data in his TED talk on the origins of war (Stephen Pinker's Stinker). For his part, Stanton Peele believes that "Satoshi Kanazawa's racism perfectly embodies evolutionary psychology".
Dr Ryan's generously illustrated blog features posts on human sexual behaviour and the female form, which he compares with other species - notably the bonobo. What he seems to be claiming is that the similarities between human and bonobo are explained not by their common genetic heritage, but by the existence of some evolutionary advantage of these characteristics.
Sounds plausible enough, but then pseudoscience can make all kinds of speculative explanation sound plausible. For example, someone might try to construct an argument to the effect that large breasts change shape more with age and maternity, therefore breast size makes the visual effects of ageing more obvious and helps men to choose younger and more fertile partners with fewer previous offspring. (That might sound ridiculous, but the logical structure is not very different from other arguments I've seen. See my post on the Purpose of Baldness.) But how on earth do we ever choose between conflicting theories, how do research bodies decide whether to fund this kind of research, and what kind of evidence is deemed relevant?
There is a simplistic POSIWID argument behind a lot of evolutionary biology and psychology, which goes like this. Here is an interesting and perhaps puzzling characteristic; therefore it must have some evolutionary purpose (expressed in terms of selective advantage); so the researchers just need to work out what it is. They then corroborate our hypothesis by carrying out a quick study, often using American psychology students as the subjects.
There are several methodological problems with this approach: firstly, in the way the characteristic is framed in the first place, secondly in the presumption that each characteristic must have a clearly identifiable purpose in its own right, thirdly in demonstrating purpose by identifying outcomes that can be correlated with the characteristic in question, and fourthly in inferring evolutionary processes from present-day observations alone. Kanazawa might just as well argue that Michael Phelps does everything he does in order to get laid. Beyond parody.
This is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa's pseudoscientific musings have provoked criticism from his fellow bloggers at Psychology Today. In November 2008, Christopher Ryan argued that Sloppy methodology is the Achilles Heel of evolutionary psychology. I myself took issue with Dr Kanazawa in my piece on Footballers Wives and Evolutionary Psychology.
But is it just Dr Kanazawa who is at fault here, as some of his more cautious critics suggest, or is there a fundamental methodological flaw at the core of evolutionary psychology? Dr Ryan has also recently criticized Stephen Pinker, suggesting that he may have used misleading data in his TED talk on the origins of war (Stephen Pinker's Stinker). For his part, Stanton Peele believes that "Satoshi Kanazawa's racism perfectly embodies evolutionary psychology".
Dr Ryan's generously illustrated blog features posts on human sexual behaviour and the female form, which he compares with other species - notably the bonobo. What he seems to be claiming is that the similarities between human and bonobo are explained not by their common genetic heritage, but by the existence of some evolutionary advantage of these characteristics.
Sounds plausible enough, but then pseudoscience can make all kinds of speculative explanation sound plausible. For example, someone might try to construct an argument to the effect that large breasts change shape more with age and maternity, therefore breast size makes the visual effects of ageing more obvious and helps men to choose younger and more fertile partners with fewer previous offspring. (That might sound ridiculous, but the logical structure is not very different from other arguments I've seen. See my post on the Purpose of Baldness.) But how on earth do we ever choose between conflicting theories, how do research bodies decide whether to fund this kind of research, and what kind of evidence is deemed relevant?
There is a simplistic POSIWID argument behind a lot of evolutionary biology and psychology, which goes like this. Here is an interesting and perhaps puzzling characteristic; therefore it must have some evolutionary purpose (expressed in terms of selective advantage); so the researchers just need to work out what it is. They then corroborate our hypothesis by carrying out a quick study, often using American psychology students as the subjects.
There are several methodological problems with this approach: firstly, in the way the characteristic is framed in the first place, secondly in the presumption that each characteristic must have a clearly identifiable purpose in its own right, thirdly in demonstrating purpose by identifying outcomes that can be correlated with the characteristic in question, and fourthly in inferring evolutionary processes from present-day observations alone. Kanazawa might just as well argue that Michael Phelps does everything he does in order to get laid. Beyond parody.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
The Purpose of Baldness
Experts say they have discovered what they believe is the root cause of male pattern baldness - faulty stem cells. [Cause of male baldness found, BBC News 5 January 2011]
The BBC News story puts the word "cause" into inverted commas, presumably to indicate that it sees a problem with the attribution of causality, but it doesn't seem to see a problem with the word "fault". And yet on what grounds does it make sense to identify this feature as a "fault"?
The human body has many features that reveal one's age and health to potential sexual partners. Evolutionary biologists are fond of attributing purpose to these features, which supposedly help to bias reproductive activity towards the "fittest" members of the population; these biologists often speculate that these features have evolved because of the possible advantage they could confer, both to those individuals who send the "right" signals and also to those individuals who respond "correctly" to these signals. This kind of argument supposedly explains why men are attracted to certain kinds of women, and women are attracted to certain kinds of men.
An interesting example is the lack of a penis bone in humans, which Richard Dawkins has explained by the argument that it is biologically useful for young women to differentiate between those men who can produce a decent erection and those who cannot. On the same logic that would regard male pattern baldness as a "fault", an impotent man might regard the lack of a penis bone as a "design fault" that prevents his competing with younger and more vigorous men.
Obviously there is plenty of money involved in faking the signs of youth and good health - everything from hair transplants and botox to plastic surgery. But men and women are often conned into spending substantial sums of money on painful treatments that don't make them any more attractive to the opposite sex and merely make them look ridiculous. Maybe it's easy for me to say, but there are worse things than baldness.
The BBC News story puts the word "cause" into inverted commas, presumably to indicate that it sees a problem with the attribution of causality, but it doesn't seem to see a problem with the word "fault". And yet on what grounds does it make sense to identify this feature as a "fault"?
The human body has many features that reveal one's age and health to potential sexual partners. Evolutionary biologists are fond of attributing purpose to these features, which supposedly help to bias reproductive activity towards the "fittest" members of the population; these biologists often speculate that these features have evolved because of the possible advantage they could confer, both to those individuals who send the "right" signals and also to those individuals who respond "correctly" to these signals. This kind of argument supposedly explains why men are attracted to certain kinds of women, and women are attracted to certain kinds of men.
An interesting example is the lack of a penis bone in humans, which Richard Dawkins has explained by the argument that it is biologically useful for young women to differentiate between those men who can produce a decent erection and those who cannot. On the same logic that would regard male pattern baldness as a "fault", an impotent man might regard the lack of a penis bone as a "design fault" that prevents his competing with younger and more vigorous men.
Obviously there is plenty of money involved in faking the signs of youth and good health - everything from hair transplants and botox to plastic surgery. But men and women are often conned into spending substantial sums of money on painful treatments that don't make them any more attractive to the opposite sex and merely make them look ridiculous. Maybe it's easy for me to say, but there are worse things than baldness.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Footballers Wives and Evolutionary Psychology
#badscience @brooklynjosh After Bjørn Østman tried to convince me of the scientific credibility of evolutionary biology in his Pleiotropy blog, I made a real effort to take it more seriously, I really did, but the latest effort from Satoshi Kanazawa PhD has put me firmly back into the sceptical camp.
Dr Kanazawa's latest "finding" associates certain behaviours and beliefs with male IQ. The UK press concentrates on the claimed linkage between IQ and male fidelity.
In America, on the other hand, the aspect of Dr Kanazawa's research that has attracted more attention is his association between male IQ and belief - both religious and political.
But the strongest demolition of Dr Kanazawa's evolutionary explanation why intelligent men don't cheat on their wives comes from Dr Kanazawa's own blog, where he writes
Dr Kanazawa argues that Bill Clinton became president so he could get laid, and predicts that at least one (male) politician will be exposed in a sex scandal during 2010. I don't think you need evolutionary psychology to make that kind of prediction, you just need a basic grasp of statistical probability. If there is a 0.01% chance of any given politician getting caught with his pants down, and there are tens of thousands of politicians across the country, then the probability of nobody getting caught is extremely small. But that doesn't mean that the behaviour is a common one. Dr Kanazawa's rhetoric relies on his readers not understanding basic probability theory.
Some male academics may believe that there is a disconnect between intelligence and worldly success. So although academics may be incredibly intelligent, they don't get laid as much as politicians and sportsmen. However, this is not because they are unattractive to women, oh no, but because intelligent men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity. And all of this is completely consistent and fully explicable thanks to evolutionary psychology.
Bah, humbug.
Dr Kanazawa's latest "finding" associates certain behaviours and beliefs with male IQ. The UK press concentrates on the claimed linkage between IQ and male fidelity.
- Intelligent men 'less likely to cheat' (Daily Telegraph, 28 Feb 2010)
- Men who cheat on their wives are 'less intelligent than faithful husbands' (Daily Mail, 28 Feb 2010) - illustrated with a photograph of Mr and Mrs Ashley Cole in happier days.
In America, on the other hand, the aspect of Dr Kanazawa's research that has attracted more attention is his association between male IQ and belief - both religious and political.
- Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? (Time, 26 February 2010)
- Liberalism, atheism linked to IQ (Baltimore Sun, 28 February 2010)
But the strongest demolition of Dr Kanazawa's evolutionary explanation why intelligent men don't cheat on their wives comes from Dr Kanazawa's own blog, where he writes
"Highly successful men have sexual affairs, not because they want to (if what men want mattered, all men would have a maximum number of affairs), but because women choose them." [Why are we surprised, December 2009]
Dr Kanazawa argues that Bill Clinton became president so he could get laid, and predicts that at least one (male) politician will be exposed in a sex scandal during 2010. I don't think you need evolutionary psychology to make that kind of prediction, you just need a basic grasp of statistical probability. If there is a 0.01% chance of any given politician getting caught with his pants down, and there are tens of thousands of politicians across the country, then the probability of nobody getting caught is extremely small. But that doesn't mean that the behaviour is a common one. Dr Kanazawa's rhetoric relies on his readers not understanding basic probability theory.
Some male academics may believe that there is a disconnect between intelligence and worldly success. So although academics may be incredibly intelligent, they don't get laid as much as politicians and sportsmen. However, this is not because they are unattractive to women, oh no, but because intelligent men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity. And all of this is completely consistent and fully explicable thanks to evolutionary psychology.
Bah, humbug.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Purpose of Labour Pains
In my post on Back Pain, in response to Scott Adam's complaint that back-pain was evil, I asserted that pain has a perfectly valid function, and it is painkillers that are evil.
However, although this is the general function of pain, it sometimes doesn't seem to work properly. For example, in some chronic situations such as cancer, the body sends excessive pain signals to which the only possible response appears to be some kind of signal blocking mechanism such as drugs or TENS. Alternative therapies in this category might include acupuncture and hypnosis.
Childbirth is another situation where pain-killing drugs and TENS machines are commonly used. Why should mothers suffer labour pains?
Childbirth is a natural and, if all goes well, perfectly healthy procedure; many people therefore think it is inappropriate to treat childbirth as a medical condition. And there is a common ideology of "natural" childbirth: many women adopt birth plans that aim to avoid excessive medical intervention, not just out of bravado or authenticity, but also for fear of unnecessary side-effects.
But it is one thing to oppose or refuse excessive medical intervention; quite another to assert that labour pain has a positive function, as does Dr Denis Walsh.
Dr Denis Walsh is an associate professor of midwifery at the University of Nottingham; he is described by the Observer as "one of the UK's leading midwives". The basis for his claim is apparently set out in an article Dr Walsh has written for the Royal College of Midwives journal Evidence-Based Midwifery. (See note below)
Evidence-based midwifery, huh? I wonder what kind of evidence can Dr Walsh produce for the purpose of labour pains? Is this perhaps the kind of hypothesis that can only be evaluated by evolutionary biologists? Labour pains have doubtless co-evolved with maternal care, many other species lacking both, but can we really conclude that labour pains are an adaptation that help to promote maternal care? I think it is more plausible to say that labour pains are a side-effect of a much more important adaptation, namely large brains.
In any case, evolutionary biology offers one possible meaning of the word "purpose" - some functional trait that has evolved or co-evolved for a reason. If that's not what Dr Walsh means, what else could he possibly mean?
Note 1: Dr Walsh has an article in the current issue of Evidence-Based Midwifery (Volume 7, Issue 2, June 2009), but this seems to be about something else and I couldn't find the word "purpose"; he had an article on the Role of the Midwife in a previous issue, but this is for subscribers only. However, I did find an interesting editorial in the current issue by one Professor Marlene Sinclair, Practice: a battlefield where the natural versus the technological, citing Elul, Habermas and Ihde.)
Note 2: I didn't know whether evolutionary biologists had ever studied labour pains as a separate phenomenon, so I tried Google and found an abstract of an article by Wulf Schiefenhövel called Perception, Expression, and Social Function of Pain: A Human Ethological View (Science in Context, 1995). I have sent an email to Professor Schiefenhövel asking for his opinion on Dr Walsh's claim.
Note 3: When I previously blogged on pain, I got a lot of comments from people trying to sell dodgy pain relief. Any such comments will be quickly deleted, so please don't bother. I am only interested in retaining comments that discuss the points in this blog.
Pain has a perfectly valid function - it is the body's way of communicating something important to the mind. If you ignore a small child, it will misbehave louder until it gets your attention. And pain works the same way. If you completely ignore your back until it seizes up, then you shouldn't be surprised if it seizes up from time to time. That's how systems work.
In my view, it is painkillers that are evil - or rather the casual use of painkillers - because they interfere with the natural communication between the mind and the body, and the natural balance of work, rest and play.
However, although this is the general function of pain, it sometimes doesn't seem to work properly. For example, in some chronic situations such as cancer, the body sends excessive pain signals to which the only possible response appears to be some kind of signal blocking mechanism such as drugs or TENS. Alternative therapies in this category might include acupuncture and hypnosis.
Childbirth is another situation where pain-killing drugs and TENS machines are commonly used. Why should mothers suffer labour pains?
Childbirth is a natural and, if all goes well, perfectly healthy procedure; many people therefore think it is inappropriate to treat childbirth as a medical condition. And there is a common ideology of "natural" childbirth: many women adopt birth plans that aim to avoid excessive medical intervention, not just out of bravado or authenticity, but also for fear of unnecessary side-effects.
But it is one thing to oppose or refuse excessive medical intervention; quite another to assert that labour pain has a positive function, as does Dr Denis Walsh.
"Pain in labour is a purposeful, useful thing, which has quite a number of benefits, such as preparing a mother for the responsibility of nurturing a newborn baby." [Observer, 12 July 2009]
Dr Denis Walsh is an associate professor of midwifery at the University of Nottingham; he is described by the Observer as "one of the UK's leading midwives". The basis for his claim is apparently set out in an article Dr Walsh has written for the Royal College of Midwives journal Evidence-Based Midwifery. (See note below)
Evidence-based midwifery, huh? I wonder what kind of evidence can Dr Walsh produce for the purpose of labour pains? Is this perhaps the kind of hypothesis that can only be evaluated by evolutionary biologists? Labour pains have doubtless co-evolved with maternal care, many other species lacking both, but can we really conclude that labour pains are an adaptation that help to promote maternal care? I think it is more plausible to say that labour pains are a side-effect of a much more important adaptation, namely large brains.
In any case, evolutionary biology offers one possible meaning of the word "purpose" - some functional trait that has evolved or co-evolved for a reason. If that's not what Dr Walsh means, what else could he possibly mean?
Note 1: Dr Walsh has an article in the current issue of Evidence-Based Midwifery (Volume 7, Issue 2, June 2009), but this seems to be about something else and I couldn't find the word "purpose"; he had an article on the Role of the Midwife in a previous issue, but this is for subscribers only. However, I did find an interesting editorial in the current issue by one Professor Marlene Sinclair, Practice: a battlefield where the natural versus the technological, citing Elul, Habermas and Ihde.)
Note 2: I didn't know whether evolutionary biologists had ever studied labour pains as a separate phenomenon, so I tried Google and found an abstract of an article by Wulf Schiefenhövel called Perception, Expression, and Social Function of Pain: A Human Ethological View (Science in Context, 1995). I have sent an email to Professor Schiefenhövel asking for his opinion on Dr Walsh's claim.
Note 3: When I previously blogged on pain, I got a lot of comments from people trying to sell dodgy pain relief. Any such comments will be quickly deleted, so please don't bother. I am only interested in retaining comments that discuss the points in this blog.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Sex and Design
If you are interested in the design of the human sex organs, there are some fascinating theories suggesting how they may have evolved in order to perform some complex biological functions.
Scientific American recently recycled a theory about the design of the penis propounded by Gordon Gallup. (Secrets of the Phallus, April 2009. Gallup's theory had been published by the BBC and New Scientist several years ago: Penis is a competitive beast, August 2003.) According to this theory, the shape and thrusting action of the penis has the function of removing old semen (including that of rival lovers) before depositing a fresh load. The partial lost of erection after ejaculation is an important design feature; it makes sure that the new semen is not removed as the penis is withdrawn.
Meanwhile, a separate theory, the delightfully named "upsuck theory", explains how the female organs are designed to select the sperm from the most desirable lover, pumping it upwards towards the uterus during orgasm.
There are significant problems with both theories. See for example Harry, Sally and Evolutionary Biology, which suggests that if these evolutionary mechanisms really worked, then humans would by now have evolved to have mind-blowing sex all the time. See also my earlier post on Female Pleasure, and an interview with Elisabeth Lloyd in Thinking Meat.
But it is what happens when you put these two theories together that bothers me here. Both theories appear to rely on POSIWID thinking - looking at some biological feature and trying to infer its purpose (in terms of a positive contribution to the survival and reproductive success of its owner). But it is usually incorrect to think of a single biological feature in isolation. These bits of biology interact to form complex systems, frantically pumping live semen in all directions.
So what (if anything) does POSIWID tell us about the whole system and its purpose? As Žižek argues (in To Read Too Many Books Is Harmful), human sexuality is not limited to the biological sphere: "sexuality is the very terrain where humans detach themselves from nature ... a drive that gets thwarted as to its natural goal (reproduction) ... thereby explodes into an infinite, properly meta-physical, passion".
The POSIWID principle doesn't mean we have to reduce all explanations to unobservable biological mechanisms. Human behaviour is driven or constrained by many forces, including social and spiritual ones.
See also my post on Redesigning Sex.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Female Pleasure 3
A controversial study claims that a woman finds lovemaking more fulfilling if her partner is wealthy. Wealthy men give women more orgasms (The Times, 18th January 2009) Why rich men are better in bed: Women have more orgasms with wealthy partners, study finds (Daily Mail, 20th January 2009).
Another bit of pseudo-science from the evolutionary biology brigade.
The study is based on a survey of some 1500 Chinese women, and appears to show some statistical correlation between prosperity and pleasure. Here are some of the possible explanations discussed by the Daily Mail, a paper popular with women who have (or would like to have) wealthy partners.
- Women who have frequent orgasms tend to overestimate their partner's income
- Women with 'high powered' partners exaggerate how much they enjoy sex
- Women who are highly susceptible to orgasms select partners who are wealthy
- More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms
In evolutionary biology, the game is always to find an explanation that shows how some trait has evolved to yield some reproductive advantage. Thus Thomas Pollet, who has just completed a PhD at the Center for Evolution and Behaviour at Newcastle University, speculates that a woman's 'capacity for orgasm' could have evolved to help her discriminate between males on the basis of their quality. In an earlier paper, Sexual Selection as a Mechanism for Conspicuous Consumption (pdf), Pollet implied that women discriminated between mates on the basis of leisure activity and expensive gifts, so his views have obviously matured with experience.
Note that the Daily Mail mostly prints explanations based on female choice, because this flatters its female readership, and overlooks explanations based on male choice - for example, rich men choose randy girlfriends and dump them if they stop being randy. I'm not saying that this explanation is any better than the ones the Daily Mail prints, I'm just saying that the Daily Mail is being selective about the rubbish they print.
In contrast, The Times gives wealthy men the credit for "giving" women more, and interprets Pollet's findings as "suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers". Obviously pandering for a male readership then.
Finally, in the comments to the Daily Mail article we can find a more down-to-earth explanation. "There is nothing like money worries to dampen your sex drive." (I think there is something in one of George Orwell's early novels about this effect, but I can't seem to find it.)
Update
Just found an excellent blog called Lust in Paradise, making similar points to mine. It concludes as follows."The point is that studies like this one are conducted in a socio-economic context that simply did not exist in prehistory, when all this evolving supposedly took place. Yet the central conceit of mainstream evolutionary psychology is that these findings reflect some eternal truths about men, women, and the allocation of resources. The fact that there's a gaping hole in the center of their narrative doesn't stop them telling us what female orgasms are saying though..."
See also post by
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ovulation and Sexual Attraction
According to the latest pseudo-science, "wearing red 'boosts attraction' ... experts say that red signals ovulation". [BBC News 28 October 2008]
A previous study showed that "Sexy walks 'keep men off scent' ... those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation ... women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners". [BBC News 8 November 2007]
So if men are attracted to women when they are ovulating, this is because the women are unconsciously broadcasting something; and if men are attracted to women when they are not ovulating, this is because they are unconsciously broadcasting the exact opposite. Got that?
Both pieces of research take female behaviour, as well as male reactions to this behaviour, to be somehow biologically determined. It appears that the researchers expected the sexy walk to coincide with ovulation. But when this hypothesis was disproved they simply reversed the theory, in order to preserve their assumption of biological determinism. That's why I call this stuff pseudo-science.
A previous study showed that "Sexy walks 'keep men off scent' ... those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation ... women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners". [BBC News 8 November 2007]
So if men are attracted to women when they are ovulating, this is because the women are unconsciously broadcasting something; and if men are attracted to women when they are not ovulating, this is because they are unconsciously broadcasting the exact opposite. Got that?
Both pieces of research take female behaviour, as well as male reactions to this behaviour, to be somehow biologically determined. It appears that the researchers expected the sexy walk to coincide with ovulation. But when this hypothesis was disproved they simply reversed the theory, in order to preserve their assumption of biological determinism. That's why I call this stuff pseudo-science.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Playboy models and economic crisis
Is there no depth to which once-respectable newspapers will delve to find titillating stories to entertain their readers? Daniel Finkelstein of The Times reports an alleged correlation between economic prosperity and soft porn - What the economic crisis will do to Playboy models (October 17th 2008). Apparently men prefer taller women during an economic downturn. See also Marginal Revolution. For a contrary view, see Indexed.
Apart from the fact that the correlation is based on such a small sample that its statistical validity is very weak, the analysis assumes that any correlation can be explained in terms of male preferences for different kinds of women. This preference is then explained in terms of evolutionary biology - the so-called Environmental Security Hypothesis. Ha!
Evolutionary biology provides a catch-all kind of explanation for all sorts of nonsense, including sexist nonsense. I'm not saying that all evolutionary biology is suspect, but much of what reaches the lay reader seems to be based on very poor science.
The reason this is a bad explanation for this particular phenomenon is that it is looking at the wrong system. There is a simple economic system based on women taking their clothes off for magazines, and this system is controlled by editors, photographers, models and their agents. The models are not selected by the readers, but by professionals who think they know what the readers want. The selection is primarily driven by economic forces of supply and demand, and there are fairly obvious ways in which the economic environment might affect these forces - for example women who are capable of getting good jobs in good economic conditions may be forced to find less dignified work when times get harder. The idea that the selection of models is based on evolutionary biology seems pretty far-fetched, because there is no obvious mechanism connecting cause and effect.
Now that nicely spoken boys from good schools can't get jobs in the City, some of them may become footballers instead. Some women (and gay men) might find some of these footballers more fanciable, because they know a bit of Ovid as well as the offside rule. No doubt the evolutionary biologists would try to explain this in terms of the Environmental Security Hypothesis as well. Ha!
Daniel Finkelstein, What the economic crisis will do to Playboy models (17 October 2008)
Jessica Hagy, Unattainable is always sexy (Indexed, 22 October 2008)
Terry F. Pettijohn, II and Brian J. Jungeberg, Playboy Playmate Curves: Changes in Facial and Body Feature Preferences Across Social and Economic Conditions
(Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, September 2004)
Alex Tabarrok, The Playmate Indicator (Marginal Revolution, 16 October 2008)
Gregory D Webster, Playboy Playmates, The Dow Jones, Consumer Sentiment, 9/11 and the Doomsday Clock: A Critical Examination of the Environmental Security Hypothesis (Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology
2008, 2 (2): 23-41)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Fundamental Programming
While browsing through some BBC News items for the previous post on the Purpose of Hormones, I came across the fascinating work of one Dr Nick Neave, of Northumbria University.
Dr Nick, who writes popular articles in the Daily Mail, and is regularly consulted by the science journalists on the BBC News website, believes that women are fundamentally programmed to depend on men. (Footnote for geeks: can anyone tell me the difference between fundamental programming and any other kind of programming? No, I thought not.)
Dr Nick has also studied sexual attraction
Dr Nick, who is an expert on testosterone, suffers from male pattern baldness. Wikipedia reveals that this form of hair loss is related to hormones called androgens, particularly an androgen called dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
Dr Nick Neave, Northumbria University
Dr Nick, who writes popular articles in the Daily Mail, and is regularly consulted by the science journalists on the BBC News website, believes that women are fundamentally programmed to depend on men. (Footnote for geeks: can anyone tell me the difference between fundamental programming and any other kind of programming? No, I thought not.)
- "Sorry, but women are dependent on men." [Daily Mail, 4th December 2006]
- Some evidence of a female advantage in object location memory using ecologically valid stimuli [Human Nature Vol 16 No 2, June 2005]
- Spatial skills such as map reading and parking may be difficult for some women because they had too little testosterone in the womb. [BBC News 24 January 2005 via BastardLogic]
Dr Nick has also studied sexual attraction
- "Females, like males, are always looking to enhance their reproductive success by trading upwards." [BBC News, 16 August 2005]
- "A male face with some attributes of both masculinity and femininity is attractive. ... Women kind of like your macho-but-sensitive type." [Times Online, 20 August 2003]
Dr Nick, who is an expert on testosterone, suffers from male pattern baldness. Wikipedia reveals that this form of hair loss is related to hormones called androgens, particularly an androgen called dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
Dr Nick Neave, Northumbria University
Purpose of Hormones
Lots of stories on the BBC News website about hormones and their effects. Is this because it is a popular subject for research, or a popular subject for science journalism?
Effects on sexual attraction
Effects on parenting
Effects on health
Effects on business
Other effects
Most of these stories are related to testosterone, oestrogen and/or progesterone. The stories come from a range of sources, and sometimes contradict one another. The explanations overlap and sometimes conflict. See my previous post on Face Values Applied to Love Game.
It would seem (not surprisingly) that hormones have some effect (albeit confusingly), at least on reproduction. So it might make sense to infer the purpose of these hormones from these effects. For expertise in these matters, the BBC generally turns to one Dr Nick Neave.
The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID).
Effects on sexual attraction
- Feminine males 'more attractive'
- 'Hormonal' women most attractive
- Women's choice of men goes in cycles
- Asymmetrical men 'are a turn-off'
Effects on parenting
Effects on health
- Masculine men 'are healthier'
- Sex hormone could help mental health
- Sex hormone blamed for forgetfulness (misleading headline - actually it's a lack of the hormone that is said to cause forgetfulness)
Effects on business
Other effects
Most of these stories are related to testosterone, oestrogen and/or progesterone. The stories come from a range of sources, and sometimes contradict one another. The explanations overlap and sometimes conflict. See my previous post on Face Values Applied to Love Game.
It would seem (not surprisingly) that hormones have some effect (albeit confusingly), at least on reproduction. So it might make sense to infer the purpose of these hormones from these effects. For expertise in these matters, the BBC generally turns to one Dr Nick Neave.
Dr Nick Neave, a psychologist at Northumbria University, told the BBC News website that a fall in testosterone was nature's way of ensuring men behaved in a "civilised" and non-aggressive way around newborn offspring. [BBC News 9 November 2005]
The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID).
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Face values applied to love game
According to recent research, many heterosexual people can accurately judge from photographs who would be more interested in a short-term sexual relationship or a long-term relationship. [BBC News, 9 April 2008]
But which is cause and which is effect? Are people more promiscuous because they are more attractive to the opposite sex (therefore more opportunities, one might think), or are people more attracted to those who might be more available?
(By the way, a man or woman may have a rational preference for partners who are capable of commitment, but sexual attraction doesn't always coincide with rational preference. And in any case, the only real proof that a potential partner is capable of commitment is that they are already committed - to someone else.)
(Note also that attraction is not based solely on physical appearance - but it sometimes helps. Other things being equal, we may expect some degree of correlation.)
Interestingly, the research looked not at behaviour (how much casual sex do people actually have) but preferences (are people inclined towards casual sex or longer-term commitment). The mere fact that a person wants casual sex and/or longer-term commitment doesn't mean that person is attractive or otherwise together enough to fulfil these wants.
But there are two processes that might correct this imbalance over time. The first is endogenous preference formation - people change their preferences according to their experiences. Jon Elster, a sociologist with an excellent appreciation for poetry and myth, wrote a book about this phenomenon called Sour Grapes. See also Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo (pdf).
The other process is evolutionary. Genes that produce people who are unattractive to the opposite sex, and genes that are associated with reproductively unsuccessful preferences, will be disadvantaged. In terms of reproduction, of course, both casual sex and longer-term commitment may be successful strategies; promiscuous people don't necessarily have more offspring, and many avoid having children altogether, while I guess most children are born into relationships that were thought at the time (by at least one partner) to be reasonably long-term.
Footnote
The BBC uses two images of women to illustrate this report. Curiously, almost the same two images were used in a previous report, apparently emanating from the same research team, but telling a rather different story - 'Hormonal' women most attractive [BBC News, 2 November 2005] Are these two explanations linked?
Related posts
Purpose of Hormones (April 2008)
Purpose of Sex (June 2009)
Explaining Bodies (February 2013)
But which is cause and which is effect? Are people more promiscuous because they are more attractive to the opposite sex (therefore more opportunities, one might think), or are people more attracted to those who might be more available?
(By the way, a man or woman may have a rational preference for partners who are capable of commitment, but sexual attraction doesn't always coincide with rational preference. And in any case, the only real proof that a potential partner is capable of commitment is that they are already committed - to someone else.)
(Note also that attraction is not based solely on physical appearance - but it sometimes helps. Other things being equal, we may expect some degree of correlation.)
Interestingly, the research looked not at behaviour (how much casual sex do people actually have) but preferences (are people inclined towards casual sex or longer-term commitment). The mere fact that a person wants casual sex and/or longer-term commitment doesn't mean that person is attractive or otherwise together enough to fulfil these wants.
But there are two processes that might correct this imbalance over time. The first is endogenous preference formation - people change their preferences according to their experiences. Jon Elster, a sociologist with an excellent appreciation for poetry and myth, wrote a book about this phenomenon called Sour Grapes. See also Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo (pdf).
The other process is evolutionary. Genes that produce people who are unattractive to the opposite sex, and genes that are associated with reproductively unsuccessful preferences, will be disadvantaged. In terms of reproduction, of course, both casual sex and longer-term commitment may be successful strategies; promiscuous people don't necessarily have more offspring, and many avoid having children altogether, while I guess most children are born into relationships that were thought at the time (by at least one partner) to be reasonably long-term.
Footnote
The BBC uses two images of women to illustrate this report. Curiously, almost the same two images were used in a previous report, apparently emanating from the same research team, but telling a rather different story - 'Hormonal' women most attractive [BBC News, 2 November 2005] Are these two explanations linked?
Related posts
Purpose of Hormones (April 2008)
Purpose of Sex (June 2009)
Explaining Bodies (February 2013)
Friday, December 07, 2007
Death as POSIWID 3
December 6th 2007. Melvin Bragg hosts a discussion on Genetic Mutation for the BBC Radio series In Our Time.
At one point in the discussion, someone observed that natural selection doesn't select against those individuals who die in middle age after having produced heirs. But what wasn't mentioned was the idea of death as a useful evolutionary mechanism - since excessive longevity might reduce the turnover of generations and thereby reduce the effective rate of evolutionary change.
Meanwhile, aging parents may produce offspring with a larger quantity of genetic mutations.
Evolutionary biologists are usually careful to avoid making overly teleological statements about the "purpose" or "purposes" of nature, but there is certainly an idea that some things are there because of their evolutionary effect. In this sense, there may be an evolutionary "purpose" for ageing and death.
At one point in the discussion, someone observed that natural selection doesn't select against those individuals who die in middle age after having produced heirs. But what wasn't mentioned was the idea of death as a useful evolutionary mechanism - since excessive longevity might reduce the turnover of generations and thereby reduce the effective rate of evolutionary change.
Meanwhile, aging parents may produce offspring with a larger quantity of genetic mutations.
Evolutionary biologists are usually careful to avoid making overly teleological statements about the "purpose" or "purposes" of nature, but there is certainly an idea that some things are there because of their evolutionary effect. In this sense, there may be an evolutionary "purpose" for ageing and death.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Female Pleasure
Does female pleasure have any purpose? Someone has just written a book on the subject, and there are people all over the blogosphere getting very excited about it.
Press Stories: God's Gift to Women, New York Times, Proof of God,
Chat: Babble
Bloggers: Alina Stefanescu, Brothers Judd, Lorraine Berry,
Weird: The Sacred Purpose
Some biologists including Stephen Jay Gould have thought that female pleasure has no evolutionary purpose. (A similar argument might apply to male pleasure: it is arousal that triggers reproductive activity, not the subsequent pleasure.) However, sociobiologists such as Desmond Morris have suggested it could be a reward for pair bonding.
From a POSIWID perspective, there are two main lines of enquiry. Firstly, it's not difficult to imagine that sexual pleasure might make a difference to the behaviour of at least some women, with both biological (reproduction) and social consequences. Perhaps it's easier to detect social effects than biological ones, although some scientists have suggested biological effects as well (including the upsuck theory).
Secondly, it's possible to observe a range of social arrangements (including various forms of repression and violence) whose effect may be to reduce the biological and social effect of female pleasure. For example, if a woman is encouraged to remain "pure" until she marries and "faithful" afterwards, then her sexual experience will be insufficient to affect her choice of husband. And various forms of coercion and violence interfere with the woman's power to choose when to conceive and with whom.
At the other extreme, in a society where young people can experience safe sex with many partners before settling down, the biological and social importance of female pleasure may also be reduced. By the time the woman is ready to choose a steady mate, she may have been fortunate enough to experience a great deal of sexual pleasure, but that doesn't mean she is going to make this the sole criterion for her biological or social choices.
In other words, the power of this particular POSIWID may be affected by the social context. It is an individual and collective choice whether we allow this pleasant biological reflex to control our behaviour. These choices have certainly changed in many countries over the past fifty years.
Let us now analyse this social change in systems terms. From the 1960s onwards, changes in contraceptive and reproductive technology have permitted changes to sexual values, resulting in modified sexual behaviour, which weakens the POSIWID that upheld the old social system. This is a complex change spannng several levels of Donella Meadows' intervention model.
Update: See new post on oxytocin and trust.
A further challenge to the evolutionary biologists comes from The Riddle of the Sphincter - Why do women who have anal sex get more orgasms? by William Saletan, (Slate 11 Oct 2010). Salatan identifies many possible explanations for this phenomenon, which certainly seems to contradict the simplistic account of female pleasure which evolutionary biologists seem to favour.
Press Stories: God's Gift to Women, New York Times, Proof of God,
Chat: Babble
Bloggers: Alina Stefanescu, Brothers Judd, Lorraine Berry,
Weird: The Sacred Purpose
Some biologists including Stephen Jay Gould have thought that female pleasure has no evolutionary purpose. (A similar argument might apply to male pleasure: it is arousal that triggers reproductive activity, not the subsequent pleasure.) However, sociobiologists such as Desmond Morris have suggested it could be a reward for pair bonding.
From a POSIWID perspective, there are two main lines of enquiry. Firstly, it's not difficult to imagine that sexual pleasure might make a difference to the behaviour of at least some women, with both biological (reproduction) and social consequences. Perhaps it's easier to detect social effects than biological ones, although some scientists have suggested biological effects as well (including the upsuck theory).
Secondly, it's possible to observe a range of social arrangements (including various forms of repression and violence) whose effect may be to reduce the biological and social effect of female pleasure. For example, if a woman is encouraged to remain "pure" until she marries and "faithful" afterwards, then her sexual experience will be insufficient to affect her choice of husband. And various forms of coercion and violence interfere with the woman's power to choose when to conceive and with whom.
At the other extreme, in a society where young people can experience safe sex with many partners before settling down, the biological and social importance of female pleasure may also be reduced. By the time the woman is ready to choose a steady mate, she may have been fortunate enough to experience a great deal of sexual pleasure, but that doesn't mean she is going to make this the sole criterion for her biological or social choices.
In other words, the power of this particular POSIWID may be affected by the social context. It is an individual and collective choice whether we allow this pleasant biological reflex to control our behaviour. These choices have certainly changed in many countries over the past fifty years.
Let us now analyse this social change in systems terms. From the 1960s onwards, changes in contraceptive and reproductive technology have permitted changes to sexual values, resulting in modified sexual behaviour, which weakens the POSIWID that upheld the old social system. This is a complex change spannng several levels of Donella Meadows' intervention model.
Update: See new post on oxytocin and trust.
A further challenge to the evolutionary biologists comes from The Riddle of the Sphincter - Why do women who have anal sex get more orgasms? by William Saletan, (Slate 11 Oct 2010). Salatan identifies many possible explanations for this phenomenon, which certainly seems to contradict the simplistic account of female pleasure which evolutionary biologists seem to favour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)