Homo Consumericus

If you'd bother to read evolutionary theory 101, you might come across the mechanism of sexual selection, which is largely driven by FEMALE MATE CHOICE (even within the human context). In other words, many of the morphological features and behavioral patterns that males, of an endless number of species (including humans), exhibit are due to the extraordinary power of female mate choice.

There have been an endless number of studies within evolutionary psychology that have explored female mating preferences. I happen to have discussed many of these on my blog. Hence, it is ignorant and false to claim that evolutionary psychologists are in the business of solely exploring men's preferences. You might be interested to know that many of the leading evolutionary psychologists (and some of the founders of the discipline) are women. I suppose that they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy right?

I think that you should save your patriarchal conspiracy nonsense for your Women's Studies seminars.

GS

Wow! Clearly you have never been exposed to the basic evolutionary theories of mate selection. Due to the high level of parental investment to which females are obligated by virtue of internal fertilization, they tend to be MORE discriminate and choosy when selecting a potential mate than males, whose standards are much lower. It is because females are so choosy in selecting a mate from the opposite sex that males compete with one another for access to the high parental investing sex.

Your statement, " If she then wants to go and get picky as well, the uppity little thing, she risks waiting too long and losing the only attributes that make her valuable", is fatuous and contradicted by the theory of parental investment (to which I alluded above). Males, not females, are the sex that should be most concerned about not finding a partner because of 1) the greater discretion females exercise when selecting a mate and 2) sexual competition between males, which means some men will be condemned to bachelorhood for the rest of their lives.

I suggest that you pick up an evolutionary psychology text book before posting on forums such as this one.

Dear Nomad,

I hardly think that my response consisted of "unrestrained vitriol." The reality is that it is tiresome to have to constantly field such comments about evolutionary psychology being a "sexist" field etc.

By the way, when I report the findings of a scientific study, I always do so in the most objective manner possible. Hence, I do not accept your claim that I am not being "an objective observer in the interest of science." It is precisely because I am such an objective observer that I find it disconcerting to receive uninformed comments such as the one that you originally put up.

If you are going to post accusatory and patronizing comments full of inaccuracies then you should be prepared to be called on it. To reiterate, evolutionary theory recognizes that an endless number of male traits and behaviors are driven by female mate choice via sexual selection. Hence, contrary to your comments, evolutionary psychology recognizes the importance of female mate choice as a central process of evolution. Furthermore, as Justin correctly stated in his own reply, the differential parental investment that men and women face drives many of the sex differences in mating preferences and behaviors. The reality is that mating-related phenomena are in large part shaped by biological-based evolutionary forces.

You also implied that I was solely discussing men's preferences on my blog when in reality I have repeatedly put up posts about female mate choice (e.g., female preference for tall men; female preference for men of high status, etc.).

Finally, I have often discussed the importance of nurture. As a matter of fact, one of the posts that I link to in my current post discusses definitions of beauty that are culturally defined (hence nurture) and others that are universally similar (hence nature).

Thank you for reading. Have a good day.

GS

P.S. As I often mention when replying to comments, it would be courteous of you to identify yourself when putting up comments. Otherwise, the anonymity allows you a "veil of protection" from which you can hurl your patronizing insults. That said thank you for the apology. I appreciate your conciliatory words.

Your comment: First of all, isn't it awfully prejudiced of you to assume that blind men cannot be socialized about what society deems to be attractive through touch?

My reply: This is a new accusation. Nice! I wonder how the socialization of blind men would work in this case. Can you perhaps share some insights?

Evolutionary psychology does not try to justify anything. It looks as the data and arrives at conclusions void of offering any prescriptive implications.

Here is a challenge for you: If you can identify a culture where at the population level men prefer to mate with morbidly obese (or anorexic) postmenopausal women with asymmetric facial features, and where women prefer to mate with morbidly obese, short, dumb, submissive men with asymmetric facial features, let me know and I'll make you famous. Otherwise, I am afraid that irrespective of how "offended" you might be by the findings of evolutionary psychology, it will remain true that humans do display some mating preferences that are rooted in their biology.

To reiterate for the 10,000th time, neither I nor any other evolutionary psychologist that I am aware of believes that all of our mating preferences are strictly rooted in our biology. For most phenomena, both nature and nurture matter albeit in some cases, one of the two forces might play a larger role.

GS

As correctly pointed to in the article in question, rotund women are preferred in some cultures because they serve as signals of male status! This typically happens in cultures wherein there is a recurring environment of caloric scarcity. In other words, men are using women's bodies to signal a trait that is highly desired by women, namely male social status! Do you see the irony? This speaks to my point exactly. Culture matters but typically it is constrained by biological realities. It is in this sense that E. O. Wilson famously stated that "the genes hold culture on a leash."

There is nothing disingenuous in what I stated. I was making the point that social constructivists, who by definition overestimate the powers of the environment (in many instances they reject that biology could have any influence on human phenomena), might have a hard time explaining this latest finding.

It might be courteous if you did not lecture me about the writing style that I should use lest this might be construed as patronizing on your part...kettle calling the pot black. ;)

GS

I'll note that the article CS pointed to only dealt with weight instead of weight and the other sexual traits you talked of (preference for postmenopausal women, asymetrical facial features)and didn't even really prove what CS wanted it to prove about THAT single variable. Apparently APEX(successful, or "alpha" might be other synonyms) men prefer fat wives as status (not sex) symbols. There's no indication that most men in that country prefer morbidly obese women, and the women themselves do not like it and complain it doesn't look good.

Some of the criticism you got, Sir, was vicious.

Evolutionary psychology provides the definitive framework for explaining when we should expect sex differences in one direction (i.e., men more than women), when we should expect no sex differences, and when we should expect sex differences in the other direction (i.e., women more than men). The meta-analysis in question is perfectly consistent with evolutionary psychology in that it included variables across the spectrum of possible sex differences.

Note that the meta-analysis did not include many of the variables along which the largest sex differences are repeatedly obtained. Let me use an extreme example to make the point: If you were to look at the number of fingers that men and women have, you'll find that there are no sex differences. The same would apply for the number of ears, number of eyes, and number of toes. However, if you look at height then you'll find that men are taller however if you looked at fat composition, you'll find that women possess higher percentage of fat. The bottom line is that which variables are included in the meta-analysis is of crucial importance.

Have a good evening.

GS

Nature and nurture interact in complex ways. Nothing ad hoc about that. I reiterate my challenge. Find me a culture wherein asymmetric faces are considered more beautiful than symmetric faces. Find me a culture wherein the majority of men prefer to mate with postmenopausal women instead of young nubile women. Find me a culture where women value beauty in prospective male partners more so than men do in prospective female mates. Find me a culture where men value the social status of prospective female partners more than women value the social status of prospective male partners. You'll note that the meta-analysis in question did not look at these particular variables. Care to guess why that might be?

Regarding your second point, evolution does not operate this quickly. For example, men still display sexual territoriality despite the fact that DNA paternity testing no longer requires them to worry about paternity uncertainty.

Nice chatting with you as well.

GS

P.S. BTW, if I were patronizing, I would not spend several hours interacting with an anonymous reader.

To reiterate, that the meta-analysis uncovered a wide spectrum of effects when it comes to sex differences is indeed consistent with evolutionary psychology. It is in this narrow sense that I drew the comparison.

BTW, the authors themselves propose that some of their findings are consistent with EP.

Nice try but evolutionary psychology will survive your criticisms. ;)

GS

Hi Hackberry,

The "socialization dragon" is indeed an immortal one! That said things are definitely changing. The paradigmatic walls of the "no biology" crusaders are crumbling. Thanks for your support.

GS

It is always nice to received such supportive words. Many thanks.

GS

P.S. I deleted your other set of comments (as they were posted as a duplicate).