Cherrie of The Sensuous Libertine posts yet another excellent reason for casting a wary eye on evolutionary psychology.
Do we really believe that these results emanating from the past decade have any bearing on our ancestral past? Think about it for a moment. For 4 to 5 million years our ancestors lived in groups of 15 to 75 persons, of which there were a total of 5 to 35 men as possible choices as mates, not much of a selection pool; but, how they chose each other is nothing more than pure conjecture. Symmetry sounds good, but so does tall, or funny, or sensitive, etc.
Then, as we arrive at the time of recorded history, some 6,000 years ago we know that women had very little, if any choice in her mate as marriages were arranged…primarily for economic and/or defense purposes. So much for selection by symmetry or anything else for that matter concerning female choice.Now, it’s possible that symmetry, etc. plays an unconscious role in today’s mate selection; but, 200 plus years in an evolutionary span of 5 million hardly equates to the genetic role these researchers would have us believe.
Attempts to explain complex human behavior in terms of animals (or, in the case Cherrie reviewed, Japanese scorpion files) are as common as fevers during flu season. Just usually not as helpful. It’s not that there aren’t documented preferences for symmetry in humans (see, for instance, this post from Randy Dotinga at Sex Drive Daily.) Instead the problem lies in the interpretation.
Yes, people (and scorpion flies, and lots of other organisms) seem to idealize idealized forms. But as Cherrie’s correspondent points out, through much of human history (and for a sizable minority in the world for whom arranged marriage remains the norm) there may not have been much leeway for individuals in partner selection.
But basically any time you read one of these “it must be genetic” ideas ask yourself (at least) two questions:
- Is that the only possible reason we’d have the trait in question?
- Is that trait really strong enough to be a major selection factor?
In the case of symmetry, for instance, while we might be (consciously or unconsciously) drawn more to symmetrical people, you’ve probably noticed we’re drawn to all sorts of symmetrical things. Rings, stars, and valentines come to mind. And while we might give our sweeties a ring on Valentine’s day and then made her see stars with our tongues, we rarely mate with those… or nearly any other… symmetrical objects. Also, while we may be attracted more to visibly symmetrical people, and while humans are highly visually-oriented organism, does anyone suggest looks is our primary criteria for partner selection? (Note: Whereas porn consultant Sam Sugar has pointed out that at least in porn if two stars have the same the same characteristics most people select the more attractive person, it’s no less true that when considering two people who are similarly attractive most people select the one with more character.)
Hmm. Actually, there are a couple of other questions it doesn’t hurt to ask either:
- Is the cultural context in which the cultural trait is supposed to have evolved actually old enough for selection to have had any effect at all?
- Are the organisms we’re being compared to even remotely close to us in the evolutionary tree? (The last common ancestor to humans and scorpion flies predate the Cambrian explosion.) And if so, do we see any consistent patterns of similar behavior in organisms more closely related to us?
So. If, but probably only if, the answers to all those questions is yes, then there might be some substance to the theory. Otherwise, it’s probably best for the researchers to keep collecting data and leave the interpretations to the tabloids.
Remember, I’m not saying human behavior has no genetic basis. I’m just saying those components need to be very strong, or very fundamental to be observable above the background noise of everyday human social variation and psychological sophistication.
Submitted by 1231 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-02-27 01:08.
One of these studies was written up in a New Scientist article "Blue-eyed men prefer blue-eyed women". Well that's me out of luck then!
In fact I can disprove the theory all by myself with my own vast study. My father had blue eyes and my mother brown. My eyes are sort of sludgy. My husband has blue eyes has managed apparently OK with me. My sons have blue eyes and are both with brown eyed women. There you are - theory wrong!
[I should have mentioned in my post that only about one out of ten "unexpected" scientific findings turn out to be true. That's something that in itself shocks journalists and lay people but doesn't bother real scientists at all. In part that's because they're confident in the safeguards that the "scientific method" (actually a process far less rigid but no less reliable than the public tends to understand) tends to quickly weed out the dingers pretty quickly. The blue-eyed thing? Um, popular culture suggests people with all different eye colors are attracted to blue-eyed people so.... so what? Thanks, A. (Glad you survived the terrible blue-eyed gantlet. Good thing your parents never heard about that study. :-) ) --fl]