Well, since poker has been so unenjoyable recently and it's more fun for me and to write and for you to read about enjoyable things, allow me this non-poker post. When I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago I needed some reading material and so strolled by a nearby bookstore. I ended up buying four books, one of which was Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Alan Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa.
The book is a lay-person's summary of the field of evolutionary psychology, which challenges the Standard Social Science Model, which the authors describe (caricature?) as the following:
1) Humans are exceptional in that their behavior is not determined by evolution, but rather by cultural influence, which is orthogonal to evolution.
2) The brain is exceptional within the human body in that its structure is not the result of evolution.
3) Humans are born with a "blank slate" for a brain, which is then written on as the sum total of their experiences, etc..
I've been interested in evolutionary biology in general for a while, and therefore skeptical of this view. I had already read a few interesting books by Steven Pinker which, although they deal mostly with language, argue strongly against the idea of a 'blank slate'.
Miller and Kanazawa describe a number of trends (although some are disputed), some of which aren't very politically correct, but which would be adaptive in the evolutionary sense. The most controversial, and fun to read, parts, regard differences between men and women. It seems like society would like to believe (if the reaction to Larry Summers' comments a few years ago is any measure) that men and women couldn't possibly be different fundamentally. Sure, men are taller and grow hair on their faces, but there couldn't be any fundamental differences in mental capabilities or personality (remember #2, "evolution stops at the neck"). Therefore any differences that do exist must be a result of cultural pressures or stereotypes.
There are two groups of evidence that indicate this is not the case. The first is infant studies. There is significant difference in what boys and girls are interested in as early as 24 hours into their existence. It would be hard to argue that these differences are a result of socialization so early in life. The second is cross-cultural studies. If gender differences were a result of cultural brainwashing, wouldn't there be at least some cultures, if not now then throughout history, that didn't have the same characteristics of men being more aggressive, violent, "structural" in thinking, and women being more nurturing and passive? The reason none exist, or have ever existed as far as the historical record shows, is that biology determines culture - cultures develop that promote these stereotypes because the seeds of these traits are planted in our genes. Why would evolution drive each gender towards these roles?
The variance of male reproductive success is much greater than the variance of female reproductive success. Almost every female has some children, while it's virtually impossible for any female to have more than 15 or 20. Meanwhile, some men may have zero children, while a wildly successful man can have virtually unlimited numbers of children.
From this fact two results follow: one is that men should engage in riskier choices, both genetic gambles and risky, competitive or violent behavior, because the difference between "winning" and "losing" for them is so great, while for women it is relatively small. Two is that women should put more value on men who can improve the survival chances of each child, since each child to her represents a large fraction of the total number of children she could possibly have. She must choose carefully which men she "uses" her eggs on, as she doesn't have many to give. Men should instead value women who have good reproductive characteristics, conducive to the bearing and rearing of children. They should try to have sex with as many women as possible, since sperm is virtually costless to them.
Basically, this is stuff that you already "know". Men like to gamble, fight, and compete. They like women who are young and fit (the waist/hips ratio of .7 is favored by men around the world from many different cultures - the ideal of female beauty is anything but a media invention, but rather a universal determined by reproductive fitness). They are generally more willing than females to have sex with strangers and with many differnet partners. Women are less competitive and more empathetic. They like men who have the ability and willingness to provide for their children. They prefer time to assess a man on these criteria before having sex, and have less desire to have many different sexual partners.
Of course none of this has any moral content. It doesn't mean that girls shouldn't be encouraged to be scientists or that men shouldn't be proud to stay home with their children or that it's alright for men to cheat on their wives or girlfriends. In modern-day life, evolutionary pressures are largely absent. But their effects are still felt in our DNA, and it's silly to pretend they aren't. Improving society without understanding the forces that motivate its individuals is an impossible task.
-BRUECHIPS
2 comments:
But why would/do beautiful people have more daughters? I would imagine beautiful people have a higher probability of having beautiful children but why would the ratio be skewed toward females?
Lucypher -
The answer is that, as you say beautiful people have more beautiful children, and physical beauty is a more "valuable" trait for women than for men. Couples that have traits that are better for men (wealth, height, for instance) tend to have more sons. But I should caution that the statistical evidence behind these claims isn't completely conclusive (read the "disputed" link in the post). But it tells a nice story at least.
Post a Comment