Evolution, sex, and food
I used to use analogies between food and sex so often I created a separate category for it. And still think each is a great analogy for the other.
Not sure why I was thinking about this yesterday while walking along the beach but I started thinking about how... cliché it is that evolutionary psychologists/sociobiologists/social-darwinists/whatever seem to focus so much attention on the evolutionary psychology of sex, constructing *elaborate* "genetic" justifications for the "evolutionary benefit" of wealthy white Anglo-american women wearing strapless evening gowns while their partners wear tight-collared tuxedos.
Oh, got it. I started out thinking about how much I didn't care to eat fish when I was growing up in Southern Appalachia, and how my midwest-raised partner feels the same because in neither area where there really very many options for fresh fish, and I was comparing that to my own children who just fall all over fish when they can get it -- smoked salmon, fried salmon skins (which is a lot like fish-flavored bacon so isn't as awful as it sounds... to me), and, especially, sushi and sashimi. Yup, that's it. That's the point where I started thinking that if you look at something *even more* fundamentally survival oriented, like food choices, you'd think evolutionary psychologists would be all over that since
a) everybody has to eat
b) we have to eat far more frequently than we have to have sex
c) we have to eat far *far* more frequently than we have to select partners
d) people in almost all cultures are far more willing to disclose what and how they eat compared to with whom and how they have sex.
Yet it's pretty much crickets on the old food front.
Anyway, one common trope of the EP crowd is to say something inane like "does date rape have evolutionary benefits? Well, there's one really, really obscure tribe in the middle of a southeastern University campus that seems to rely on it for mate selection... blah blah blah" as if what obscure groups do says much about the rest of us. And yet both they and, to a certain extent we, lap those sorts of stories up.
But outside of a couple of guesses about our early diet based on current trends in obesity (early humans liked sweets and fats too but they weren't very abundant) you don't really see a whole lot of EP theorizing about diet or eating practices when, when you think about it, our social practices around dining -- for instance who we will or won't eat with under various circumstances -- are at least as complex as our practices related to mate selection or sex.
Funny how we study one but not the other eh?
(Oddly, I think if *I* were to go into EP I'd actually spend a little time studying *that* -- our differential interests in cultures of food vs. cultures of sex. But that's a story for another day.)
"Towel Off 035" from my "Towel off" photoset on Flickr.
Note: As Hathor (a.k.a. Five of Nine) and A from France pointed out earlier, I don't ordinarily take a shower in my glasses. I got the idea for this photo series after getting out of the shower and towelling off, but by the time I dried off, got dressed, ran through the house to grab my camera, ran back and undressed, etc., I was no longer wet. Instead I was just interested in the way the natural light made everything look.
Wet or not, it has been a great photo series. I certainly find that it is difficult to be entirely spontaneous about taking self-photos. I can put my camera on time lapse but have no remote control of it so by the time the camera is set up, the shots I get tend to look posed and somewhat staged. Yours on the other hand always look natural and not at all contrived.IMHO.
[Yeah, it's weird but when I try to contrive things they look, um, *contrived!* It works way better to just have a big chip in the camera, take lots and lots of photos of me just being me trying to guess what would look interesting, and then post almost everything that isn't outright blurry. :-) Thanks, LR. --fl]
I didn't in the least mean to detract from your photos, honestly I didn't: you see it's only by close studying that I noticed you weren't wet :) and I did think what Five of Nine said was so funny. My sense of humour is an acquired taste :(
[No problem at all, A. I've just found it's safer online to err on the side of seriousness when answering questions. (Which is funny since in person I'm usually, though not always, the opposite.) --fl]
i've always wondered why evolutionary psychologists don't seem to focus on the reason why we can't tell ourselves jokes when we're alone, but yet have no problem making ourselves come.
i mean given the "necessity" of procreation (and probably the reason it feels pleasurable - well, at least the first part of it anyway; i dunno what it's like to raise a kid) i would think that the ability to orgasm should only be made possible in the presence of someone else, yet it's not. laughing seems to have no evolutionary role at all, so it seems odd that it can only be induced in the presence of someone else.
[Cool cool questions, kermit, that I think really *are* useful EP questions. The key answer for me is that so much of evolution is contingent rather than master planned. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, even the bell-ringing, eye-rolling, incapacitating orgasms we think of as "natural" for women *and* men could only indirectly be a product of sexual attraction. As for tickling, chances are that those nerve pathways developed under entirely different selective circumstances -- it's no less likely there's no *selective* advantage for us enjoying tickling either. But anyway, I'm more drawn to Jaques Monod's notion of genetics as an outlining function rather than a choreographing one -- he said humans don't fly because we have no genes for wings, and we laugh because we have genes that allow it, but beyond that we've got a great deal of room for flexibility. Thanks! --fl]
The natural light made you look good.
Since we hardly ever see your facial silhouette, I though that maybe you were so nearsighted that your glasses were the first thing you reached for. I am almost that nearsighted. It seems I see a little better without glasses since I have been over 60 or just more comfortable without them.
[I always do grab my glasses first, but it's mostly because that way I don't lose them. Or, worse, step on them -- the fate of my first several pair back in 8th grade. :-) Thanks, Five. --fl]
A.
I was trying to be funny.
kermit, there have been studies on the nature of laughter and potential theories about its evolutionary usefulness. Many non-human species also exhibit laughter-like behaviors. My memory is very rusty, but I think researchers theorized that among social animals, laughter is a way of showing submission and easing tension. Something about how among primates, a low rank individual 'smiling' and making panting noises(laughter), in combination with submissive body language, at a higher rank individual is a way of appeasing them.
I also remember seeing a cute video of a researcher tickling a rat and making it laugh. That had more to do with play, though.
[I think the key is to remember that even in humans (a single species) laughter serves multiple purposes. A dumb example: whereas we may have evolved opposable thumbs to grasp branches, and whereas other primates may grasp branches, we're pretty clearly able to do more than that with them -- including highly abstract signalling like hitch-hiking and life/death decisions for gladiators. In cases of either thumbs or laughter, especially for high-level signalling, it may not be very instructive to say "but species X has that too..." Thanks, AS. --fl]
i heard of those too, albinosquid.
what i meant to emphasize was that laughter necessitates another human being (or a television or a book or something) since you can't tell yourself a joke yet for some reason you can give yourself an orgasm.
social interaction is one thing, but reproduction is another (and way more vital). there's plenty of creatures out there that don't particularly care for their mates until it comes time to breed (hello preying mantis).
[It's worth mentioning that there are plenty of creatures that don't have orgasms at all, or if they do they're more like scratching an itch or sneezing. Yet they reproduce at far higher rates than humans do. Which is just one of the reasons I'd be happier to see a lot of fundamental research into the EP of, say, social eating before we got into such genuinely arcane areas of genetics such as why we get horny and how we deal with it. We just need a heck of a lot more basic research before we go trying it on the big hills. Thanks, kermit. --fl]
For one thing - researching diet trends isn't sexy research. It's not going to get anywhere near the funding or attention that researching mate selection/sex will. So, not as many people will be doing it, it won't have a lot of funding, and there won't be a lot of noise made when findings are published.
On the other hand, regarding situation and diet... After leaving my Ex (controlling prick that he was/is) and moved in with some roommates, I've found myself rapidly expanding the selection of foods that I do eat. Stuff I'd never go near before I eat with gusto now. Of course, my biggest problem hasn't been so much taste, but texture issues. My brain recognizes food x tastes good, or at least neutral, but I hesitate because of the texture. Not that the texture is bad, I'm just not used to it. It's like learning to ride a bike. Takes a few tries.
I've also found I'm not big on 'cold' foods.. well.. as in cold primary meal dishes (like potato salad for example). And if I'm having something like say, pasta, and it gets cold (like room temperature I'm talking here, but when it touches your tongue, it is cooler than your mouth, so it feels cold) I find it much much less appealing. Cold desserts, however, are fine.
["...and there won't be a lot of noise made when findings are published." I think that's actually what's going on, Q. You want to sell a book you write about what sells. You want to do actual science you write when the signal is stronger than the noise. Thanks! --fl]
I actually do take a shower in my glasses - lol. I wear them in and wash them too. They stay much cleaner and nice if I give them a good soaping and rinsing every day. You pay $700 or more for something, you want it to stay clean!
Anyway, it's been a wonderful series of pictures. The lighting, the subject . . .
[Thanks, Bunny! --fl]