Could someone tell me where this idea originated from? And more specifically, how exactly do your genes determine the “standard” features of human beauty e.g. heavy brow ridge for men and thin facial thickness. Like, how does having good genes get expressed in looks?
I’ll leave the origins of the theory to another, but just wanted to say that youth, freedom from disease, and ability to secure a healthy diet (current fashion notwithstanding) are all indicated by beauty.
I’m just going to use Western standards of beauty 'cause it makes things simpler. Attractive women have e.g. prominent cheekbones and their mouthes reach from one pupil to the other. How exactly do the genes say “right, there’s some good stuff here, I’ll make her cheekbones prominent 'cause that’s a sign.”
This linkmight offer some info.
That looks like a really good link… except the pictures don’t work!
It works the other way around. We find things attractive because they are indicative of good genes.
Is this not perhaps simply the “what is beautiful is good” bias taught in intro psych courses?
A lot of what we perceive as beautiful is symmetry. Symmetrical faces are beautiful. Symmetry of features is a good indicator of overall health, a sign that a potential sexual partner does not have any crippling diseases that would warp his/her facial features. Clear skin is another indicator of beauty and health. Discolored skin can be a sign of diseases such as jaundice, open sores can be signs of persistant infection or parasitic infestation, neither of which makes for an attractive mate. Bright whites in the eyes is another sign of good health and hence, good genes.
No, it’s not a value judgement. If individuals in a population are attracted to members of the opposite sex that exhibit physical characteristcs indicative of genes that favor survival in some manner or another, then those individuals will pass those benificial genes on to their offspring. This sets up a feedback mechanism that helps build in a natural attraction to “good genes” within that population.
Sometimes this is taken to extremes, and the classic example is the peacock’s tail. Why do peahens find big tails attractive? It’s not because of some sense of inherent beauty in the tail, but the fact that a big tail signals “good genes”-- the individual can survive despite the handicap of the cumbersome tail.
nitpick. It’s reproduction of the fittest, not survival. Natural selection doesn’t “care” if the individual survives (individuals don’t), only if they’re prolific. A peacock with a huge tail that lives half as long and breeds twice as often as joe average becomes the next generation.
I’ve never bought the “deliberate handicap” explanation of sexual selection. The fact that the big-tailed peacock can survive despite his wasteful tail might indicate that that cock would be very “fit” (in senses other than pure attractiveness) if he didn’t have the tail. But he does in fact have the tail, and the handicap that goes with it, and in non-attractiveness contexts, the tail makes him less fit.
The thing to realize is that sexual selection doesn’t need any inherent cause at all. Even if peacock tails have no role at all other than decoration, peacocks will continue to have magnificent tails, and peahens will continue to find magnificent tails sexy. Suppose that a peahen were hatched, by some fluke, with a mutation that caused her to dislike fancy tails. So this perverted peahen goes out and finds the peacock with the smallest, drabbest tail she can find, and mates with him. Of her chicks, the males will have smaller, drabber tails than average for peacocks, and since their mom’s mutation is rare among peafowl, they’ll have a harder than average time finding mates. So this perverted peahen will have fewer grandchicks than would a peahen with more typical tastes, and her mutation will be selected against. So evolutionarily, sexual selection is a positive feedback mechanism. And positive feedback mechanisms don’t need an inherent root cause: If nothing else, they’ll amplify random noise (genetic drift, in this case).
Or possibly some minor root cause, long obsolete and unidentifiable started this pattern and no pressing evolutionary need has reversed it. An parasite, long gone, 10,000 (maybe 10 million) generations ago tore up the tail feathers of peacocks. Once the hens started mating preferentially with longer tailed males to avoid disease it was off and running. Now if a new predator arrived whose color vision keyed him onto the big tails, Chronoses “preverted” peahen would be the matriach of the new peacock order. What a grand game. The genes don’t “think” a long tail is pretty, they’re just the genes most frequently repeated
There are also a lot of subtle indicators of fertility that we find attractive. Studies that looked at hip/waist ratios found correlations between both attractiveness to the opposite sex and relative fertility. Estrogen and testosterone levels produce subtle differences in subcutaneous fat, skin texture, and voice tones as well as the larger differences in muscle mass, and the changes in skeletal structure during development.
Facial structure is very different between men and women. Men have eyes that are on average smaller, show less white, are set deeper in their brows, and are more centrally located than women’s. Part of women’s greater field of view has to do with eye placement, which is more to the sides of the face. Again, hormone balance changes how the underlying structure of the face develops, particularly during puberty, so women even in maturity have softer, more childlike features while men’s bones undergo greater overall changes from the childhood forms.
Skin color and hair color in young women who have not had children is lighter than when they are older or have had babies. Pale blondes are the extreme example of this, which is probably why they are the stereotype of a sexually desirable woman in European cultures. Hair quality is an indicator of age and overall health. The same way anyone who raises domestic animals can get a snapshot of health based just on coat/skin condition, we automatically and subconsciously evaluate people’s hair and skin, which quite often does show something about their state.
Heck, even the way people move has a big effect on their attractiveness. Grace and body language makes a statement about the coordination, mental outlook, and perceived social status of the person. Men who don’t exhibit assertive body language will be rated less attractive than “leader” males by most women. A woman who brings attention to her secondary sex characteristics (see: hair flip, chest thrust, hip wiggle, lip lick) is almost certainly seen as being flirtatious and more attractive than one who hunches and avoids eye contact. The outgoing one is not only advertising her physical characteristics, she’s advertising her social status within the group.
The question of beauty isn’t simply physical, or even genetic, it has to do with all kinds of little things that we don’t consciously notice most of the time but which have an accumulative effect on how we rate the attractiveness of the person. All of those things are indicators of just a portion of the person’s fitness as a mate.
Trouble is, standards of beauty change. What is considered beautiful in one era might be considered ugly 100 years later. A particular feature may indicate “good genes” but whether that feature is attractive or ugly is arbitrary, and subject to change without notice.
Would it be right to say we’re genetically programmed to look for signs of fertility?
Yeah, although I wouldn’t use the term “genetically programmed”. It’s just that a feeback loop gets set up so that those individuals who are attracted to individuals with “good genes” will be more likely to propogate their own genes into the population.
Chronos: I agree. I was a somewhat sloppy in that post and didn’t mean to imply that the peahen somehow saw the tail as a sign of “fitness”. All the peahen knows is what it’s instict (or imprinting) tells it-- mate with the guy with the biggest tail you can find. How that particular feedback loop got set up is anyone’s guess.
Peter Morris: Their are many standards of human beauty that transcend time and culture. Smooth skin, symetrical features, good smile, etc.
Ah ha! The correlation between the vicious cycle of teens becoming pregnant and going on welfare.