Evolutionary fitness and attractiveness

[Lumpy]

If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, why are we attracted to the cutest?

Cecil's column fixated mostly on male attraction to females based on hip ratios and body mass indexes, which misses out on most of a very broad subject.

First of all, "fitness" in an evolutionary sense ultimately corresponds to what is actually successful in the long run, not necessarily what we might consider fit. Having a superb immune system or the ability to survive recurrent periods of famine might be more "fit" than strength or speed.

Second, the letter writer says that "physical beauty doesn’t correlate with any of those qualities." But there is evidence that to some degree it does. Studies suggest that body symmetry correlates with overall good development, and things like skin and hair condition, body posture and facial expression are indicators of physical and mental health; perhaps more in the sense that we're extremely sensitive to deficiencies in those areas.

Thirdly there is the phenonemon of sexual selection- individuals who happen to have an attraction to a certain physical type and mate with those who fit that type tend to produce offspring with both the physical type and the attraction to it- leading to the possibility of a subpopulation where those traits get perpetuated.

Finally, there is what's sometimes called "exuberance"- the fact that species and indivduals exhibit behaviors that have no apparent immediate advantage and even appear to impose a burden on survival. The best guess is that such behaviors are very indirect third and fourth-order byproducts of traits that are evolutionarily advantageous.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

First of all, "fitness" in an evolutionary sense ultimately corresponds to what is actually successful in the long run, not necessarily what we might consider fit.

Isn't evolutionary fitness, roughly, a measure of adaptation to the environment an organism inhabits (as measured by survival rate of offspring)?

[Flyer]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Finally, there is what's sometimes called "exuberance"- the fact that species and indivduals exhibit behaviors that have no apparent immediate advantage and even appear to impose a burden on survival. The best guess is that such behaviors are very indirect third and fourth-order byproducts of traits that are evolutionarily advantageous.

I'm not sure if this would be called "exuberance" or not, but I once read an article that suggested that such traits are an indication of health. The author used the example of peacock tails. If a peacock can afford to drag around such a large thing that does absolutely no good on a day-to-day basis, then obviously he is healthy--otherwise he could not afford such a "waste" of resources and energy. And of course that in turn attracts a mate.

[maxennui]

I have a couple of issues with the reply.

The first is that the definition of "beauty" seems to be mostly based on the views of 40 horny college boys. Even if we grant Cecil the benefit of the doubt, and agree that something as subjective as "beauty" can have a scientific underpinning, it still seems like there would be a certain cultural bias. For example, if Sir Mix-A-Lot is to be believed, the hip-to-waist ratio preferred by our English frat boys is not universal.

I would also suspect that the preference of what body type is beautiful has changed over time (e.g. the painter Ruben revered, well, Rubenesque women). So I don't trust that today's scientific definition of beauty means our Neanderthal forefathers were only dragging skinny bitches back to the cave.

Secondly, Cecil's reply seems to focuses (mostly) on body shape. But what about a person's face??

I think there have been studies that have found an "ideal" face has certain attributes - symmetry, ratio of features, etc., and (I believe) that the preference is similar even account for cultural differences. I would also think that facial preference might be more consistent over time, but I'm just making that up.

But if we're attracted to a certain symmetry of features, for example, why is that? It doesn't seem to have much to do with reproductive capability. Does it?

The reply also does not answer what happens when there's a disconnect between face and body, for which many college "butterfaces" I've known could serve as examples.

[digitalFlack]

Certainly wasn't amongst the most comprehensive or enlightening replies. After the humor, was the question answered in The Reader? We online see the online edition out here.

Is the heat and drought affecting you folk's thinking in Chicago?

JF
Southsider in exile in CA

[gazpacho]

Originally Posted by digitalFlack

Certainly wasn't amongst the most comprehensive or enlightening replies. After the humor, was the question answered in The Reader? We online see the online edition out here.

Is the heat and drought affecting you folk's thinking in Chicago?

JF
Southsider in exile in CA

It was just an excuse for Cecil to brag about his hot wife.

[Irishman]

I think the more appropriate answer is that the traits that we generally regard as beautiful or cute are generally either indicators of health and fitness, even if through the filters of culture, or are exaggerations of features that are indicators of health and fitness.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Flyer

I'm not sure if this would be called "exuberance" or not, but I once read an article that suggested that such traits are an indication of health. The author used the example of peacock tails. If a peacock can afford to drag around such a large thing that does absolutely no good on a day-to-day basis, then obviously he is healthy--otherwise he could not afford such a "waste" of resources and energy. And of course that in turn attracts a mate.

The reason why this idea is pretty much discredited amongst evolutionary biologists is that it makes no sense. It is either completely self-contradictory or totally Lamarkian.

Just ask yourself, if an animal that can "afford" to drag around such a large tail is obviously healthy, then how healthy must an animal be if it can afford to be blind? Or an animal that can afford to have deformed limbs? Or an animal that can afford to support huge numbers of parasites?

If this hypothesis were in any way true, then the most attractive mates would be those who were lame, blind an diseased. After all, it requires much more energy to survive with those traits than to merely survive with a long tail.

And this is where the concept becomes self-contradictory. We define "healthy" as an an individual who has traits that make survival easier, and then claim that a peacock is healthy because it has a trait that make survival more difficult. Those can't both be true. Either a trait is an indicator of health when it aids in survival or a trait is an indicator of health when an organism can survive despite the trait making survival more difficult. It can;t be both simultaneously

The reality is that the peacock's tail is an example or runaway sexual selection. At some point in time having an exaggerated tail must have been indicative of an actual survival advantage, whether mechanical or simply a sign that the individual could find more food than any other. As a result any females that selected based upon tail characteristics produced more surviving offspring than those who selected based upon other traits. Each generation therefore saw more females that selected based upon tail characteristics, and males with better tails had access to ever more mates. Very rapidly such a situation spirals out of control because it is self-reinforcing.

But the point to note is that the trait must initially be selected for because it has an actual survival advantage, and it continues to be exaggerated because it produces more offspring. At not stage is it selected for because it demonstrates that the organism can survive the very adversity that the trait produces. If that were true then we would see large numbers of species where disease and crippling deformity were selected for.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I think the more appropriate answer is that the traits that we generally regard as beautiful or cute are generally either indicators of health and fitness, even if through the filters of culture, or are exaggerations of features that are indicators of health and fitness.

Many traits that humans, especially males, find attractive are indicators of youth rather than fitness or health. A 40 year old female athlete may show vastly more signs of fitness and health than her 18yo self, yet the vast majority of men will find the 18yo version more attractive.

[Tapiotar]

Originally Posted by Blake

Many traits that humans, especially males, find attractive are indicators of youth rather than fitness or health. A 40 year old female athlete may show vastly more signs of fitness and health than her 18yo self, yet the vast majority of men will find the 18yo version more attractive.

Bingo. You are right.

I wish someone would do studies on the mating behavior of people well past reproductive years, now that there's a sizable population past that point who are still actively mating wiht no interest in reproduction.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Blake

I wish someone would do studies on the mating behavior of people well past reproductive years, now that there's a sizable population past that point who are still actively mating wiht no interest in reproduction.

There are two evolutionary factors at play here. The first is the dichotomy between the sport definition of fitness (capacity to perform tasks) and evolutionary fitness (capacity to bear and raise fertile children). The woman at 40 may better match the first definition and not the latter. Younger females are also less likely to have had other mates, which increase the likelihood of any future offspring being the males, which is a reason why youth is highly valued for males. Females are more concerned with provision and emotional fidelity so that their offspring are not abandoned, so age is less of a factor.

Zahavi contributed to the development of the handicap principle.

[Ishmael]

It seems that Dear Cecil's answer was at least partially influenced by his distraction (at the moment) by the lovely (I'm sure) Mrs. Adams, and focusing on 'body proportions'.

A few of preliminary notes.

1.) This is almost all 'speculation' (which I like), so we are unlikely to arrive at anything 'definitive' here.

(As an aside, I find that I particularly like to speculate on this subject.)

(Though, Cecil did have, however 'incomplete', some 'scientific papers' to rely on.)

2.) It seems that it really doesn't matter all that much (in some sense) about the 'attractive attributes' that women may or may not have -- there seems to be a large component of the "mating selection" that is done by women.

(While men can find various levels of 'attractiveness' in different women, when it comes 'down to it', many men will 'mate with anyone', if given the chance -- and then likely 'move on'. In fact, it seems 'common knowledge' that many men would 'mate with mattresses', if the mattresses would be at least 'semi-cooperative'.)

3.) Joe and Cecil are both males (as am I), so the discussion is quite one-sided.

(Relevant to what I wrote in 'point #2', it would be more 'useful' to examine what physical features women generally find attractive in men; though the discussion might be less 'interesting' ... to men.)

4.) Joe specifically asked about evaluating "beauty", while the the title to the piece mentions "cutest", and what men are "attracted" to. Nowhere is mentioned 'raw' "sexiness". As an 'armchair philosopher', I wouldst distinguish between all of these terms (at some length), but will herein refrain -- continuing the muddle created by a conflation of meanings, under the rubric of "attractive".

(When you think about it, you might easily see that there could be differences between a woman you would like to have sex with, at least once; a woman you think that you could 'live with'; a woman you would want to have children with; a woman you would want to 'be seen with'; a woman that you would call "beautiful"; and maybe even a woman that you could 'spend some time with' -- as they are "cute", or "charming".)

5.) I suspect that most of our evaluation of 'beauty' is based upon 'cultural influences', and that there are few, if any, universal aspects.

6.) Further, I think that we might look for 'general tendencies' within a culture, but there does seem to be much variation (probably based upon individual psychology, and maybe a few other factors, such as 'circumstances').

(Years ago, someone said to me, in a 'voice of sagacity', that "it's a good thing that we guys are not all attracted to the same woman".)

Some further 'complications'.

A.) There are 'specific features' (breast, lips, etc.) that can be 'evaluated in isolation' (and I apologize for this level of 'objectification', but these things are 'in fact' 'factors') -- a woman might be more of less attractive in terms of how her 'individual scores' added up. (Though, it might also be a fact that some 'features' go better with some other 'features', so that there could be more than one 'package' of 'equal value'.)

(Cecil assumed the, excuse the expression, "gross morphology" of "silhouette" and "BMI", as a means of addressing the question.)

B.) "Horniness". Similar to the 'appreciation of food' (where an "optimal degree of hunger" is important for 'peak experience'), it is my perception that there is an "optimal horniness" for 'appreciating female physiognomy' (or "peek experience", if you will). A guy may not be so 'appreciative' just after an orgasm; and there can be a state of 'overly horniness', where a guy "just wants to get his rocks off", and also is not so 'appreciative', nor 'particular'. "At optimum", there is a 'wide appreciation', but 'preferences' are still discernable.

C.) "Clothing", (or "not"). This can 'say a lot' about a woman, including "values identity" (or "style"), which can play into 'attractiveness", eh?

D.) When I was a youth, I heard the a 'folk observation' that guys (or "young guys", at least) tend to be attracted to women who "resemble Mom".

(This would tend to throw the notion of "universality" out of the proverbial 'window'.)

(Oh, and besides the "Rubenesque" thing, already mentioned by someone else, I once read that there was a time when women tended to be found 'attractive' who had very 'light skin', as this supposedly showed that they were of 'upper class' and need not be exposed to the sun. For some time now, however, women who are 'tanned' are thought attractive, as they have the 'discretionary time' to spend some of their days out-of-doors. I think that "smoking cigarettes" has also reversed in terms of 'social cues'.)

E.) There is a truism that, as men age, they find a wider and wider variation in female-features to be attractive.

(I remember that B.F. Skinner had his own, "behavioralist", explanation for this phenomenon.)

F.) As Cecil mentioned, the "scent of a woman" can be a factor'; as well as listening to a woman talk, and watching her move.

(There are obviously can be very many factors that play into 'attractiveness', such as 'personality', and 'ability', et cetera, but we want to 'focus' on what we can 'focus on'.)

G.) Miscellaneous factors in a male's evaluation of a female. "Time of night" (or day); "opportunity" and "fleetingness" thereof); being in a "vacation mode" (or a "Friday after work mode"); 'confidence' and testosterone build-up, after "winning" a competition; the well-known "beer goggles" effect; the lesser well-known, but widely recognized "Coolidge effect".

(I will add a factor that I dreamed up, and that is a "ripeness factor". This is the case where two people are both "seriously looking" for a partner, and they more or less happen upon each other. Each person, is not only 'looking', but they also sense the "ripeness" in the other person. This can make for a very "hot date".)

-----------

So, given all that 'preliminary hoo-hah', is there anything left to be said, in response to the original question? What might underlie a 'general beauty' and 'attractiveness' in female facial features (and probably 'head-shape')?

Quite some time ago, I read that "evenness of features" (which is a little vague, eh?), and "symmetry", were often found attractive, as these aspects were thought to indicate "good genetic material". (I guess that I will 'accept that statement', for now, as it is a 'start' for further examination, later -- by someone else, I hope.)

Also, I've read, we have an ability to 'look for the norm' in our surrounding population, and there is some tendency to appreciate those features which are most within the 'median range'. I guess that we sense that 'things are safer within the center of the herd', and that would be the best way to form a 'rating'.

However, I will add a couple of other aspects to consider.

Of course, "nubility" is probably one of the primary and obvious elements. That is, anything that suggests of a woman being within a few years post menarche, and 'general healthiness'. Certainly 'skin tone' would play into such, but also size of nose and ears (as these continue to grow, as we get older). "Eye sparkle" would indicate 'healthiness', I suspect. (Shaving body hair might stem from this aspect, perhaps.)

Leaving the face, for the moment, I'm guessing "perkiness of breasts", and "flat abdomen" would be 'noticed' and 'appreciated'.

Another broad category could be "distinguishability from men". Men like to easily see that they are 'in the right ballpark', for 'mating purposes'. I think that men tend to like some 'delicacy of features' (such as smallish chin and nose), as these are obvious 'objectifiable' characteristics -- kind of "go" signals, if you will. We usually like to 'see' at least some 'bumps on the chest', and maybe some 'extra padding' on the behind. (Long hair, jewelry -- particularly earrings -- and dresses, all symbolize femininity.)

Somewhat following that line (maybe), humans tend to exhibit "sexual dimorphism". I've done a little reading on the topic, but I can't really absorb everything I read. In humans, this is the tendency for males to be physically larger than females. For whatever reason this is, guys usually prefer gals that are smaller than they are.

I'll 'toss in' that a certain "wideness of hips", within a range of proportionality (and norm), would 'look like' a woman could readily give birth to one' s offspring.

And, I can't help but think that 'puffy and rouged lips' are suggestive of sexually stimulated 'lower labia'.

Lastly, it is generally pretty 'sexy' when a woman smiles at a man. It seems to be saying, "maybe, baby". Dontcha think?

[Ishmael]

Lumpy:

I enjoyed that "very broad subject".

Thanks.

[engjs]

Cecil seems to have missed the obvious. Preintelligent humans lived in small groups generally formed around a family, with the alpha male running the show. For men, passing on genes was a matter of mating with as many women as possible, which meant competing to be the alpha male. That's why men are competitive. And for women it meant attracting the alpha male's attention, which is why women are attractive, and why they compete to be the most attractive.

The actual indicators of attractiveness are purely subjective measures and vary from society to society. It's a case of once a system is established you either go with it or you don't mate. And because the system is a feedback system driven by many varying inputs it changes irregularly for no obvious reason. Trying to find logic in it is just silly.

[qazwart]

Originally Posted by Blake

The reason why this idea is pretty much discredited amongst evolutionary biologists is that it makes no sense. It is either completely self-contradictory or totally Lamarkian.

According to Darwin, there are two forms of selection: There's the natural selection of fitness, and there is sexual selection. We all understand natural selection, but sexual selection is more difficult.

Basically, you have the two sexes of the species selecting each other for some trait that can't be easily fooled. For example, the peahen doesn't select a male based upon how dirty and dingy the males feathers are. Any male who wanders into a mud hole could make himself easily the most fit.

Instead, the peahen chooses the male's plumage. She is looking for the brightest, showiest plumage around. Unfit males can't fake that. The healthier and more fit the male, the better their plumage.

A note here: The peahen doesn't consciously select some random feature. Evolution makes the choice. The offspring of peahens who bred with peacocks with dingy tale feathers simply couldn't compete with the offspring of peahen who bred with peacocks with the brightest showiest plumage.

In each generation, the peahen selects the males with the best plumage. This puts evolutionary pressure on the peacock to out compete one another with the best plumage. Those with the showiest plumage get an evolutionary advantage by producing more and better fit progeny.

This competitive pressure on the peacocks to produce brighter, fancier, and showier plumage starts to produce plumage that is naturally unfit. However, whatever disadvantage the showier plumage has (easier for predators to spot, makes it harder to escape predators, harder to maintain, etc.) the advantage of sexual selection outweighs it.

Thus, a peacock's tail feathers would not be selected by mere natural selection. If that was the case, the ones with the biggest showiest plumage would quickly disappear since their short tailed featured competitors would more easily survive. It's sexual selection, the female peahens selecting the healthiest mates by using features that males can't cheat on overrides natural selection.

Sooner or later, a balance will be achieved between natural selection and sexual selection. If the tail feathers get too big, and the peacock can't move, natural selection will move in no matter how attractive it may be to the peahen.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Blake

Many traits that humans, especially males, find attractive are indicators of youth rather than fitness or health. A 40 year old female athlete may show vastly more signs of fitness and health than her 18yo self, yet the vast majority of men will find the 18yo version more attractive.

Youth is an indicator of health and fitness. Especially reproductive fitness.

Originally Posted by Tapiotar

I wish someone would do studies on the mating behavior of people well past reproductive years, now that there's a sizable population past that point who are still actively mating wiht no interest in reproduction.

That's not really relevant to human evolution, though. That's more of a side effect of an innate sex drive coupled with health and longevity and medical support.

[Michael Stephensen]

Dear Cecil,

In addition to the shape of women indicating their ability to carry children there are many other important indicators going on as well in our desire. Here are a few thoughts you may find interesting. Proper shape indicates a greater likelihood of a normal hormonal milieu including menstrual hormones like estrogen and desire hormones like testosterone. Evidence of unusual hormone levels may be expected to show up in ways that we would find less attractive such as acne, obesity, absence of breasts etc.

Recognition of shapeliness also confers a survival benefit. When out on the hunt away from one's village a typical female form with slim waist, wider hips and breasts gives early information, from a distance about whether the approaching person is a potential male (enemy from another tribe) or a potential mating partner (female).

In addition, in "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Desire" by Matt Ridley, Ridley explains that the genes for pheromones are tied to the gene for the HLA B27 immune system antigen suggesting that we are attracted to people who match with us in such a way that we pair bond with people who will produce offspring that will be better able to defend themselves, immunologically, from their own bacteria and parasites. This helps prevent them from losing ground in the fight for survival (thus running in one spot like the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland).

In The Evolution of Desire David Buss studied 10,000 people from 37 cultures and shows that one of the strongest indicators of who women will be attracted to are indicators of social power. This, of course, is a surrogate indicator that may suggest a greater likelihood that the male can provide safety and food for offspring - conferring a greater chance of survival. These indicators may look different in different cultures. In a third world country it may mean having a well or a cow or being a chief or it may mean having a fancy car, jewellery, job etc. Interestingly, times have changed perhaps confusing evolution. Nowadays nerdy geeks can run massive tech companies and unattractive men can be rock stars. Men with a lot of the trappings of wealth can actually have a lot of debt.

There is moderate research showing that if you take beautiful women like Cher and Celine Dion who have striking facial features like Cher's cheeks and Celine's chin and morph them together with the computer to create a series of ten in between facial images men will find the average (middle) face the most beautiful. Why? Faces that are further from the societal average may be more likely to belong to people that carry genetic abnormalities or don't belong to our tribe. Don't think of the examples I have given above but rather think of Marty Feldman or Shane MacGowan or Lyle Lovett. Now think of a more extreme example like Quasimodo (don't mate with him). On the other hand, think of Whitney Houston who reportedly had one of the most symmetrical (average) faces in show business - something that we perceive as beautiful.

Interestingly, in male birds the size and color of the plumage and how wonderful the song is can be partially tied to testosterone levels. In the same way that chest hair (at times in our social history) and muscles in men may be tied to testosterone levels as well. These features indicated to potential female partners something about his hormone levels.

The system is wonderfully complicated.

[slowlearner]

evolution is like the weather, too complicated to ever make sense out of it. think cecil was poo pooin all the junk science everybody brings to such discussions.

[Mijin]

Another point, is that Cecil makes a couple of references to his subconscious thinking "she looks fertile" or "let's make babies" or whatever.

This is a common misconception. There's no reason why a species has to know, on any level, why it is doing something.
While humans have the mental capacity to conceive of such concepts as reproduction, it's doubtful that our sexual instincts would behave in this way. Even many of the simplest sexually-reproducing species exercise discretion in choosing mating partners. We've inherited such instincts. What benefit is there to putting subconscious knowledge of "I'm doing this to reproduce" on top of that?

I'm sure this is not news to cecil and he was just speaking figuratively or whatever, but I'm also sure he wouldn't want to perpetuate the misconception.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by Mijin

What benefit is there to putting subconscious knowledge of "I'm doing this to reproduce" on top of that?

I've mixed up my two points here. This line should have read:

What benefit is there to putting subconscious knowledge of "She's attractive because she's fertile" on top of that?

[gamerunknown]

Acne is especially interesting actually, as it may ward off mates during a period where one would be unlikely to raise fertile offspring (a component of evolutionary fitness). It doesn't have any real effect on general health though. In fact, a lack of acne despite hormonal triggers could indicate a compromised immune system (don't recall where I read this, no cite).

[Freakenstein]

If Your cells are well organized on the surface, they probably are so inside too ( brains etc ). Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and Sharon Stone are well-known examples of being good looking and having a Mensa-level IQ.
Pretty = stupid is just jealous people talking, although sometimes good looking people just don't bother to learn stuff because they can get by with their looks, but they likely have the means to learn. Also the mad scientists that are intelligent but malformed are just as unlikely in real world.

Originally Posted by gazpacho

It was just an excuse for Cecil to brag about his hot wife.

In some articles there is Mrs Adams mentioned ( also mentioned in 'Who is this man called Cecil Adams?', although it says it could be his mother ). In this article it however is Ms Adams.

[Velek]

I have a theory on the subject of cuteness. Such as that people (particularly women) like cats because they coincidentally have large eyes, like human babies. When the real reason they have large eyes is to be able to catch prey at night. A little ironic, eh?

[John W. Kennedy]

Well known, and long generalized. All baby mammals look cute to adult mammals.

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

If Your cells are well organized on the surface, they probably are so inside too ( brains etc ). Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and Sharon Stone are well-known examples of being good looking and having a Mensa-level IQ.
Pretty = stupid is just jealous people talking, although sometimes good looking people just don't bother to learn stuff because they can get by with their looks, but they likely have the means to learn. Also the mad scientists that are intelligent but malformed are just as unlikely in real world.

Starting with my strikingly handsome self, most of the smart people I know are also good looking. Similarly, in general there seems in my experience to be a correlation between ugly and stupid.

Now, I also know some strikingly good looking people who seem as dumb as bricks (there is a '30 Rock' episode that deals with this to some extent), but I'm guessing that (as Freakenstein suggests) it could be a lot of sliding by on their looks.

[Folacin]

Oh, while watching the Olympics - 99% of the female athletes are attractive (to me, at any rate). So I think that says at some level that we are wired to find people who are capable of high-level achievement as attractive.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

All baby mammals look cute to adult mammals.

Of their own species, I suppose. Naked mole rats look terrifying when young.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Of their own species, I suppose. Naked mole rats look terrifying when young.

Other species, too, though there are always some exceptions. It's the big heads and big eyes that seem to do it.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

If Your cells are well organized on the surface, they probably are so inside too ( brains etc ).

Total guess without justification. What does it mean for cells to be well-organized? Why would a smooth complexion, for instance, equate to brain capacity? Why would symmetrical features relate to ability to recall?

In some articles there is Mrs Adams mentioned ( also mentioned in 'Who is this man called Cecil Adams?', although it says it could be his mother ). In this article it however is Ms Adams.

Are you saying there's a distinction between "Mrs. Adams" and "Ms. Adams"?

Originally Posted by Folacin

Oh, while watching the Olympics - 99% of the female athletes are attractive (to me, at any rate). So I think that says at some level that we are wired to find people who are capable of high-level achievement as attractive.

Or maybe it says that the thing that makes female athletes have high-level achievement (i.e. physical fitness) is a thing that ranks high on what you find attractive.

[Freakenstein]

Irishman
Yes, I am only guessing, but I didn't mean just skin deep but all that You can see, like muscles and overall symmetry. Seemingly well built is likely more functional than something that looks like trash. And after all We are all just guessing who would be the one, usually based on something We can evaluate with Our eyes.

As for Ms, I'm not native English speaker and in school We were taught that Ms stands for Miss
( oddly We were never taught how one writes the whole words for Mr and Mrs, We were only taught how they were pronounced - I am still not sure for Mrs... )

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

As for Ms, I'm not native English speaker and in school We were taught that Ms stands for Miss

Ms was coined to avoid using Mrs or Miss, which represent a woman's married status. Ms doesn't imply whether a woman is married or single.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

( oddly We were never taught how one writes the whole words for Mr and Mrs, We were only taught how they were pronounced - I am still not sure for Mrs... )

Mr. is simply mister. Mrs. was originally pronounced and spelled “mistress”, but the pronunciation wore down to its current form; it is never written out, except in music, where “mis - sus” is used for lack of anything better.

[Freakenstein]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Mr. is simply mister. Mrs. was originally pronounced and spelled “mistress”, but the pronunciation wore down to its current form; it is never written out, except in music, where “mis - sus” is used for lack of anything better.

Thank You, ignorance fought.
I've seen missus used in comics but mostly by uneducated blacks, uneducated whites say missis, which I guess is better, but it really doesn't look like an English word to Me.

And Irishman, after a good night's sleep I'm going to do even more outrageous guessing.
Connections with looks and health and sanity aren't My idea. Ancient Romans had a saying 'mens sana in corpore sano', that I think in English would be 'healthy mind in healthy body'. Exercise is easier if You are not malformed and it is well known that it helps Your overall health, body and mind. It improves blood circulation to brains and every other part, it helps for depression etc - all this makes it easier to learn and with that to survive and help others to survive.
If You compare Quasimodo-type person with a hero-type, I think you would expect the hero-type to be smarter, stronger, healthier, living longer, more hard-working, more durable, braver, more friendly and considerate, nicer to kids and old, happier and funnier, more honest, more generous, better for teamwork, Straight Dope member, more docile, neater and cleaner, handier, more artistic, not drunkard, not ruthless, not unfair, not ungrateful and whatever...

[gamerunknown]

It's an interesting hypothesis, but you're going to need to do more than refer to Roman proverbs in order to support it. If you come up with a method of operationalising "beauty", discover a correlation with generally accepted measures of sanity or intelligence and account for confounds* statistically then you may be on to something. Or you could find scientific literature already supporting the contention.

* One major one would be wealth. Education is a major component of success in most intelligence tests that I've discovered and wealth plays a major role in the quality of the education for most individuals globally. I can't think of a metric of attractiveness which wouldn't be likewise affected by factors in turn affected by wealth like access to sanitation. Unless you're proposing that there's an objective measure with which to determine whether cells themselves are superior or inferior. In which case, godspeed. You could start here, perhaps.

[Freakenstein]

gamerunknown.
I'm not specially educated guy and hardly can make any serious studies.
All I say that if You don't know somebody already, You make guesses.
People are greedy. If You want Your mate to be perfect in all ways, You don't start Your search among the ugly ones. I'm sure You don't go to a bar with test tubes, microscopes and some papers to do a survey of family illnesses. You pick the one that pleases Your eye and work from there.

[gamerunknown]

Actually, I think I have encountered the hypothesis before, as a cognitive bias (physical attractiveness bias). No correlation with between perceived attractiveness and mental health (though social skills are a component of that, I suppose). Of course, the wiki points out the feedback effect: an individual largely shunned or ignored will be less inclined to work on social skills or seek social situations.

As for predictors of relationship success, I've been informed that mutual perceived physical attractiveness are the best predictors of short term relationship success, but that similarity of moral outlook is the best predictor of long term relationship success. No cite, unfortunately.

[Freakenstein]

gamerunknown.
I read that wiki-article and it makes sense to me.
But... that guy in the picture... caption says citation needed. Indeed, to Me ( male, straight, 40+, white ) he looks very unpleasant, he's like some old moneybag's sadistic toyboy. Eye of the beholder etc, but still...

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Actually, I think I have encountered the hypothesis before, as a cognitive bias (physical attractiveness bias). No correlation with between perceived attractiveness and mental health (though social skills are a component of that, I suppose).

It's a bias as a generalization, but not a correlation.

Basically I would expect there to be a correlation between attractiveness and physical health. Broadly speaking, it's the reason why we instinctively discriminate on the basis of appearance at all (obviously it's not quite that simple; species sometimes select for features that don't benefit their owners. But it's the general picture).

And I would expect there to be a correlation between physical health and mental health. We still often think of a big divide between body and mind but they are of course integrated and things like, say, malnutrition, have been shown to impair brain function, sometimes irreparably, as well as the body.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by Blake

At some point in time having an exaggerated tail must have been indicative of an actual survival advantage, whether mechanical or simply a sign that the individual could find more food than any other.

Not necessarily. There may have been a period where there was abundant food and few predators, and any silly preferences females had for mating could have been amplified, being the primary factor for "fitness" in this scenario.

The thing is, fitness is as fitness does, and what fitness does is have progeny.

Creationists like to criticize the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a tautology. Darwinian apologists who can't think straight object. The objections are wrong: it *is* a tautology. So what? It means you can't use it as an argument. It's not an argument; it's a catch-phrase that helps focus thought in a useful direction. (BTW, "1+1 = 2" is a tautology, but that doesn't mean it's useles.)

Sorry for that little rant. The point is, what procreates is what procreates. Sometimes it's due to health advantages; other times it's due to fooling mates into thinking one has a health advantage. And frequently, it's just cuteness, which can be arbitrary. Yes, over time, "cuteness" can be molded by objective fitness criteria. But it can also have heaps of arbitrariness. The objectively negative ones tend to weed themselves out in the long run, but there will always be heaps of them in any case (because we get new ones). How long would the species of pea-foul persist (and other species with obvious sexual preference factors that are anti-survival)?

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Well known, and long generalized. All baby mammals look cute to adult mammals.

It's actually more general than that: among vertebrates, those that care for their young tend to have young with "cute" features (big eyes, receded chin, roundish features). Those that don't, tend to have young that are more or less like small adults.

[Learjeff]

BTW, human females tend to choose mates based on health and STATUS. When she cheats, it's usually with a male of higher status than her mate.

Males tend to choose mates based on availability. After all, what do we have to lose, other than a little time and a little sperm?

(Ahem, not speaking personally, of course. This is a scientific discussion!)

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

Yes, I am only guessing, but I didn't mean just skin deep but all that You can see, like muscles and overall symmetry. Seemingly well built is likely more functional than something that looks like trash. And after all We are all just guessing who would be the one, usually based on something We can evaluate with Our eyes.

It still sounds like baseless speculation to me. I mean, we're all familiar with the jock stereotype of all brawn and no brains, and while taking stereotypes seriously is fraught with risk, there's nevertheless some expectation that is at odds.

Counter examples to your claim:

Marie Curie
Abraham Lincoln

Again, I realize cherry-picking a few counter examples hardly refutes a claim, but I am not convinced the premise has any merit.

As for Ms, I'm not native English speaker and in school We were taught that Ms stands for Miss

Ms. stands for Mizz and is specifically created to eliminate the marrital status of the woman. Ms. refers to unmarried and married women equally. The objection being that Mister (Mr.) does not convey the marital status, where as Mrs. and Miss are de facto linking the woman's status to her husband.

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

Thank You, ignorance fought.
I've seen missus used in comics but mostly by uneducated blacks, uneducated whites say missis, which I guess is better, but it really doesn't look like an English word to Me.

There's no formal word "missus" or "missis". Those are attempts to write out how the vowels are typically pronounced by various subsets. Vowels are funky things that get pronounced differently by different dialects, so there's bound to be variation when the "word" is derived from a pronunciation rather than the other way around.

Connections with looks and health and sanity aren't My idea. Ancient Romans had a saying 'mens sana in corpore sano', that I think in English would be 'healthy mind in healthy body'. Exercise is easier if You are not malformed and it is well known that it helps Your overall health, body and mind. It improves blood circulation to brains and every other part, it helps for depression etc - all this makes it easier to learn and with that to survive and help others to survive.

You have a little bit better grounds to stand on here. However, this speaks not to an inherent relationship between an orderly body equalling an orderly mind, but rather to the benefits of good health vs bad health. That's hardly controversial, but you're not going to get Einstein by merely giving a chimp* good health, but you might end up with a chimp by giving Einstein bad health (via deficient diet, for instance).

If You compare Quasimodo-type person with a hero-type, I think you would expect the hero-type to be smarter, stronger, healthier, living longer, more hard-working, more durable, braver, more friendly and considerate, nicer to kids and old, happier and funnier, more honest, more generous, better for teamwork, Straight Dope member, more docile, neater and cleaner, handier, more artistic, not drunkard, not ruthless, not unfair, not ungrateful and whatever...

Problem there: isn't that assuming the consequent? Isn't that the definition of "hero-type"?

I certainly wouldn't assume a good physical specimen is necessarily going to be nicer to kids and old, happier and funnier, etc. Just because someone eats lean grilled chicken and lots of veggies vs. deep-fried pork, pork, and mork pork, I'd hardly expect that to make them more honest, more generous, etc. I like me some potato chips, and sugar is my vice, but I hardly think that affects my friendliness or considerateness.

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

People are greedy. If You want Your mate to be perfect in all ways, You don't start Your search among the ugly ones. I'm sure You don't go to a bar with test tubes, microscopes and some papers to do a survey of family illnesses. You pick the one that pleases Your eye and work from there.

Hardly the same thing. There is a set of exclusion criteria. They include a certain level of beauty, a certain level of intelligence, a certain level of considerateness, a certain level of social grace, etc. Any one of those criteria is going to be an exclusion, but it's far easier to gauge the beauty from across the room than the person's lack of obnoxiousness, for instance. Why start the filtering with the harder to access factors first?

Originally Posted by Mijin

And I would expect there to be a correlation between physical health and mental health. We still often think of a big divide between body and mind but they are of course integrated and things like, say, malnutrition, have been shown to impair brain function, sometimes irreparably, as well as the body.

I agree, and these are valid points. But that doesn't go as far as Freakenstein is suggesting, that the physical put togetherness itself is correlated between body layout and brain function. Like a person born with a cleft palate must inherently be less intelligent, because they are deformed. Or a person born without legs through some congenital defect must therefore be slow witted.
-----
* I'm horrible with analogies. Preposterous on the face, chimps aren't humans, etc. No offense intended, etc.

[Freakenstein]

Irishman
I am hardly claiming anything. The keyword ( that's probably been in all My posts ) is guessing.
I am guessing, people in the bars are guessing, that's all. Am I going too far with it? Sure, but some see what others don't, some see differently, other don't see at all. ( Saw My comment on that pic in the Wiki-page? Also I don't think young Marie Curie was that bad ).
So it really isn't that universal. For example to Me Angelina Jolie resembles a frog, but I'm sure others have some equally nasty remarks for Isabelle Huppert. ( and I have been called handsome and even pretty, same time others think I'm a balding skeleton. )

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Mijin

It's a bias as a generalization, but not a correlation.

In which case there's the problem of overwhelming exceptions and it can't be proposed seriously. Especially not with a factor propounded as causal (such as innate cellular health), due to mentioned confounds (poverty for instance).

Originally Posted by Learjeff

Darwinian apologists who can't think straight object.

They have good reason to do so. If a statement is undisprovable, it fails the test of falsifiability and cannot be accepted as a scientific proposition.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In which case there's the problem of overwhelming exceptions and it can't be proposed seriously. Especially not with a factor propounded as causal (such as innate cellular health), due to mentioned confounds (poverty for instance).

My point was that we should expect a correlation between attractiveness and physical health, and a correlation between physical health and mental health.

Now if there's a correlation but with "overwhelming exceptions", that's still a correlation, so I have no reason not to propose it seriously.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

They have good reason to do so. If a statement is undisprovable, it fails the test of falsifiability and cannot be accepted as a scientific proposition.

Miscommunication, I believe. I admit I had a confusing number of reversals in my original statement:

Creationists like to criticize the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a tautology. Darwinian apologists who can't think straight object. The objections are wrong: it *is* a tautology. So what? It means you can't use it as an argument. It's not an argument; it's a catch-phrase that helps focus thought in a useful direction. (BTW, "1+1 = 2" is a tautology, but that doesn't mean it's useles.)

Let me clarify.

1) Creationists claim that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
2) Darwinian apologists who can't think straight disagree with this claim.

Darwinians who CAN think straight shouldn't object to the claim, they should simply say "Right -- so what?"

Just to be clear, I believe in evolution, and think Creationism is bunk, but we shouldn't use bad arguments against it. Likewise, we shouldn't disagree when they say that science has a methodological bias (towards "scientific naturalism", versus ... um ... well, whatever screwball theory Creationists are trying to push. Oops, I mean, the possibility of miracles.) Instead, we should agree that science has a blind spot, but like any blind spot, it can be worked around -- if there's actually something to see. Quantum mechanics is a great example of Science working around a number of methodological blind spots!

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

Irishman
I am hardly claiming anything. The keyword ( that's probably been in all My posts ) is guessing.

Meh, guessing is just a weak form of claiming. In fact, that you aren't willing to support it should show you just how weak your "guess" is.

Originally Posted by Mijin

My point was that we should expect a correlation between attractiveness and physical health, and a correlation between physical health and mental health.

Sure, we can accept a correlation, but that's not the same thing as the proposed causal relation of good cellular health, or whatever it is that Freakonomics is "guessing".

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by Mijin

My point was that we should expect a correlation between attractiveness and physical health. ..

Of course there are. Ever notice that people look a LOT better when they're not sick?

Also, looks can help identify good genes. Symmetry is the common example.

There are certainly aspects of attractiveness that relate to robustness, just as there are a lot that don't.

, and a correlation between physical health and mental health

I question this, except to the extent that people who aren't totally whacked out take better care of their appearance, and your more general point that malnourished people who aren't physically healthy can often have concomitant mental health issues.

[Freakenstein]

Originally Posted by Irishman

In fact, that you aren't willing to support it should show you just how weak your "guess" is.

It's not that I am not willing to support, it's that I can't, because I am just - You know - guessing. And guesses can go wrong, here and in the bar - has happened, will happen. And I don't think that My previous list of good qualities is going to be labeled exclusively to the one You're attracted to, just more than an average would get.

I'm new here and just wanted to participate, I had some answers and got carried away. It's been fun ( still is ), but now it's going to be out of My league. You people are going to be all scientific about this, so My education and My English are not going to be adequate ( I had to check out that last word from a dictionary and many more on this thread... )

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Now if there's a correlation but with "overwhelming exceptions", that's still a correlation, so I have no reason not to propose it seriously.

"Overwhelming exceptions" is a logical fallacy. In scientific terms, that means such a correlation wouldn't meet statistical significance. I can only claim agnosticism without any data though.