Seems to me that if our beauty standards were purely about reproductive fitness, as pop sociobiologists and pop evolutionary psychologists claim, and if their notion that “primitive” human society was exactly like Ozzie and Harriet’s nuclear family with breadwinner men and stay-at-home women then…
a) The most desirable-looking women would tend to wear size 10-14 (U.S. standard) or a little bit higher and at least look like they’d survived bearing and nurturing a child at least once previously and look able to do so again. And since any outside activity they did do would tend to be gathering, and thus need to be already well-versed in plant ID and habitat they’d probably also be a bit older so they could remember where all the good stuff could be found.
b) The most desirable men would at least look extraordinarily young and incredibly fit in order to appear able to bring down food and defend their families.
That almost the opposites seem to be true suggests sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists suffer from… considerable selection bias. Keep banging the rocks together, guys.
Submitted by 3171 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-08-31 21:12.
Umm, no. If you're going to be that way, then for men... fit, yes, but experience counts for a lot when it comes to hunting and fighting. Especially in a culture that practices big-game hunting. Which one would not get much practical experience with until during or near adulthood because it would be too difficult and dangerous for a child. And a young child could easily learn and do gathering. I did, because my parents didn't feed me enough. Plus surviving one birth isn't at all a reliable indicator about the chance of surviving future births. There are a ton of things that can just randomly go wrong even for the healthiest woman. Several births, maybe, but hunter-gatherers weren't as big on spawning like crazy as the agricultural types.
While I agree that socios and ev-psychs are biased, your "reversed examples" seem kind of wonky.
ReCaptcha: 10day overstay
Submitted by 3171 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-09-01 11:37.
"hunter-gatherers weren't as big on spawning like crazy as the agricultural types."
Very good point.
Following the commonly accepted idea that men are more visual, then I suppose they'd be attracted to whatever was the current fad in beauty. Who dictates that I don't know, but it seems to follow that curves, clear complexion, and healthy hair are fairly consistent, even though weight may fluctuate from century to century.
As a woman looking at men, what I find appealing is confidence (without being egotistical), physical strength (but not being "ripped"), intelligence and some humility.
As a woman looking at women, I want... curves, clear complexion, and healthy hair AND intelligence. She's gotta know which wild berries are good and which ones will kill ya.
Submitted by 3171 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-02 06:34.
Hmm, maybe when it comes to men you're confusing beauty with attractiveness... in other primates, power is a very attractive thing. If you wield power over others, you command greater food resources and hence become a more attractive mate. It's a cost/benefit thing - the desirable one is the one with resources, even if there is a more physically attractive option.
When it comes to women however, I think there was some research indicating that the waist/hip ratio remains consistent across time and space even when the actual measurements fluctuate, and it is this ratio which indicates physical fitness.
And now that I've finished playing devil's advocate, I want to say I love the way you're analysing the logic of the whole 'reproductive fitness' theory. It's not the only situation where I've come across a selection bias in evolutionary psychology.