Evolution making women more beautiful, men remain as ugly as ever

[Viking]

So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? 




G.

no, they are defined by the number of kids that manage to reproduce :dawkins:

[DisturbedPervert]

However this theory finally gives us an explanation why the women in Crusader Kings are so damn ugly.

It's funny because it's true

[Malthus]

Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years?  That sounds pretty damn fast.

The experiment was not designed to capture evolutionary change itself, it was designed to capture a mechanism of evolutionary change.

What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.

Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.

[Admiral Yi]

What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.

Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.

I didn't see any extrapolation in the article, mighty or otherwise.

Whether this observation is robust is for future testing to determine, of course.  That's how science works.

[Malthus]

What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.

Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.

I didn't see any extrapolation in the article, mighty or otherwise.

Whether this observation is robust is for future testing to determine, of course.  That's how science works.

The whole article was a giant case study in extrapolation. They took one data point and simply announced that it was constant over time, without the smallest shred of proof that this was the case.

Women are apparently becoming more attractive over time, and it's not because plastic surgery has become more popular or men are drinking more beer.

A study by the University of Helsinki has found that women are actually becoming more beautiful over time, thanks to the evolutionary process.

...

Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons. The cycle thus continues over time, suggesting that modeling agencies in the year 3000 will have a glut of applicants and cosmetic surgery will be a more-subtle affair, if it exists at all. "The effect is very small and over several generations," says Jokela.

The effect extends"... over several generations"? Really? Is there even the slightest bit of evidence cited that this is true?

[Berkut]

Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?

I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.

However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.

[Admiral Yi]

You're right Malthus, the Forbe's writer did not qualify his statements very much.

[Ed Anger]

Evolution might as well give women a tramp stamp, since it seems every goddamned woman has one nowadays.

Save everybody the time,money and pain.

[Eddie Teach]

Even if we assume beautiful women have more children, it doesn't follow that women will become more beautiful and men won't. They'd still have a normal assortment of boys and girls and the boys would inherit traits from their beautiful mothers.

The article mentioned a correlation between good-looking fathers and greater proportion of daughters but I'm quite skeptical.

[Malthus]

Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?

I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.

However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.

It's a single data point. There is no evidence that what was true in 1957 would also be true in 1967 or 2007 (or was true in 1857, much less 1957 B.C.). Indeed, the advent of feminism and the pill most probably paid hob with the demographics - suddenly attractive women were fucking like crazy and having no kids at all; just as in former times, ugly farm wives were having kids by the litter ...

It is the same objection as is raised to those making sweeping conclusions from and single demographic bit of data. "OMG! the birth rate for 2006 in Barrie, Ont. is down 3% from 2005! At this rate, in 2300 the last human will die out!"

Well, no ... not necessarily. It could be the case that the rate goes up and down in accordance with changes in fashion and society, is not constant over time and place, etc.

Similarly, the fact that a single year-cohort in a single state of the union had more kids when "attractive" doesn't mean that all women everywhere over time are more likely to have more kids when attractive. The evidence that it happened once doesn't at all prove the thesis.

[Berkut]

Even if we assume beautiful women have more children, it doesn't follow that women will become more beautiful and men won't.

It does if the traits that make men attractive to women and women attractive to men are not the same traits, or if there set of those traits does not have a complete overlap.

If genes A-L determine "attractiveness" for women to men, and genes G-R determine attractiveness for men to women, then it could certainly be the case that attractive women having more children could, over time, create more attractive women while not creating more attractive men (or at least not as measurably).

Of course, this assumes that "attractiveness" is a strictly biological function, rather than cultural, which is something of a whopper of an assumption (which Malthus already pointed out).

[Berkut]

Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?

I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.

However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.

It's a single data point. There is no evidence that what was true in 1957 would also be true in 1967 or 2007 (or was true in 1857, much less 1957 B.C.). Indeed, the advent of feminism and the pill most probably paid hob with the demographics - suddenly attractive women were fucking like crazy and having no kids at all; just as in former times, ugly farm wives were having kids by the litter ...

It is the same objection as is raised to those making sweeping conclusions from and single demographic bit of data. "OMG! the birth rate for 2006 in Barrie, Ont. is down 3% from 2005! At this rate, in 2300 the last human will die out!"

Well, no ... not necessarily. It could be the case that the rate goes up and down in accordance with changes in fashion and society, is not constant over time and place, etc.

Similarly, the fact that a single year-cohort in a single state of the union had more kids when "attractive" doesn't mean that all women everywhere over time are more likely to have more kids when attractive. The evidence that it happened once doesn't at all prove the thesis.

No argument from me - I find the data set rather suspect as well.

[Neil]

Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years?  That sounds pretty damn fast.

Well, it's not really a significant change, and calling it 'evolution' is probably overstating things.  Cosmetic changes in animals can happen very quickly.  Just look at the sorts of wacky shapes we can twist dogs into.

[Josephus]

The argument, to me, falls apart, because the study only asked people TODAY to rate women from 50 years ago.
Beauty does evolve, but it does so in the eye of the beholder as well.

In other words, 50 years ago women "with a figure"...or a bit on the plump side, would be more attractive then than today's skinny women. Hair styles affect our perception of beauty as well. As do other things.

I havent' seen any of these pictures, but my belief is if you get these women from the 50s and "modernize" them somewhat, they'd probably be as beautiful.

[Eddie Teach]

It does if the traits that make men attractive to women and women attractive to men are not the same traits, or if there set of those traits does not have a complete overlap.

If genes A-L determine "attractiveness" for women to men, and genes G-R determine attractiveness for men to women, then it could certainly be the case that attractive women having more children could, over time, create more attractive women while not creating more attractive men (or at least not as measurably).

Of course, this assumes that "attractiveness" is a strictly biological function, rather than cultural, which is something of a whopper of an assumption (which Malthus already pointed out).

Ok, you're right in a sense. It's likely to produce more Colin Farrells and less Robert Mitchums.