The women used for the face on the left had unusually small feet, and the women used for the face on the right had unusually large feet. I think it's clear that the small-footed morph is prettier, but the evolutionary psychologists effort at an explanation strikes me as a particularly silly example of after-the-fact bullshit.
As usual, the more attractive thing is presented as representing better health and suitability for producing offspring. But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?
Interestingly, the morphs done on male faces found that women were especially attracted to the faces morphed from men with small wrists. Explain that, oh, evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist. Of course, they can explain it, because they are up for explaining everything that happens to be.
Posts
136 comments:
Science: "...and that's why the monkey has a tail."
The one on the left will make us feel all manly when she shrieks for help at the sight of a spider.
Both women look like trouble.
"But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?"
No. She looks stronger and more masculine to me. They look equally healthy but the one on the left is prettier.
But I am biased: My wife's feet are unusually small and my wrists are thin.
the woman on the right plays softball ;)
From an evolutionary perspective, they didn't morph the parts that matter most.
wv: coppe, as in a feel.
You would think that evolutionary psychologists would be humbled by how close their reasoning processes are to those of old fashioned Freudians. Of course, natural selection has a firmer foundation than Freud's(now pretty thoroughly debunked) theories. But that doesn't mean it's valid to make a silly parlor game out of it.
Peacocks and human lips should dispel any ideas that what is beautiful has anything to do with survival.
"attracted to the faces morphed from men with small wrists. Explain that, oh, evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist."
Attractive men need to masturbate less, resulting in smaller wrists.
That one is way too easy.
/Whoa- what a vw! "handucka"
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
I liked the girl on the right better, which is probably why they picked heterosexual males for the study.
I worry about these women with pretty faces. Their small feet and narrow waists make them sound like someone who wont be able to do a lot of walking and might die in childbirth. Why can't there be two populations with different reproductive strategies? One of women who are ornamental, and another of women who are practical.
The appearance of "Health" is just a nice way of saying "Fertile". The face on the left looks younger than the one on the right. Younger == more fertile == prettier.
I'd also make the case that the one on the right has more delicate features, so it would be more obvious if the child was actually yours. Since the man's inherited facial structure would override the woman's.
Faces, feet, wrists, short pants, purses, carrots...
Callie: You know, at a distance, you'd almost pass for a man. But you're certainly a disappointment up close, aren't you?
The Stranger: Your feet, ma'am, are almost as big as your mouth.
Lovely bullshit call
THANK YOU!!!
Scientists need to practice "I don't know" or "that's the way thing are, what do you think?" much more often.
Just right on the "evolutionary ___s."
I remember a prof of mine a few years back wondering about evolutionary biologists and their "just so stories."
Well damn, rhhardin. I see you got there much sooner and more elegantly than I. But at least I have the link. ;-)
The one on the left looks like my son's girlfriend (who is quite petite).
The one on the right looks like she plays basketball.
But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?
I wasn't aware that congenital adrenal hyperplasia was a sign of health in females.
Althouse loves expropriating every male sign of strength and applying it to females as a gender-neutral standard, except for one: virtue.
Speaking of virtue- what to make of Al Gore?
The one on the right looks like she would have child bearing hips.
The one on the left looks like she would act tragicly hip.
Just sayn'
There go the right. Defining their strengths based on what weaknesses they will point to in their enemies.
It's all relative to those moral absolutists.
Ritmo is just pissed because we won't be seeing anymore Brazilian hotties in the World Cup.
Sorry man. I miss them too!
"Speaking of virtue- what to make of Al Gore?"
Men in power tend to be more over-sexed than the average male, and also have more opportunities for sex.
Preach it, Trooper!
Althouse might want to read up on neoteny.
I mean I love the USA and I hate soccer so it was really tough to
root for the USA.
Does the preference for less brutish and aged features in women have something to do with the fact that all their gametes (eggs) are at least a decade old by the time they're capable of reproduction, whereas men can produce fresh gametes throughout their entire lives?
Rhhardin nails it.
It's also contains what we used to call in college, 'drylabbing', to start with the answer ("evolutionary psychology explains the findings") , and work backwards to the required input data.
The USA will learn to do well in soccer once we learn how to cooperate, dance well, and move around instead of perpetually through things.
Although this theory doesn't explain the Netherland's win over Brazil.
Is Pogo saying that induction and hypothesis-generation are discredited activities?
I might have to go Dutch!
One could certainly do worse than Holland.
The woman on the right looks more intelligent, more capable. I have no idea why she seems that way to me. Just does.
Well I can't root for the Krauts.
They always want to dress up in black and stuff.
Too Gestapoish for me.
Wow. I was about to be impressed by the pic and then realized that it could have easily been Dieter's girlfriend.
Although she seems a bit freer and less uptight than the Sprockets crowd.
Perhaps she's one of them Kurdish or Turkish immigrants, Trooper!
Nothing beats black hair, whatever else the score.
I definitely think Trooper does better photographic analysis than the Evil Blogger Lady.
I guess I will have to go with Spain.
It just feels right. So to speak.
Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!
Why the hell are the subtitles in the most popular version of a clip of an American show satirizing a German TV host in Hebrew?
The Brazilians dance much better.
@Ritmo,
Only the ones that use circular reasoning.
Evolutionary psychology means that reproductive fitness is driven by preference, so any trait preferences must imply reproductive fitness.
Not bad.
And big lips might just be the right compromise between the big features Althouse likes and something more Angelina Jolie.
Although I never realized why American men couldn't pick up on the fact that Jolie is crazy.
Why the Hell did Brazil have to lose?
Don't they know what they did to us sports fans?
@Pogo:
Evolutionary psychology means that reproductive fitness is driven by preference, so any trait preferences must imply reproductive fitness.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Reproductive fitness is a less meaningful idea in a species with medicine and minds big enough to create a culture where preferences can merely be economically viable, rather than biologically viable.
But it doesn't mean that we can't create entire industries devoted to playing with drives and impulses inherited from an earlier age when this wasn't the case.
Holy Pele Batman. Ritmo, I didn't realize that you went to the game!
Now I understand the song about "Want to bang on your drum all night."
You misunderstood.
The sentence I wrote is the template used by evolutionary psychology adherents to explain their findings. It's circular.
It's cruel Trooper. So cruel.
But do yourself a favor and get your wife to let you go down to Carnaval next year. Better yet, bring her with you. Women love dance so they would tend to find spectating at such an event less threatening than, say, going to a strip club or searching for scantily clad ladies on the internets.
Or you can always hang out at the place on 46th street where I was a few weekends ago. They even brought in some model to watch the game.
That is a culture that loves beauty.
That was a funny picture.
Then I disagree with your use of the word "fitness". "Culturally viable" has replaced any biological meaning of the word.
I'm holding out for a threesome. My attitude has been driving scientists nutso for as long as I can remember.
Brazil is kinda far. But I might go down to New Orleans and visit Beth to watch the Saints play the Giants.
Did I tell you lately that the Giants are going to win the Superbowl?
The Emperor Charlemagne's mother was known as "Bertha of the Big Feet." To paraphrase a line from "I, Claudius," maybe it is not so much quantity of feet as quality of feet that ensures reproductive success.
Ritmo: Then I disagree with your use of the word "fitness". "Culturally viable" has replaced any biological meaning of the word.
Pogo was only explaining what an evolutionary psychologist might say. If you want to have this argument I suggest you hunt the grad student down at his next poster presentation.
The one on the left is the slam dunk winner.
Don't fear, Trooper. Go the distance.
Brazil is calling you...
You know why this study is bullshit? They did a composite of the women's faces. Obviously the researchers should have made a composite of the women's chests! This is why the data makes no sense.
Pogo was only explaining what an evolutionary psychologist might say. If you want to have this argument I suggest you hunt the grad student down at his next poster presentation.
In order to ask someone what they "might" say? That sounds awfully speculative. And as is evident, you guys hate speculation.
Shouldn't it be evident, even plainly obvious, that human evolution is no longer about what is desired in the context of a natural niche, but what is desirable in a certain cultural setting? Why do you guys seem to not understand that cultural pressures have largely displaced most factors of natural selection? One would think you were the only conservatives to have never read Hobbes...
Ritmo: Why do you guys seem to not understand that cultural pressures have largely displaced most factors of natural selection?
I don't think you're saying anything new. You think chimps that act strangely reproduce well?
I can't judge a woman's beauty based on a picture of her face. It is necessary for me to see something else. And you all know what that is.
Peter
To propose that chimps have a social concept for "strange" that closely equates to what is considered as such by humans is indeed a new idea and one that might be as speculative as what could occur in the poster presentation you envision.
It's also pretty ridiculous to propose that that bands of a dozen or so chimpanzees have a culture anywhere near as complex as that developed by 7 billion humans.
But I digress, as always. Apologies for my many forays into such caveats as reminders of reality.
Although I will keep in mind your understanding of chimpanzee culture as one that is as conformist as the conservative paradise that was 1950s America. That's an interesting one, Jason.
the one on the left just looks like she's wearing more make up.
Speaking of the limits of conformity, I bring you more Kraftwerk!
And I wonder what the chimps thought of that first critter to scratch a meal of termites out of a stump with a stick! What was he thinking, using tools and all? Silly, liberal-progressive, strangely acting chimpanzee!
Hate to say it, but I like the one on the right.
I guess this means I'm supposed to have a foot fetish.
Trooper York said...
The one on the right looks like she would have child bearing hips.
The one on the left looks like she would act tragicly hip.
Better than she act hippily tragic.
Thanks, Trooper for all of that research. The Fliegende Hollaender maedchen ist sehr schoen. And has all the equipment for evolutionary survival.
Ritmo and Titus are the same person.
They're morphs of only eight women. Get one or two extra lookers on either side, and the morphs are skewed. I don't think this study is very well designed.
Full disclosure: I have big feet for my height.
Amusing to me: The morph woman on the right strikes me, on first glance, to be someone I would get along with well.
Well, I liked the one on the right.
Geez Ritmo, get a girlfriend or something. Even a hobby.
My husband thinks the hair probably skewed the results.
For me its all in the eyes. So I prefer the one on the Left.
the one on the left just looks like she's wearing more make up.
I think danielle may have just solved the mystery.
they are up for explaining everything that happens to be.
This is the cornerstone of psychology and other pseudo-sciences, coming up with fancy sounding explanations. Whether or not they are accurate or valid is inconsequential.
Simply look at Freudian theory. How much of that bullshit is real?
Peter,
You would swoon at the sight of a neanderthal hottie. I share your passion and probably some dead end genes. We should start our own soccer team.
"the woman on the right plays softball"
I laughed out loud when I saw that because that's exactly what I thought. I think athletic girls are attractive so I found both girls about equally attractive even the the one on the left is a little "prettier".
"Scientists need to practice "I don't know" ".
A nearly unknown answer to questions in some circles, despite it usually being the correct one.
Fats Waller, great pianist, and evolutionary psychologist?
I think the one on the right is more attractive; she would have my back and looks more like a true partner.
If we can't agree on which one is more attractive, and clearly we don't, then what good are the conclusions?
I tell people I don't believe in AGW, but I'm reluctant to tell people I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't have anything to replace it with, but the whole intellectual construct seems very sketchy to me. Of the Big Three theories of the 19th century--Marxism, Darwinism, and Freudianism--it's the last one standing, but I'm still waiting for it to be exposed as a hoax.
"Women with smaller feet have prettier faces, at least according to the men who took part in this study. So do women with longer thigh bones and narrower hips, as well as women who are taller overall."
Tall ectomorphs...with small feet... seem to be preferred. Why didn't they just say this?
From Wikipedia:
"Ectomorphic: characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; receding chin, usually referred to as slim."
Now I am beginning to understand why they studied this in the first place. Time to get SLIM Americans!
I guess this means I'm supposed to have a foot fetish.
It could be worse, you could have my fetish.
Imagine if 75% of women in the 18-50 age range had no feet at all. That's what it's like for me :(
Peter
The girl to the left looks like she'd be hell on stilettos if you crossed her.
If the girl on the left had flippy hair like Michelle Bloggingheads Whatzername she would flip it like Michelle Blogginheads Whatzername.
The girl on the right? Not so much.
Yea, after a more careful look, definitely the one on the right. Not even close anymore.
Peter, I was web browsing the other night and came across an article at Scientific American that had your name written ALL over it!
Sorry, I cannot link it for some reason, so Google:
"A bushel of facts about the uniqueness of human pubic hair
By Jesse Bering"
Oh...and goodnight, Peter. ;)
Errr. They both look fine. Can't choose. I'm female though. The one on the left is "prettier" but would look uglier on a bad day. She has some doggy angles. The one on the right looks slightly more - I think of it as "sorority girlish" - healthier, a bit boxier, but would look better from more angles - a la Jenna Bush.
The one on the left is a women's studies major.
Plan on being turned in for something or other. Get a prenup, if yer still innersted.
The starboard gal looks like home cookin', loyalty, and good with kids.
"If the girl on the left had flippy hair like Michelle Bloggingheads Whatzername she would flip it like Michelle Blogginheads Whatzername."
You must mean Michelle Whatzername who works for Tina Whatzername at "The Daily Breast"?
Do you think they are related? Heck they have the same last name, for cripes sake, and it isn't as if it is a simple name like Jones.
Awful lot of projection going on about these two faces. Either one could be a sweetheart or a shrew. What I don't get is that neither are real, but composites. How is that scientific?
Reminds me of this optical illusion.
i thought the one on the right is prettier.
that's why is subjective.
These women look too much alike.
But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?
Actually, no, I think the woman on the left does.
The face on the left has bigger eyes and other features which signals youth, specifically. But yes, the face on the right does look healthier. But the proportions are of a larger person, which is probably a good thing, evolutionarily, because you want to be able to birth babies safely.
Any theory that explains everything explains nothing. And that includes Darwinism.
Haha Palladian is telling us why he became a queer and why rh is contemplating.
"Is it your mind on PHOTOSHOP?" she wondered?
No sense of humor?
Grow some skin.
Althouse threw this out to us, and we chose to spend the night commenting.
Althouse is clearly a leader of US.
Should we try to influence her on her choice of topics?
Mini survey...
Yes or No?
Um? Perhaps you all feel more comfortable holding up Althouse's perfectly formed, roundish ... ....??? :)
No? Nothing comes to you?
OK then!
Let's sleep on it!
None of us ever gets enough of that.
Ann Althouse said:
"better health and suitability for producing offspring. But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?"
You're missing the second part. She may BE healthier, so far as her own longevity is concerned, or complexion on that day, or what have you, yet, via bone structure, shape, etc., not display the same genetic fitness to produce healthy offspring.
It isn't what Ann Althouse thinks looks healthier that matters. It's what eons of evolution has instilled in the opposite sex as triggers to look for regarding attractiveness.
I know plenty of thin, healthy looking girls, but guys still like a nice ass and a big chest ("honest signals).
Because they're "healthier"? No. Because they signal other traits about the quality of offspring she can produce.
These extravagant traits mean here GENES are strong enough to produce these surplus, unnecessary traits ... regardless of her actual level of health at that moment.
All things being equal, healthier is more attractive than less healthy. But these other traits we find attractive, whether they be large firm breasts, or a facial shape, make things unequal.
Like it or not.
As for the feet thing, I don't know if that's true.
Who is healthier?
An average young man of undistinguished genes at 30 or George Clooney at 60?
Now who is more attractive?
WHY?
Genes.
I think the woman on the left has vaguely Asian features. Because Asians have smaller feet? Maybe the foot size is correlated to facial features through racial admixture.
The woman on the right looks heavier, that's all. Also, if you go through all the photos its almost as if they deliberately mussed their hair to skew the result.
And by the way, how did they decided who has bigger feet? By simple shoe size?
And danielle is spot-on, the woman on the left appears to be wearing more make up, or have it applied more carefully perhaps.
Seems to me the righties like the girl with the bulkier facial bone structure on the right.
Maybe it just had to do with photo placement.
Maybe the one with physical features closer to what was seen in Neanderthals signals traditional values.
Maybe Sarah Palin should be replaced by Sarah Jessica Parker.
Whatever. To each their own.
One of women who are ornamental, and another of women who are practical.
I read a book a long time ago (which is why I am not citing the title) about an English woman who lives for a year on one of the Channel Islands or off northern Scotland. There is a fundraiser/beauty contest where the young women bake pies and the men buy the pie of the woman they want to eat with. The pie that sells for the most money is the winner.
The top two pies were baked not by the willowy, fragile beauties in town but by sturdy, stocky, strong young women. Not pretty, but definitely practical in an environment where women help with the farming and the fishing and everything else needed to survive.
"Seems to me the righties like the girl with the bulkier facial bone structure on the right."
There is definitely a difference between right and left men on this. Conservatives do seem to prefer a stronger, self-reliant type. We think of tough times and challenges, and we want a strong team of a relationship. We prefer a lioness.
From what I've seen, the waif needy types are more the liberal preference. You guys can explain that yourselves. To me it all makes sense based on the ideologies.
Of course, this is all generalities, but it seems pretty well correlated from my experience.
"You would think that evolutionary psychologists would be humbled by how close their reasoning processes are to those of old fashioned Freudians."
Once the "evolutionary psychologists" get going, real evolutionary scientists tend to do a lot of eye-rolling and face-palming.
Seems to me that the person doing the study is trying to get money out of someone so they don't actually have to work for a living.
My theory on why the women chose a wider variety of male types as more attractive?
Women lie.
The attraction of long thighs and narrow hips echo my observations. But, tall, long legged women tend to have longer feet. But the data holds for this. The small feet attractiveness was significantly less than the long thighs or narrow hips.
Women with small feet tend to be, well, small. Being tall myself, I prefer women taller than average with at least medium builds so as not to break them during....
The data only partly holds for my kids. My extra large, tall, 290 lb football player son with quite thick wrists has girls chasing him calling him daily. My basketball playing daughter with big feet, but long thighs and narrow hips too, has me scowling at lustful boys almost constantly. Good thing her brother is around to protect her.
My theory on why the women chose a wider variety of male types as more attractive?
Maybe it's because the one measurement women care about most wasn't included, the size of the man's wallet.
There is definitely a difference between right and left men on this. Conservatives do seem to prefer a stronger, self-reliant type. We think of tough times and challenges, and we want a strong team of a relationship. We prefer a lioness.
From what I've seen, the waif needy types are more the liberal preference. You guys can explain that yourselves. To me it all makes sense based on the ideologies.
Of course, this is all generalities, but it seems pretty well correlated from my experience.
Talk about psychobabble bullshit! I love the attempt to read psychological attributes into physical features. What's next? A revival of phrenology?
So bizarre.
In any event, nothing wrong with self-reliance or, better yet, mental "toughness". But the way you yammer on about sexualizing that and projecting it into physical features, why not wax on about the female spotted hyena? She's much more masculine than the lioness, going so far as to actually - in a feat that would be replicated by Arnold Schwarzenegger - give birth to her young through an oversized clitoris.
In an attempt to grapple with outmoded (if rather extreme) ideas of traditional masculine and feminine qualities, a severe bout of gender dysmorphia has apparently gripped the Republican party. Interesting.
Ritmo, I never know what you're talking about. It's either convoluted or arguing against points never made.
All I said was that I agreed with your opinion about the the face on the right being preferred by righties and offered why for me. I invited you to explain why lefties prefer the other as you implied.
Then you start a fight with yourself.
How many hours does it take you to give someone the time if they ask, and does it include and argument about the origin of time and space including links?
The one on the right bears a strong resemblance to my Northern European ancestors.
My mom: Size 12 feet, 6' height, produced and raised 4 children, and remained committed to 50 years of marriage.
Me: Size 10 feet, 5'8", produced and raised two male offspring (with size 13 and 14 feet), involved in 28 years of ongoing marriage.
Although neither of us were outstanding beauties in our day, my mom and I both managed to attract and mate with loving, loyal and productive partners, who offered us humor and intelligence as nice extras. The size of our feet and blandness of our faces did not deter us from positively and effectively contributing to the survival of the species.
How many years do we need to evolve before discovering attractiveness in humans involves features and variables that include culture, conditioning, character and behavior, as well as the strength of our desire to relate as well as mate?
The feet/face thing is an interesting find, but it doesn't fit or support my evidence.
ahhh penny penny penny (Are you related to Desmond? Perish the thought.)
You connected Michelle and the Daily Beast. Yes. It has more that 5 letters.
You are soooo smart.
Am I the only commenter that sees Bristol Palin?
Any theory that explains everything explains nothing.
Did you read that in a fortune cookie?
And that includes Darwinism.
"Darwinism" (by which I assume you mean "evolutionary biology") doesn't purport to explain "everything". Just why lifeforms are the way they are.
I must be weird; I thought the face on the right was prettier. (But not by much.)
There are too many other differences in the pictures to draw a conclusion based on face: neck size, eye proportion, ear cut-off; hair arrangement; hair thickness; nose size; mouth/lip size; and etc.
That being said - I'd go for the one on the right. The one on the left looks like she would break too many promises, offer what she could not deliver, and generally be a pain in the ass till I could get rid of her.
with "Ken Mitchell," I also thought the female on the right was more attractive.
In response to the early comment of EnigmatiCore (http://www.blogger.com/profile/00596092527748619763):
ROTFL
These two look pretty much the same. To me the girl on the right is a bit more attractive. Either way, one is not clearly more attractive than the other.
Sweetheart,
I have tried to empirically, analytically apprise faces of several gorgeous women (you included).
Foreign is gorgeous.
Why?
Foreignness of features overwhelms all other analyzes. I see you as Female. Perfect. Desirable.
The better I know you, the less I like you.
Sweetheart,
I have tried to empirically, analytically apprise faces of several gorgeous women (you included).
Foreign is gorgeous.
Why?
Foreignness of features overwhelms all other analyzes. I see you as Female. Perfect. Desirable.
The better I know you, the less I like you.
Composites of only 8 women each? Okay, they're both mildly attractive. But why stop at eight?
Make a composite of every woman in the world - then you'd really have something cute!
To Deborah:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/14052796343893692840
"Men in power tend to be more over-sexed than the average male, and also have more opportunities for sex."
I suggest the causal train is: men in power are over-sexed because they have more opportunities (whether those opportunities are freely presented or created by coercion).
Penny...JAL's comment caused me to look back to previous remarks where I found your note for Peter about the article in Scientific American on pubic hair.
To regard public hair as "an advertisement of our fecundity", in conjunction with Peter's research, comment(and lament)on this lack of advertisement in the current 18-50 year old female community, leads to another set of cultural and evolutionary considerations.
Fecundity is about productive or creative power, producing abundantly; fruitfulness or fertility.
The ability to produce abundantly is currently not considered to be a plus in this Season of Greenness Which could mean reproductive females are depilitating in an evolutionary attempt to send anti-fecundity messages to males in order to ultimately save the herd from overpopulation.
There were some other interesting reasons given for the trend. But the main one appears to have less to do with overall herd survival and more to do with personal concern over fitting the ever changing social construct of what is considered to be in or out when it comes to appearance and adornment.
While we're having fun with composite images, here's a project.
Take 20 prominent conservative women, and 20 prominent liberal women, find photos of them at a comparable time in their lives (say, age 26-32, not pregnant or recently having given birth), and see which set of women produces the more attractive countenance.
I'd bet the difference between Ms. Composite Conservative and Ms. Collective Liberal would be more easily identifiable than Ms. SmallFoot and Ms. BigFoot.
As the old saying goes:
Women are crazy.
Men are stupid.
I agree with others who found the face on the right to be prettier.
I'd do her. Both.
David WL, I should have said that men attracted to power have higher sex drives, or some such. But I have also read that highly intelligent men have high sex drives. But it's men we're talking about, so maybe you're correct.
Women with large feet make better surfers.
sothere
"The woman on the right looks more intelligent, more capable. I have no idea why she seems that way to me. Just does. "
The woman on the right has more masculine features-less facial fat, smaller eyes, her face shape looks sharper.
That's why the woman on the left looks "less capable", or feminine, and she probably is healthier, since she has the typical estrogen-induced features, like face fat, softer features, wider eyes, which means she looks fertile and young, which is all the health a woman needs, since, biologically, women's role is to give birth and live long enough to look after the offspring. The woman on the right might look more capable in masculine activities, but she might not be fertile...at least, that's the logic I see in this whole study.
Post a Comment