Are you an owl or a lark?

Are you an Owl or a Lark?


  • Total voters
    25

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Blonde hair is somewhat more common in northern Europeans due to founder effect. Finnish people are so similar genetically it's kinda gross to think about it.

Annyyway...As if phenotypes don't exist along continua.

There is no boundary line genetically that separates people on the basis of hair color.

There is no such thing genetically as a "brown-haired" set of phenotypes that can be used as the basis for essentializing brown-haired people.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
only 2%? didn't know that. perhaps some kind of economic law of rarity is somehow applicable in explaining the trait's desireability?

and above statement does not apply to my GF. who is a blonde redhead anyway.

Some scientists explain the appeal of blond hair as a form of paedomorphosis.

Men like blonde women because blonde women look more like children. It conveys youth and apparently pliability. Women show no preference for blonde men.

No joke.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Some scientists explain the appeal of blond hair as a form of paedomorphosis.

Men like blonde women because blonde women look more like children. It conveys youth and apparently pliability. Women show no preference for blonde men.

No joke.

What do we mean by "children" here? A preference for young women is easily explained by evolutionary adaptation, but an attraction to pre-pubescents is clearly a non-starter in this respect.

I think making statements like "Men like blonde women because [reason]..." are a bit suspect because there's just so much cultural baggage to wade through before you even get close to a genetic/evolutionary explanation.
 

vimothy

yurp
There's no such thing as hair colour, except in the minds of hairists. It's all socially constructed.

Ah, I have to post some Bruno Latour quotes when I get the chance. We're doing a Bourdieu reading group at work at tet moment, so I read Latour whenever I can as a kind of decompression chamber. The science wars stuff is really interesting and misunderstood. Constructivism vs. social constructivism and all that.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
What do we mean by "children" here? A preference for young women is easily explained by evolutionary adaptation, but an attraction to pre-pubescents is clearly a non-starter in this respect.

I think making statements like "Men like blonde women because [reason]..." are a bit suspect because there's just so much cultural baggage to wade through before you even get close to a genetic/evolutionary explanation.

Nope, it's literally about children. Neoteny.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Articles regarding what evolutionary psychologists have found are nearly always infuriating. Plus stuff like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/10/men-sexual-tastes-broaden-stressed

"People are usually attracted to partners with similar facial features to their own..."

I find that difficult to believe based on personal experience. But then I could be unknowingly noticing similarities subconsciously I suppose.

Well, most studies have shown that people choose sexual partners that look more like them than unlike them. We're not talking about fantasy, fetishes for "exotics" in porn, or any of that, but the *actual* sex people have with others.

Of course, there may be several reasons for this--nobody really proposes any mechanism, the scientists merely suggest that, as the data demonstrates, stressed men make better "genetic" "choices".

It's better to reproduce with someone whose genes are as different as possible, from the standpoint of variability. (A more variable gene pool makes for healthier offspring.)

Africans (indigenous ones) have the most genetic diversity within their population group of any other on the planet. White people have the least. A white person's best bet, in terms of genetic viability and variability and health is to reproduce with a black person. From a purely theoretical pov.
 

four_five_one

Infinition
Hmm... seems I go for people that look 'unsimilar' to me and usually prefer to 'date out of my own race'. Maybe it's because subconsciously I find my background very 'white bread' and dull and am practicing some sort of orientalism.

I think it's just a rejection of this mainstream tendency or mechanism. But as I'm pretty much homosexual (tho I could make exceptions in times of 'stress' or maybe when drunk I think I could 'do the business' with a woman). So I doubt I'm selecting in order to have healthier offspring. Although it might be somehow useful on the level of 'group selection', rather than 'individual selection'.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Hmm... seems I go for people that look 'unsimilar' to me and usually prefer to 'date out of my own race'. Maybe it's because subconsciously I find my background very 'white bread' and dull and am practicing some sort of orientalism.

I think it's just a rejection of this mainstream tendency or mechanism. But as I'm pretty much homosexual (tho I could make exceptions in times of 'stress' or maybe when drunk I think I could 'do the business' with a woman). So I doubt I'm selecting in order to have healthier offspring. Although it might be somehow useful on the level of 'group selection', rather than 'individual selection'.

Yes, these studies are very heterocentric. It'd be interesting to see if you could replicate the results in homosexual populations. I seriously doubt it.
 

four_five_one

Infinition
Seems like it would be disturbing for most people to think about studies like this and about their own 'selections'. I think most people think they're choosing their sexual partner like it's some conscious aesthetic deliberation, like when they're assessing a painting or something. Or they think they're choosing for some 'rational reasons' like bank account, car & ability to be a 'provider'. Or then they might think they're not shallow and it's all about personality.

But most of these decisions are made anterior to any conscious thoughts we've had (this is why I believe in 'love at first sight'). Then any thoughts we do have are probably just justifying the choice we've already made. This might be why it's so hard to 'extricate' yourself from someone once you've realized it's all a big mistake. It's hard to accept that most of the agency here is exercised by something operating on a much bigger scale than us as individuals, something we can't even see.

Of course we're also fairly 'plastic' so evolution's not always the main driver of attraction, I mean - why is like this woman: http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2007/09/10/nicole-bott-main_t325.jpg -- why is she the universal standard for beauty? We're still 'spoken by the Other' here.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Seems like it would be disturbing for most people to think about studies like this and about their own 'selections'. I think most people think they're choosing their sexual partner like it's some conscious aesthetic deliberation, like when they're assessing a painting or something. Or they think they're choosing for some 'rational reasons' like bank account, car & ability to be a 'provider'. Or then they might think they're not shallow and it's all about personality.

But most of these decisions are made anterior to any conscious thoughts we've had (this is why I believe in 'love at first sight'). Then any thoughts we do have are probably just justifying the choice we've already made. This might be why it's so hard to 'extricate' yourself from someone once you've realized it's all a big mistake. It's hard to accept that most of the agency here is exercised by something operating on a much bigger scale than us as individuals, something we can't even see.

Of course we're also fairly 'plastic' so evolution's not always the main driver of attraction, I mean - why is like this woman: http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2007/09/10/nicole-bott-main_t325.jpg -- why is she the universal standard for beauty? We're still 'spoken by the Other' here.

Good points...the way we look and smell signals all sorts of things about our compatibility with someone (genetically/biochemically) . People who complain about the media portraying an unrealistic beauty standard don't understand that what the media portrays has very little to do with what people actually find attractive. What looks good in abstraction, as a sort of planar, two-dimensional image, is very different from what looks good to people in real life. If the media really had all kinds of power to shape erotic imaginations, the population would be much smaller than it is, and not growing exponentially.

That woman is flat busted if you ask me. She looks like a 12-year-old boy, which isn't always a bad thing, but here it definitely is. Many of the ultraslim, supertall runway models actually have androgen insensitivity syndrome. They're "freaks of nature", and they very often have fertility problems. What looks good in a Victoria's Secret ad is what the vast majority of straight men would find repulsive in real life.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
"People are usually attracted to partners with similar facial features to their own..."

A fair amount of rather odd couples that I have known (odd in that one of the pair was far more attractive than the other) were 'explained' once I had noticed that they shared very similar bone structure (even though they may not have appeared similar at first glance). I would say that, given a mismatched couple (one fit, one minging), it is more likely than not that they have very similar fundamental features.

[Guardian article:] Men have a tendency to approach dissimilar mates and to rate these to be more pleasant when they are acutely stressed

By stress, I think the Guardian means 'pissed' - in both cases, one might be attracted to dissimilar people because looking at people who look like you reminds you of your own (unpleasant) predicament more than looking at those who don't: it's an ego-squashing tactic and means of escape. In the normal run of things, it is generally more comforting not to wish to escape one's own predicament and so one strengthens one's sense of self by seeking out the self-similar.

I think similar results would be obtained (a flight to the unfamiliar under stress) if the volunteers were asked to choose between familiar or unfamiliar inanimate objects after undergoing their harrowing ordeal with the bucket of ice.
 
Last edited:
Top