Women have orgasms from bigger bank accounts

Ugh, I know. Especially considering that historically speaking, it's absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think we can avoid getting super pissed if we just read our evolutionary psychology in reputable science journals or books, though.

edited 19th Feb '11 9:17:36 AM by OnTheOtherHandle

Especially since suicide bombing was pioneered by the decidedly un-Muslim Tamil Tigers.

I read about the writer on The Other Wiki.

It was... enlightening.

Studies like this make me depressed that I'm a vulnerable man who struggles to find human companionship in RL, let alone find a woman at all who would love me even if it was only over the internet at first.

It's kind of sexist to men as well, since it assumes men who currently don't have that much wealth have no hope of pleasing their special lady.

I just want a nice, loving woman who will cuddle me as well as support me emotionally - if not financially while working together with her if needed (not making her do all the work). Studies like this make me feel such women do not exist and if they do they don't love me and never will.

Don't despair, NGP. It turns out that when you actually ask people what they look for in a mate, without trying to make some kind of point about the the differences between males and females, both men and women prioritize personality, intelligence, and values above supposed "evolutionary" concerns like wealth and appearance. But the news media considers "Men and Women Basically Alike" to be a boring headline.

NGP: I'm pretty confident that most women, in real life, are looking for a guy who feels the way you do. Anyway, I married a guy like that .

Everyone else pretty much already ninja'd the reasons I am so doubtful of evo psych, but I'll repeat them anyway. My predominant gripes:

• Selection bias—studies are set up to look for things that are assumed to be there. They look for "do women like rich men?", not "what do women look for in men?", and certainly not "do people like rich partners?"
• Lack of good methodology—read or watch something about evo psych and notice how many times they veer off into complete speculation without any studies to support it.
• Biased reporting—the results always get blown way out of proportion. It's "all women like rich men," not "one study finds that income is a contributing factor to women's happiness."
• Naturalist's fallacy—because obviously if evolution did it, it's right.

See some more posts have been added.

That's a good summary of my attitude. It's not that I'm skeptical of the whole concept of Evolutionary Psychology (I'm not), but I am skeptical of the popular articles and occasionally scientists who use it to promote stereotypes and pretty clearly commit the naturalist fallacy.

Like in this case, there's nothing really offensive about the idea that there would be some evolutionary basis in valuing prosperity, but the "women are gold diggers" conclusion is purely normative.

In some instances like the blond hair one or the claim about women prefering pink for an evolutionary reason- well, those just don't meet the smell test to begin with  ^*

edited 19th Feb '11 11:10:39 AM by Jordan

I'm actually terrified of blonde women because experience in high school and outside of that I was hit by a car driven by a blonde woman.

I evolved, maybe wrongly - to distrust blonde women because of an irrational fear that is probably inherently based on judgments on people I don't know simply because most of the women who have hurt me so far have been blonde, and Nazi women, at least in the movie Downfall - were blonde.

So I cringe in fear when a blonde woman comes by, and by now even I know it's stupid.

Evolutionary psych is not in and of itself a bad discipline, much of the psychiatric cutting edge is leaning towards more physiological understanding of mental disorders, which involves understanding the various levels of the brain and how they influence thought and behavior. The problem comes when people start running their best fit ideas through the grinder and then attributing real world actions to evolutionary pressures that they don't really have alot of evidence to support.

Why do we have an appendix? Well you can get a lot of answers but no one really has a good explanation. Heck, we don't even know if it really is useless. Any time you start asking questions of intent and purpose you are on really shaky ground. There was a little article I read a few years ago that showed that a certain isolated tribe in the sub Saharan belt, near Ethiopia I think had in something like ten generations bred the men of the tribe to have extraordinary height amazing jumpng ability and large teeth because the women had decided that these traits were sexy. It was an incredibly random decision. Random being the operative word. Behaviors attached to sexual selection often are pointlessly wasteful for the simple purpose of waste. When you start trying to give purpose to traits you can fall easily into the trap of seeing faces in the clouds.

Edit: Drayk: I remember that study, but I think that the conclusion you are drawing isn't a valid complaint. If I remember correctly, and forgive me because it has been years. The harassment was equally sexual to both men and women. The women however felt threatened by it. A conclusion that anecdotally I can support. Most any job that involves a relaxed atmosphere will involve men constantly insulting each other sexually. Calling one another "bitch" or "fag" or "pussy". Belittling another mans masculinity at the slightest provocation is almost sacred right of a group of 'buddies'. I know that when my brother picks up the phone the first words out of his mouth to me will be 'what's up bitch'. Conviviality in the male setting involves constant verbal warfare and physical expressions of aggression.

edited 19th Feb '11 11:20:03 AM by Shrimpus

The case that I had in mind when I mentioned claims being made with no study at all to back them up was various claims about how the things that men find attractive in women (full lips, big breasts, etc) mean that women will reproduce better.

Because throughout history and across cultures, people have always found the exact same things attractive in the opposite sex. And because a grown woman who weighs 90 pounds is totally going to reproduce well.

I think the idea there is meant to be finding commonality amongst all the differing things different folk find attractive.

Shrimpus, you touched on another thing that infuriates me about pop-evopsych: the idea that evolution "intended" something or "designed" us in a particular way. Evolution is not a person, dammit!

I can give some credence to the idea that finding full breasts, etc. attractive would have an evolutionary component. That sort of makes sense. I can't see a lot of logic though in the claim that a preference for petite women would have an evolutionary link, because that seems like the kind of trait that's only been valued for a short amount of time.

Regarding blonds, I would note that I don't find blond hair attractive, and it is a rare trait among my ancestry. So, I can also give some acceptance to the possibility (which I believe some evolutionary psychologists have suggested) people are wired to find "their own group" attractive. Still, the fact that something kind of "makes sense" or fits stereotypes isn't really proof of an evolutionary component.

edited 19th Feb '11 11:21:45 AM by Jordan

Teleological evolution, right? I'm sure "Intelligent Design" falls under that unsavoury umbrella.

edited 19th Feb '11 11:22:05 AM by MRDA1981

There are only very few things that have consistently been found attractive: clear skin (no communicable diseases), large breasts (fertility), and wide hips (again fertility). And even on the breasts and hips angle, exactly how large and how wide varies tremendously from culture to culture and time period to time period.

That sort of makes sense. I can't see a lot of logic though in the claim that a preference for petite women would have an evolutionary link, because that seems like the kind of trait that's only been valued for a short amount of time.

It's true, though. And it's not only a recent thing. Back in the 1950's, women who were too tall were given pills to stunt their growth.

Uh, «However, in some non-Western cultures, height is irrelevant in choosing a mate, which suggests that the preference among Western men for women shorter than themselves may be sociocultural in nature.[40]»

Really? That's pretty interesting, because from most of what I've seen in the West and the East (mainly India), men pretty much universally want women shorter than them. I mean, it's not a dealbreaker, but a preference.

The height issue is probably multifaceted, much like everything else in this world. On the one hand men being taller and heavier than women is biological fact and thus much of the early impressions that men would get of women would be of them being smaller. Would shape preferences in that direction. Then there is the fact that women favor taller men. Given that a lot of human sexual behaviors are mutualistic I would imagine that a preference for shorter women would simply reflect a preference for women who would likely be attracted to you. Keep you... in your league let's call it,

OTOH: In the flapper era, boyish figures (on women) were in fashion. Wide hips and large breasts were considered unattractive. Women would wear bras and soft corsets that were designed to flatten and de-accentuate the bust—the opposite of the infamous corsets of the 19th century.

Even today, having (too) big of hips and butts is considered unattractive, hence why there's a ton of slimming and shaping products on the market for that part of one's physique.

But you guys are falling into the core problem with evo psych: Picking out traits and speculating on evolutionary causes for them. This is generally fruitless because you're never going to do anything other than confirm what you were already thinking of.

Anyway there are plenty of traits that have been considered attractive at some point in the past that could never be explained in evolutionary terms. Like the castrati.

Wow, did not know that. Thanks, jewel. Yeah, I should probably have refrained from doing what annoyed me about evo-psych enthusiasts in the first place.