Globe and Mail ran a piece about this last week. I was amazed at how many guys screamed blue murder about it. Insecure in their masculinity, much?

I think part of the problem is that we have lots of words for female beauty (eg. voluptuous, willowy, petite), but very few for male beauty; it's either "handsome", or somehow "feminine". Also, as with female beauty, there's a lack of recognition that certain "looks" go in and out of fashion.

Despite my gladness that the "bishounen" look is finally getting some Western recognition, I do have a bit of a problem with this business of judging character traits by looks. Obviously the women in the study only made those judgments in response to prodding by the researchers. Whether they like big square-jawed bears or lithe, sultry prettyboys, the straight women I know wouldn't make guesses about a guy's fatherhood abilities without having a conversation with him first.

I think you are missing the point- these studies have been around for quite some time and have stood up to tests time and time again, and in multiple cultures.

As for the physical characteristics that you asked about, they are usually the ones determined by the amount of testosterone present- people with more testosterone always have more "masculine" characteristics, because that is the hormone that actively changes that feature (e.g. most features that males take on during puberty). For example, if a man has a lot of testosterone, he is most likely more muscular, a stronger jawbone, broader shoulders, more facial hair, etc.

The studies have consistently shown that women are initially more attracted to the more "masculine" type, believing them to be better short-term lovers (and perhaps they are), while consistently choosing the more "feminine" male for the long-term partner, which is also probably true.

Sorry, but this is science. Just because it doesn't work with what you believe in doesn't mean you need to actively work to discredit it. Or we could just dismiss modern science in favor of personal ideology- I hear it's really working out for our current administration.

Actually, Alex, evolutionary psychology has a LOT of critics, including from other scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy

[And Samhita, did you mean tot say evolutionary psychology in that first sentence, rather than evolutionary biology? As is my admittedly limited understanding, evolutionary biology is pretty much just the study of evolution, where evolutionary psychology is making claims about human nature and behavior based on how they evolved.]

hmmm, nice strawman, Alex. Evolutionary psychology is NOT a universally-accepted field, and anytime you try to figure out the "why" of human behavior, you are necessarily doing something that is at least in part non-scientific. Until science can fully explain the mind and consciousness with a zero percent chance of error, it will always be this way. Much smarter people than you or I have attempted to justify scientific explanations of human consciousness. All of them, every single one, for thousands upon thousands of years, have failed. If you're not familiar with philosophical skepticism, I suggest you look into it -- start out with Descartes and work your way from there. So calling this "science" is awfully simplistic and frankly demonstrates a discomforting willingness on your part to simply accept the scientific status quo (because we all know scientists are all completely one hundred percent objective, and their personal beliefs never influence experiments, hypotheses, observations, or results at ALL).

For what it's worth, I am generally ONLY attracted to men with at least a few "feminine" features, be they big lips, long lashes, or little to no body hair (actually, that one's ALMOST its own requirement). What can I say -- I like 'em pretty :)

Cara, I know all about the controversies, although there is very little actual debate on biological attractions.

The original post completely ignored any science whatsoever behind this, despite that the points that she attacked have long since been proven.

Controversy does not mean that the science is invalid. Global warming is a "controversy". No, it's not a scientific controversy, it's a political debate.

In the same sense, the factors that go into biological attraction are no longer under controversy. Read the wikipedia article you linked- it doesn't even address the topic at hand.

The Law Fairy-

The science in question has been put through the scientific method numerous times, with consistent results. From my perspective, and the perspective of many other scientists, it is undeniable that genetic/biological factors play a role in our selection of mates.

I'm quite familiar with Descartes, and I'm not one to blindly accept the latest scientific study. Thank you for the condescension, though!

Yes Cara, thank you for pointing that out. I totally meant to write evolutionary psychology. Let me fix that now, lol.

I don't think it's so simple that we can altogether dismiss evolutionary psychology. We accept that humans are animals. We accept that we, like animals, have evolved through natural selection and all other some such processes. We accept, like animals, that our lives are based around the need for resources and the drive to reproduce. Why, then, do we dismiss the idea that, like animals, our social behavior, like animals, is in part determined by evolution? I think it is because to accept that the possibility that there might be some gender-specific truths is just too threatening to some, and for good reason--the knowledge can be used for undermining purposes, especially by an uneducated populace. (I'm reminded of a comment I could make about a lot of posts or things that are in the news. It is unfortunate that they are publicized to a general public that has not been taught the means through which to criticize them. Learning about scientific studies and their limits should be a part of every student's education.)

I do accept the criticism, however, that, as homo sapiens, we are different than the rest of the animal kingdom. We have developed consciousness, and are the first beings on the planet to have done so. I think this throws a wrench into any attempt to understand our behavior on a purely biological basis. The sociological and the biological must combine for the understanding to be complete.

In the meantime, I am all for criticizing ideas of 'masculine' and 'feminine', as long as it remains acceptable to submit to the idea that, I don't know, some kind of female fish behaves one way 90% of the time, and her male counterpart does not. Let's never dismiss scientific evidence for political purposes, and let's make sure the scientific evidence is sound.

By the way, a great book on evolutionary psychology for anyone who is interested, is called "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature", by Matt Ridley.

I pretty much agree with alxinwonderland. Ignoring the science based on your belief that "masculine and feminine" aren't terms we should use is preposterous. In science, the amount of testosterone determines how "masculine" you are. Not cultural stereotypes- the amount of testosterone. And objective and measurable sum, if you will, of your manliness.

"masculinity in terms of testosterone" =/= "manliness as defined by GQ"

Oh, and the Law Fairy- when I stopped seeing red, I re-read what you wrote and am really just staggered at the arrogance of it. Telling me to "start from there"? FYI, I "started" with Descartes when my father gave me Discourses on my tenth birthday. I don't know you who are or what kind of background you have, and for that reason you don't see me assuming you're some sort of idiot- but it spoke volumes when you did! But I would recommend The Red Queen if you haven't read it.

Through some interesting coincidence, I just finished re-reading The Red Queen while on vacation this weekend. So I know whereof I speak.

I don't buy the book as gospel. Even the author admits that there's a great deal of conjecture, conflicting evidence, conflicting theories that explain evidence equally well, and a multitude of other problems. On another note (only lightly related), the author displays in several places absolutely no understanding of feminism.

As the author himself states, the Red Queen theory may have a place in science. But it is by no means cemented as the be-all-end-all, and will probably end up being amended, adjoined into other theories, or even supplanted completely. The author, indeed, seemed to be looking forward to seeing what happened in the theory.

I also noticed that his language got less certain, and his explanation of theories involved more guesswork, every time he moved away from animals and into the realm of human beings. So that's something else you proponants of the Red Queen might want to keep in mind.

I wouldn't call myself a proponent of The Red Queen- I found it interesting and illuminating, but in many places thinly-veiled guesswork.

That's sort of the moral of the day, and my general method of putting the pieces of human behavior together: most of it is unknown, most of it is off-putting, but that doesn't mean ALL of it is incorrect. Find the good stuff, forget the rest. But please, don't forget it all based off a conviction you made long before you read the latest.

I am sceptical of this study as indicative of anything evolutionary-based or genetic-based. It sounds as if social conditioning could completely explain the results. In the article it says:

This research shows a high amount of agreement between women about what they see, personality wise, when asked to 'judge a book by its cover.'

Well, duh. It is completely unsurprising to me that women who grew up in the same culture are going to make similar judgments about personality based on looks.

Furthermore, as another commenter pointed out, these women are judging a "book by its cover" only due to being explicitly asked to by the researchers. Who's to say whether outside of the research environment these women would actually have consciously made such judgments and decided whether or not to interact with a person based on them? I, for one, would never make a judgment on how good of a father a man is based solely on his looks.

Also, the research says NOTHING about whether men with more "feminine" features ACTUALLY make better fathers. All it says is that the women in this study were more likely to BELIEVE that men with "feminine" features would make better fathers, when asked explicitly by the researcher.

Thanks for the comment, Kimmy. I will admit that it's been a few years since I read the book myself; I can't say that my opinions wouldn't have changed, had I just read it today.

Law Fairy said:
"Until science can fully explain the mind and consciousness with a zero percent chance of error, it will always be this way."

I understand and support the sentiment you express here, but factually what you said is wrong. Science doesn’t try to prove things 'with a zero% chance of error'. In any field (physics, chem, biochem, nutrition, ect) scientists usually use a p-value of
That said, when I read the page (and it sounded like it was out of Marie Clare or something), my biggest concern was that it was taking a subconscious thought-process (attraction), and then making ppl rationalize it and put it into words. They're two steps removed from what they are 'testing', and how can they account for those possible errors?

That said, I believe that theoretically, good meaningful science can be performed in this field, but that means they have to account for racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, classism, ect (in both the subject and the person designing the experiment). I too would prefer that more detailed knowledge about the brain/mind existed and that we had a better way to examine it. But that we don't, in my book, shouldn't mean that all other research should stop, but it should be conducted knowingly realizing, accepting, and acknowledging its limitations. Science has never pretended to be perfect, that's what we have religion for.

Correction:
That was supposed to read as 'a p value of less than five percent', but I guess it didn't like all those characters...

I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? I have a square jaw and I don't think I am masculine.

Because of averages. men are (generally) different from women in height, musculature, and breast size, to name a few categories.

That's fairly well accepted, I think. Gender differentiation is common across many other mammals as well.

Given that, it doesn't seem too preposterous to imagine that men and women are also different in facial shape, ON AVERAGE.

Obviously, any time you talk about large group averages you will find some evidence of anomalies. It doesn't make the comments based on averages less true, though it may make them less relevant.

"For the most part, evolutionary psychology scares me."

For most of part, people who dismiss entire fields of science, scare me. Especially when they know little about the field.

What scares you? Evolutionary psychologists who are studying how stressful environments can induce earlier onset of puberty? oooh, scary.

How about evolutionary psychologists who are studying the evolved mechanisms that are specically designed to process faces? Thid voulf help cure prosagnosia (inborn inability to recognize faces). Eeek, frightening!

How about those scary evolutionary psychologists who are testing how dangerous threats can evoke a coalitional psychology - a need to affiliate with cooperative partners? Acck!

Most frightening are those evolutionary psychologists who are studying the evolution of theory of mind (abilty to recognize that others have different perspectives of the world than us). More specifically, how evolved motivational and emotional systems fuel the development of this system, which could ultimately lead to better treatments for autism. The horror, the horror!

What about evolutionary psychologists studying how social norms and mental mechanisms supporting the transmission of these cultural norms evolved? It's like a Freddy Krueger movie!

It seems like some people are irrationally afraid of the claim that some sex differences might be rooted in evolutionary processes.

If you want to believe that women are mentally just carbon copies of males, go right ahead.

Other people are interested in studying women's unique and specialized evolved cognitive systems.

For example, they study how women's preferences in mates shift adaptively over the course of the ovulatory cycle - in study after study, women's preferences for men with physical indicators of health and robustness peak during the high fertility phase of the ovulatory cycle (symmetry, facial masculinity, muscularity, height, dissimilar MHC genes, etc.). Good luck explaining that from a strict social constructionist perspective.

Sailorman, the statistical average is a scary thing that doesn't always exist in real life.

Here's an example that was used in my stats class, the average human being has one breast and one testicle... But you don't see too many of those walking around, do you?

"I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? "

It's a statistical description. Men, more than women, have squarer jaws, higher brow ridges, smaller eyes, etc. Testosterone fuels development of these traits. In contrast, estrogen promotes more gracile jaws, larger eyes, etc. Hence the reason it is referred to as "masculinized" vs. "feminized". Sometimes those labels are dropped for more neutral labels (e.g., estrogenized)

"So I suppose this study relies on fixed categories of masculine and feminine to prove its logic, but we already know that is problematic."

The study does the EXACT OPPOSITE. They manipulated a set of male faces so that they ranged from extremely masculinized to extremely feminized. Within males.

UCLA,

Men on average have smaller eyes?! Says who?

"If you want to believe that women are mentally just carbon copies of males, go right ahead."

I think it has less to do with believing men and women are the same than with believing that all men act the same and all women act the same (have the same motivations, etc.). There is more variation within the sexes than between the sexes.

I have not read extensively in the field of evolutionary psychology. What have read has left me unimpressed. I'm not talking about being unimpressed with the results, I'm talking about being unimpressed with the methodology.

Perhaps there's some great evo-psycho work going on out there, but if there is it's getting reported faithfully or correctly in the mainstream media.

Sigh, another "is it biology OR culture" post, with people having a knee-jerk reaction against the application of evolutionary principles to human behavior.

The simple fact is that EVERY single behavior or preference relies on the deployment of evolved mechanisms interacting with environmental and social stimuli. This includes every behavior from heart rate and breathing to mate preferences, cooperation, formation of social norms, love, etc.

The interesting question is how do different environments evoke different evolved responses, what evolved structures or systems support any given behavior, and how social stimuli interact with these evolved systems

Seeking mates is a critical evolutionary behavior. It is a fundental human social motive. There has been tremendous variance in what people find across across time and across cultures.

Evolutionary psychologists are interested in examining whether systematic factors underlie these changes. Some of the factors driving these cross-cultural preferences include prevalence of parasites in the environment, the linkage of certain traits with high or low prestige, stress in the environment, prevalence of food stores, male vs. female control of resources, etc.

What's the problem with identifying (maybe) evolutionary/developmental explanations for human behavior? Studies like this help us understand why our brains work the way they do, which in turn can help understand and even change social norms. The idea that brain chemistry and other evolutionary factors of behavior are totally separate from social norms and expectations is false and potentially harmful (as in, "Homosexuals choose/are conditioned to be gay, so they can therefore choose/be conditioned not to, so homophobia and persecution is their fault"). Humans socialize in the ways we do BECAUSE of our brain chemistry, etc. It's why cats don't socialize the same way. I agree with sbsanon: The study tested a group of women on their knee-jerk reactions to photographs of men. Nobody asked what kind of fathers these (nonexistent, as the photos were doctored) men would actually be. The point of the study was to learn something about attraction and the human brain.

It always amuses me to see these studies come up in the news, because I actually went along and took part in the experiments to earn beer money as a student. The photographs which participants rated (at the stage when I took part a couple of years ago at least) were of members of the student population at the same very small - approx. 4500 undergrads - and insular university, and of course were drawn from the pool of students who are willing to give their time for small sums of money. The chances of seeing the face of someone you knew, or at least recognised, were very high. This was extremely creepy and if nothing else, it seriously threw you off your face-rating stride.

"I think it has less to do with believing men and women are the same than with believing that all men act the same and all women act the same (have the same motivations, etc.). There is more variation within the sexes than between the sexes. "

If you believe that, then you are thinking like an evolutionary psychologist!

Evolutionary psychologists are testing the following things:

A) Are there traits that, on average, differ between men and women?

B) What factors explain variances in behavior and preferences within each sex, and how do different environments evoke these preferences? For example, why do some men take an aggressive strategy in response to confrontations and why do others take a submissive approach?

C) How do behaviors change within a given individual (e.g., when hungry, when ovulating, etc.).

D) How do hormonal and genetic factors respond to different environmental stimuli, and what role do they play in behavior?

"Perhaps there's some great evo-psycho work going on out there, but if there is it's getting reported faithfully or correctly in the mainstream media."

Well that is certainly true - the media latches on the sexiest and most controversial findings and these get alot of attention. If you want an idea of what ev psych folks study on a daily basis, look here:

http://www.ehbonline.org/current

" I'm not talking about being unimpressed with the results, I'm talking about being unimpressed with the methodology."

Well that is not something I understand at all. That's what is so exciting about the field! Lots of creative new methodologies!
Surveys, carefully manipulated computer stimuli, measuring hormone levels before and after a stimuli, wearing t-shirts for 48 hours to capture body scent, eye-trackers that measure attentional biases, large-scale national data-sets, a great deal of work cross-culturally and with indigineous peoples, etc.

Replicability of findings.

As a side note, a study of mine got a lot of press last month that basically had the same findings.

Evolutionary scientists propose that exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics are cues of genes that increase offspring viability or reproductive success. In six studies the hypothesis that muscularity is one such cue is tested. As predicted, women rate muscular men as sexier, more physically dominant and volatile, and less committed to their mates than nonmuscular men. Consistent with the inverted-U hypothesis of masculine traits, men with moderate muscularity are rated most attractive. Consistent with past research on fitness cues, across two measures, women indicate that their most recent short-term sex partners were more muscular than their other sex partners (ds = .36, .47). Across three studies, when controlling for other characteristics (e.g., body fat), muscular men rate their bodies as sexier to women (partial rs = .49-.62) and report more lifetime sex partners (partial rs = .20-.27), short-term partners (partial rs = .25-.28), and more affairs with mated women (partial r = .28).

Here are more details:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/muscular-men-have-more-flings-partners-affairs-13670.html

Aigh. I knew this would turn up here.

The lead author on this study is my friend, Dr Lynda Boothroyd. Let me certify not that she's not crazy, misogynistic, or evil.

Now, I'm as dubious about the sort of bollocks-y "evoluntionary psychology" that turned up a few weeks ago (purporting to explain why blondes really are better!) as the next feminist. Actually I thought that one was hysterical. This, however, is not that. I've done a bunch of her studies, I've rated a lot of faces (and they do try to get as wide a sample of test takers as they can, and no, I didn't know anyone pictured.)
I'm glad not everyone on the board is taking the media's portrayal of this study at face value, because of they're making a hash of it.

As mentioned above, this isn't about who IS a better daddy, or long term partner, but about who we perceive as having that potential, based on facial features and structure. We do it - we don't always follow it, or believe our instinctive initial reactions, or anything else - but we do have reactions. You're right, there are uncontrolled influences - but Lynda's not speculating, she's reporting. That's science. The conclusive speculation can come later, from the likes of Zoe Williams and other nutters who read the intro to a study as yet unpublished, and decide they know what it's about and what it means.

"Furthermore, I have met tons of men that are super nurturing and don't have what would be considered feminine features. "

But that isn't really the point, is it?

I've met many women who are taller than many men. That doesn't change the fact that most men are taller than most women.

The point of science, especially social sciences, is to identify systematic patterns.

One area of inquiry is about stereotypes - how do we perceive people of different genders, ethnicities, attractiveness, etc?

This study shows that we also have definite stereotypes regarding facial masculinity.

Where these come from is a question in need of further study. Is it through systematic observation? Is it partially pre-wired? Is through personal experience? Is it all three? Is the stereotype accurate?

The cool thing about Homo sapiens is that we've developed past strict instinctual reactions to everything. But that doesn't mean those instincts aren't still there.

Wow Alex. Looks like you've done the exact thing you accuse me of doing -- making assumptions.

I made the reference to Descartes because I sincerely did not know whether or not you had studied philosophy. A lot of your comments here seem very science-heavy, so there was a fair chance you *hadn't* studied it -- particularly given your aforementioned willingness to simply accept pseudo-scientific fields with little questioning of the methodology, let alone the more pressing epistemic concerns I touched on.

So sorry if I hit a sensitive spot... I do think it's interesting that you read *my* comment as "stagger[ingly] ... arrogan[t]" when you're the one who admits he was "seeing red," because extreme, disproportionate anger is itself a sign of arrogance. Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended, and you're certainly free to remain angry if you feel that's necessary.

Faerylore, I absolutely understand that there is no such thing as scientific certainty, and everything we "know" scientifically is actually only highly probably, but not objectively provable. I think my call for absolute certainty on this issue is related to your notation of the flawed methodology, namely, that they are not directly studying attraction, but rather a filtered, imperfect expression of it from imperfect, non-omniscient human beings.

This comes partly from the skepticism problem that I mentioned earlier. Consciousness is a trickier beast than any other observable phenomenon. Accordingly, getting a handle on what it "really" means is kind of always out of our grasp. Just as we can never know for sure that we're not strapped to the mad scientist's table, similarly we can't demonstrate that the brain activity we monitor is objective proof of a person's thoughts or consciousness. We can only know that X brain pattern is highly likely to result in a person saying or doing Y. But we can never know whether it actually means a person FEELS or THINKS Y, because thoughts and consciousness are not physical. They appear to have physical consequences, but again, science can only test what is directly observable, and people's thoughts and feelings are not directly observable.

Hum, I agree Law Fairy, but I don't think that they should stop studying such phenomena, I just wish that the researchers who do it would be more up front about the limitations of their studies.

My main problem (and maybe this was addressed in the original paper) was that there was no discussion of the limitations of the findings. But somehow I would bet that it was the writer of the pop-psych article that probably made the massive jumps and assumption... Not the original researcher. You see it way too often, ppl twisting around neutral research until it says whatever they wanted it to say. They make mistakes with correlation and causation... and then it usually just goes downhill from there.

"I just wish that the researchers who do it would be more up front about the limitations of their studies."

We are. In pretty much every experimental article, there is a "limitations" section where we detail problems with the actual design of the study, the interpretations of the results, and the generalizability of the findings.

That's not the kind of thing that makes it into a sexy news brief designed to grab more readers and more therefore more ad revenue.

"They make mistakes with correlation and causation... and then it usually just goes downhill from there."

Correlation can sometimes indicate causation. If you don't believe that X causes Y, there is no reason to do the study.

You just try to identify confounding variables as best as possible to more safely infer that X is actually causing Y, not just associated with Y.

"correlation is not causation" is a useful thing to remember, but sometimes people forget that correlation can be an estimate of the degree to which something might be causing something else, particularly when you can statistically control for other plausible variables.

From a physical anthropological viewpoint, there is actually an identifiable difference between males and females. For instance, one of the ways that a physical anthropologist can often tell the difference between a male and a female skeleton is to look at the corner at the back of the jaw; women's are generally more rounded than men's. But as has been pointed out already, this is not to say that all women have rounded jaws and all men have square ones, just that most do. I believe our eyes are trained to see these traits, whether we realize it or not.

And this is also not to say that I agree with the article or the study, but that the comment about identifying sex differences by looks jumped out at me.

“From a physical anthropological viewpoint, there is actually an identifiable difference between males and females.�

Well, of course. The biological differences between the sexes is ubiquitous. The developmental changes that occur in the womb run the gamut from cellular, to systemic, to gross morphological. As a lifelong feminist, particularly one that came of age at the end of the first wave, I don't want there to be significant differences between male and female behavior and cognition that have their basis in biology. I was resistant to this idea for a very long time.

But once one lets go of the need to dogmatically hold to a naturist view out of a defensiveness against the ultra-long history of biology-based bigotry, then the hard nurturist position starts to look silly.

First of all, there are now a number of brain studies that indisputably show substantial differences between male and female brains. It was these that forced my rethinking.

But also, there's the simple truth that most species that have sexual dimorphism have at least some important behavioral differences. It's a typical anthropocentric view to take a human exceptionalist view of these kinds of things.

Unlike the supposed racial differences (which are really just subpopulation differences that people incorrectly correlate to a rather arbitrary set of externally visible physical characteristics), sex differences are very real and occur across all levels of human physiology, as well as most areas of the body and a great many physiological systems. We know a great deal about how these changes occur. It's a very peculiar idea, indeed, to think that the brain is the one organ immune to these differences—again, especially when you consider that in other animals, sexual dimorphism always has some behavioral implications.

The point at which I've arrived is that I fight strenuously against the EP practitioners and proponents who use, or misuse, their research in a culture war on the side of sexism. But I don't doubt that some important cognitive and behavioral differences exist and I find that, after long consideration, this doesn't really bother me as a feminist as much as I thought it would. Mostly, I think, because I realized that social justice and civic egalitarianism are not dependent upon everyone being alike. The progressive and feminist agendas can cope with men and women being different from each other in some important ways.

The biggest danger is to prevent those cultural conservatives and antifeminists who would, and do, misuse the relevant science for their purposes. But it seems to me that the best and most effective way to do this is to be on the science-friendly side of the debate and to deal with potentially troublesome results not by denying them in outrage on a matter of principle, but calmly evaluating each result as it comes in and accepting the apparently unfelicitous results that are nevertheless the product of strong science. And when that happens, we find a way to use it to our advantage. At the very least, coming to terms with unfelicitous results is better early than late.

Mostly, though, I don't think many results will be, in fact, that unfelicitous. One of the constant refrains our side has had about this subject that has always been true, is that individual variance is great and almost always makes these group differences almost irrelevant in comparison. Whatever science may find about the differences between men and women, we each are individuals and both will likely be more a product of our own quirks than anything else and, more importantly, the fundamental liberal principle is that we each get to decide who we want to be, as individuals, even (or especially) when it goes against type.

Is it possible that these results are related to the way people stereotype certain features as feminine and others as masculine, and the way people stereotype women as nurturing, etc, and men as aggressive, etc? So that a person who believes these stereotypes would see a "feminine" looking man and think "he must be nurturing and not aggressive and generally a better potential husband and father"?

"Mostly, I think, because I realized that social justice and civic egalitarianism are not dependent upon everyone being alike."

In fact, I'm sure Keith would agree that social justice and civic egalitarianism would be a moot point if everyone were alike.

Also, judgesnineteen, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. That's what I got out of the article, anyway.

I suppose I would have to do some research here, but just because there are physiological differences between men and women, and accepting that these could or do extend to the brain, these differences are not necessarily predictors of behavior, are they? I mean, as a female person, I might well process information differently than a male person, but does that mean I behave differently as a result? And how can we know that these mental processes are not the result of social conditioning?

I am interested in phsyiological differences between men and women insofar as it improves healthcare for women, but I don't really care if I process information differently than the men in my life. As far as I am concerned (and I think Keith and I agree on this point) people are people are people are people, and we all are entitled to the same human rights and treatment. Besides, I'm sure there are brain differences between other women and myself, and I don't really see what that has to do with anything. (Also, I agree with Maggie; I think this study had more to do with perception and stereotyping than reality. They didn't check to see if men with more feminine features are actually the way they are perceived to be, correct?)

Is it possible that these results are related to the way people stereotype certain features as feminine and others as masculine?

Brilliant suggestion. That certainly throws a wrench into the findings.

And anyway, all this study can possibly show is the factors behind initial attraction, not ultimate mate selection. For modern humans, that's a much, much more lengthy and complicated process that (usually) takes more than the initial impression.

I think this study had more to do with perception and stereotyping than reality. They didn't check to see if men with more feminine features are actually the way they are perceived to be, correct?

I thought the implication was that testosterone is actually correlated to masculine features is actually correlated to aggressiveness rather than nurturing? Stereotypes backed up by biological "reality," rather than culturally imposed gender roles.

"I thought the implication was that testosterone is actually correlated to masculine features is actually correlated to aggressiveness rather than nurturing?"

Testosterone alone does not lead to aggression. Aggression leads to higher levels of testosterone, which may lead to more aggression, but simply having a higher level of testosterone will not make you aggressive, does that make sense? There is still much debate over the testosterone/aggression relationship.

With a couple of choice word substitutions, Law Fairy would sound just like any creationist or global warming denier I've ever encountered.

It's not a mistake to criticize science - especially evolutionary psychology, which takes on questions that are difficult to measure quantitatively and muddled with political and social issues. I've heard some dumb crap come out of evolutionary psychology. It's the way in which it's criticized, such as asking for "zero percent error" or pointing out that 'scientists have failed in the past'. Evolutionary psychologists are scientists using the scientific process and shouldn't be quickly dismissed because their conclusions aren't what you want to hear.

I just can't help but notice a pattern of quick and hostile (sorry, I know that's one of those words I'm not supposed to use but it fits) dismissal of a lot of science around this blog, and it bugs me, because I see the same thing on the right. Alex and UCLA have done a great job of explaining why this is relevant on and not necessarily bullshit, I think. I think you can be feminist but still be flexible enough to deal with new information as it becomes available.

jeff, oh brother. If throwing out inflammatory accusations makes you feel better, knock yourself out. Yeah, clearly I'm a creationist. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

Did you bother reading my follow-up post? Dealing with human behavior is night-and-day different from studying macroevolution. Anyone with an eye for subtlety should be able to understand the difference between my position and that of a science-denier.

As someone who is very active in keeping with anti-science movements, I can assure you that it wasn't an inflammatory accusation but an observation of a striking similarity.

Anyways, tell that to the evolutionary biologists - I'll bet they think their job is pretty hard. Science is always hard. Nature's truths are always hidden behind a bunch of foreground - trust me, you're talking to the guy who's currently looking for one of the faintest signals we've ever encountered. It doesn't help to be dismissive in the manner that you were, and which is sadly common on this blog. There's a difference between being skeptical and dismissive or denialist.

jeff, this is not the first time you've been rude to me or deliberately misconstrued my comments. So I'll pass.

"Testosterone alone does not lead to aggression. Aggression leads to higher levels of testosterone, which may lead to more aggression, but simply having a higher level of testosterone will not make you aggressive, does that make sense?"

No, that doesn't make sense. It is true that testosterone will rise and fall as a result of aggression. For example, testosterone levels in people/animals who lose a competition will go down; it will go up if they win. This helps determine whether they will be aggressive or submissive in future competitions.

Males high in testosterone will respond aggressively to threats or challenges, people low in testosterone will respond more submissively.

The same is true for testosterone linked-traits. For example, in one illustrative study, men with more masculine features will be more assertive and derogating of competitors when asked to make a video explaining why a woman should select them as a date over the other males.

Evolutionary Psychology is cool. I really enjoy it. -Good- evo psych/sociobiology/the other four hundred names it has examines the cross section between genic traits, their physical expression, behavior and culture.

The reason why it has a bad rap is because the -bad- evolutionary psychology is frequently used to support racist, sexist or ethnocentric ideas. Of course, frequently, it is miscontrued to those ends too.

Of course, the major wildcard in all this is the cultural aspect. Are we doing something because we are told to do it by our genes or because we are told to do it by our culture? Can these two even be teased apart? And then we get into the freakyness that is memes. Which I don't understand at all.

Anyway, basically, my thought is, don't judge a relatively new feild of study because of some cases of bad science. Read things with caution, obviously, but don't discount it all outright. And people manipulating/misconstruing findings to support thier own agenda don't really count as contributing to the discourse. (which is, of course, different from discussing how the findings affect standpoints) Secondly, because it's dealing with humans, with the most extensive use of culture of all the animals, very little is going to be proved 'conclusively'. Thats what makes it cool.

This "feminine male" thing has been around for a relatively long time, I would say about a decade. I remember hearing something about it in middle school. In -fact- I'm kind of surprised this is getting as much news as it is.

Sorry to come in late on this...

I actually studied Psychology at St. Andrew's and know Dave Perett's work very well; I'd like to point out that for years this team have been capturing a wide range of real faces and using morphing technology to "average" them in various ways.

They've then been able to get subjects to report on factors like "attractiveness", "feminitity", "masculinity" etc. from the altered faces.

The point being, whilst it's not clear in the article, when they talk about "masculine" or "feminine" faces, they're not using a received idea that "a square jaw is masculine" - they're continuing their own research into what people judge as masculine and feminine. I hope this is helpful.

I find this article interesting because I've ALWAYS been more attracted to guys with "feminine" features - it doesn't matter if it's for a one-night stand or a long-term relationship. How do they explain that one? It just seems to me like it'd be a matter of personal preference - I know plenty of girls in long-term relationships with "masculine-looking" guys & vice versa.

You'd think feministing might quit with the facile Evpsych criticisms after the upteenth time you neofem social constructivists have had your ass handed to you in debate. I bookmark feministing under a folder called "conspiracy nutjobs" in my favorites. You're in there with alien-watchers, masonic temple paranoids, and some nutty site claiming jet trails are really chemical weaponry aimed at controlling the masses. It's all a hoot!

Whoa there, matey - careful there with the 'you people'...

As any good psychologist/scientist/social scientist can tell you, when it comes to humans, we can never 'prove' anything, and so it's not fair for either side of this debate to summarily dismiss the other because they think they know 'the truth.'

But as someone who studies EP from a feminist/queer soc of science perspective, what *really* irks me about EP is summed up by UCLA:
'Evolutionary psychologists are testing the following things:

A) Are there traits that, on average, differ between men and women?

B) What factors explain variances in behavior and preferences within each sex, and how do different environments evoke these preferences?'

My reaction to both of these is: WHO CARES? Just like the genetic/choice sexuality debate... why can't we just accept people as people, why do we always have to buy into these strict gender and sexuality binaries, particularly when you consider the vast number of people around the world who, whether by 'choice' or 'birth' do NOT fit into the binaries? And a cursory glance through the history of the study of 'sex' shows us that societies and scientists have had very different ideas about sex/gender/sexuality - so who's to say that the current trend - EP - is any more correct?

(Apologies for sounding rant-y, I haven't had my coffee break yet!)

This was an interesting study, I am a big believer in evolutionary psychology. My thinking is, it was passed on to keep us safe, for the survival of the species. Certain characteristics and traits are bound to still apply. The reason we are becoming bogged down with this, is as someone said, we have few terms with which to differentiate different forms of male beauty. Masculinity is used an umbrella term, and for that reason, I am not surprised that men seemed to take it very personally as a study.
For myself, I am attracted to certain more feminine features like full lips or long eyelashes. However, due to my cultural upbringing, I am attracted to men with sqaure faces, broad shoulders and Mediterranean looks-which encompass often full lips and long eyelashes anyway.

I think people forget that this study was probably conducted as follows:
a pair of pictures are presented to a woman. The pictures may either be the same man with a few alterations-such as fuller lips or larger eyes, or they maybe two different guys with similar features/racial background. The woman must then pick between them. Often these tests use a small pool of photos and repeat them with different augmented features. This in itself causes a danger, that the subject can develop a method of picking between photos based on what they think the examiners are looking for..especially if the photos are the same pool and repeated several times.

It is true that people dont fit into these absolute binaries that evolutionary psychologists swear by. However, people forget that the unique makeup of a person, including some of those 'magic' features is what evolution is trying to encourage. Isolating one area, like face-when it has been proven that women assess men's bodies first when they meet them-sort of contradicts and dissects a bit too much.

This was an interesting study, I am a big believer in evolutionary psychology. My thinking is, it was passed on to keep us safe, for the survival of the species. Certain characteristics and traits are bound to still apply. The reason we are becoming bogged down with this, is as someone said, we have few terms with which to differentiate different forms of male beauty. Masculinity is used an umbrella term, and for that reason, I am not surprised that men seemed to take it very personally as a study.
For myself, I am attracted to certain more feminine features like full lips or long eyelashes. However, due to my cultural upbringing, I am attracted to men with sqaure faces, broad shoulders and Mediterranean looks-which encompass often full lips and long eyelashes anyway.

I think people forget that this study was probably conducted as follows:
a pair of pictures are presented to a woman. The pictures may either be the same man with a few alterations-such as fuller lips or larger eyes, or they maybe two different guys with similar features/racial background. The woman must then pick between them. Often these tests use a small pool of photos and repeat them with different augmented features. This in itself causes a danger, that the subject can develop a method of picking between photos based on what they think the examiners are looking for..especially if the photos are the same pool and repeated several times.

It is true that people dont fit into these absolute binaries that evolutionary psychologists swear by. However, people forget that the unique makeup of a person, including some of those 'magic' features is what evolution is trying to encourage. Isolating one area, like the face-when it has been proven that women assess men's bodies first when they meet them-sort of contradicts and dissects a bit too much.

This is obnoxious. Earlier this year, I read an article stating that women look for masculine characteristics in a husband because they show he can be protective of her and her children. It proceeded to say women prefer masculine men over feminine men. You were right when you said these kinds of studies merely reflect cultural preferences.

"But as someone who studies EP from a feminist/queer soc of science perspective, what *really* irks me about EP is summed up by UCLA:
'Evolutionary psychologists are testing the following things:

A) Are there traits that, on average, differ between men and women?

B) What factors explain variances in behavior and preferences within each sex, and how do different environments evoke these preferences?'

My reaction to both of these is: WHO CARES?"

ummm... SCIENTISTS!!! The whole point of science is understanding behavior - what causes it, what triggers it, how it effects other people, etc.

Examining gender and individual differences is an integral part of that. For example, why are some individuals more willing to blame women for rape? Why are men, on average, more willing to do this than women? This is an important individual difference to understand, measure, and predict.

But UCLA, you assume human behavior is all a product of evolution rather than, you know, society.

"But UCLA, you assume human behavior is all a product of evolution rather than, you know, society."

Of course every behavior is the product of evolved systems in some way.

How could you possibly have a behavior that isn't???? That doesn't make any sense.

If ALL behavior were evolved, we'd all act the same. But we don't. Because we live in different cultures and are born into different families.

Here's an example of the bullshit that is evo psych. Some "study" came out a while back claiming that men have a preference for blondes because it's associated with youth.
Most of the world's population doesn't even have blonde hair, even as children.
You don't take socialization into account. Gender "differences" are HUGELY influenced by conditioning. And you're telling me that's not possible?

"If ALL behavior were evolved, we'd all act the same."

That is actually the complete opposite of the evolutionary perspective. The entire premise of evolution is that individuals and populations VARY in their traits, that different environmental factors induce the expression of these traits, and that these individual variations influence reproductive success.

Social constructionists generally have a horribly misguided view of ev psych, hence the reason they say things like "behavior varies across cultures so behavior can't be evolved".

Go ahead, try to name a behavior that doesn't require the activation of evolved mechanisms. Every behavior - internalization of cultural beliefs; identity; group affiliation; cooperation; in some way requires these evolved mechanisms. The question is exactly how these systems are working. It's literally impossible to have a behavior that doesn't depend on evolved mechanisms.

"You don't take socialization into account. "

No, I do take socialization into account. What you aren't recognizing is that socialization and culture are direct or indirect outgrowths of evolved systems. You CAN'T have any of those things without evolved systems.

The question of interest to evolutionary psychologists is how did symbolic thought evolve? What evolved systems generate these representations? How do evolved systems influence cultural norms? How did cultural norms evolve? What systems handle rewards versus punishments for transgressing social norms? etc.

"Some "study" came out a while back claiming that men have a preference for blondes because it's associated with youth."

Stupid hypotheses are stupid hypotheses regardless of whether they originate from ev psych perspectives, social constructionist perspectives, freudian perspectives, etc.

"Gender "differences" are HUGELY influenced by conditioning. And you're telling me that's not possible?"

Oh it's both possible and, from an evolutionary perspective, extremely likely. Think about our ancestral history - it's one in which we were born into groups with established cultural norms. One of the most critical adaptations would have to be the ability to attend to these norms and be sensitive to the rewards and consequences of violating or adhering to these norms. It's an question of intense interest to evolutionary social scientists as to how evolution solved this problem.

The problem is that the social constructionist framework simply ignores questions of how the mind might have evolved to represent and manipulate socially transmitted information - simply assuming that the brain is a big sponge that soaks up information and then spits it out, and treating socialization as "non-evolved" and things that are fixed and the same across people as "evolved".

Question: Would this study have created the same results if it were done 50 years ago, and 50 years from now??

Or, do socialisation, conditionning, social norms, and the fact that we are constantly evolving new prevailing traits and features-have a say?

UCLA -

I appreciate that EPs attempt to understand *individual* differences... but why the insistence on studying sex differences? I'm currently writing about some EP work that methodologically sets itself up to find sex differences. When you ask the same question the EPs use in a different way, the sex differences disappear (and when you allow people to actually talk about the topic, you find that its pointless to even talk about sex differences in that everyone has such different experiences, attitudes, etc). But yet this particular line of research, using this particular question, is done again and again, and is written about in everything from pop EP books to MSNBC... even though, as I'm showing, the sex difference they find is an artifact of the measurement.

I do appreciate that there is some good EP/SB research (and I'm certainly happy with evolution generally!) but its this sort of stubborn, popular, poorly done stuff that gets headlines, and that subsequently gets integrated into cultural consciousness, that really ticks me off.

"I appreciate that EPs attempt to understand *individual* differences... but why the insistence on studying sex differences?"

Most of this feministing blog is about studying sex differences! Check out the thread on "double standards". Most popular thread in weeks.

Different social, environmental, genetic, and hormonal factors, and their interactions, can have dramatic effects on the way people view and experience the world. That is why it is important to study sex differences.

From an ev psych point of view, there are certain adaptive problems that women face that men don't - hence one reason to focus on sex differences, among many other variables.

"When you ask the same question the EPs use in a different way, the sex differences disappear"

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I think what you mean is that some things that appear to be sex differences are actually due to other factors (e.g., if you control for amount of income or social power a person has, then some sex differences disappear)? That plausible to me, but that doesn't negate the fact that some sex differences may be due to sex-specific factors.

"but its this sort of stubborn, popular, poorly done stuff that gets headlines, and that subsequently gets integrated into cultural consciousness, that really ticks me off. "

Well I certainly agree that findings related to sex differences get a lot of media attention because it reinforces people's stereotypes that men and women are different. As SarahMC has pointed out, some people use this to reinforce their sexist notions.

My research on the effects of hunger on behavior, or on the evolution of the mind, certainly gets much less popular press attention than my work on sexuality and sex differences (which is driven by both ev psych and general socio-cultural perspectives)!

"But yet this particular line of research, using this particular question, is done again and again, and is written about in everything from pop EP books to MSNBC... even though, as I'm showing, the sex difference they find is an artifact of the measurement."

Are you referring to the sexual jealousy research?

Double standards aren't sex differences. From an evolutionary standpoint, we're talking genes and DNA. Now, double standards can stem from a historical sociological standpoint. But that is not, repeat NOT, tied directly to genetics.

If a man thinks a woman can't do a job as well as he can, that's not genetic. That's just because somebody taught him that, or because he knew a woman or two who couldn't and he generalized. The evolutionary stuff really doesn't come into it. Unless you're really, really stretching your definitions (which appears to be happening quite a lot in the comments from the evolutionary psych defenders).

Most of this feministing blog is about studying sex differences! Check out the thread on "double standards".

Double standards are not sex differences. In fact, that's the point of dissecting and criticizing them. People wrongly ASSUME sex differences and treat boys/men and girls/women differently (aka "double standard").

"Question: Would this study have created the same results if it were done 50 years ago, and 50 years from now??"

Oh most likely. From an evolutionary point of view, a number of factors can influence the strength of preferences for masculinized traits, such as changes in social norms, the degree to which an environment is perceived as dangerous, etc.

"Or, do socialisation, conditionning, social norms, and the fact that we are constantly evolving new prevailing traits and features-have a say?"

That's a false dichotomy - those are evolutionarily relevant factors.

It's so easy to claim success for evolutionary psych when you make the claim that absolutely everything falls under that umbrella. Makes defending it so much simpler.

"It's so easy to claim success for evolutionary psych when you make the claim that absolutely everything falls under that umbrella. Makes defending it so much simpler."

That doesn't change the fact that literally every single behavior in some way depends on evolved mechanisms. The challenge is to determine exactly how those mechanisms operate.

Do you really think that culture played no part in human evolution? Think about how we evolved - in small nomadic groups. Succesful socialization was a critical component of surviving and reproducing. It seems relatively uncontroversial to think that we have evolved structures to support and influence those processes.

Here's the thing, though. If literally everything about humanity is part of evolutionary psych, then the term itself has no meaning. You've defined yourselves right out of existence. Good job.

It's like when the fundies try to say that believing in anything requires faith. Once you buy that, the word faith ceases to have any meaning.

You can't broaden the definition of a term too far without losing any kind of information whatsoever.

"Double standards are not sex differences. In fact, that's the point of dissecting and criticizing them."

I think that's just a definitional issue. Those are quite clearly what I was referring to as a sex difference. Simply that the sexes act differently. Women wear make-up, men don't. That's a sex difference.

What causes the sex difference clearly depends on the sex difference in question. In the example above, it's pretty clearly enforcement of social norms.

"If a man thinks a woman can't do a job as well as he can, that's not genetic. That's just because somebody taught him that, or because he knew a woman or two who couldn't and he generalized."

I think you are confused between the content of socially transmitted ideas and the underlying evolved processes supporting them. Think of all the evolved mental structures that you would need to have operating in your above example.

"The evolutionary stuff really doesn't come into it. Unless you're really, really stretching your definitions (which appears to be happening quite a lot in the comments from the evolutionary psych defenders)."

If by "stretching your definitions" you mean
not adhering to the silly notion that evolved behaviors mean "fixed, unvarying, strictly genetically determined behaviors" then yes, I'm stretching.

Evolutionary psychologists think of the brain like a computer - lots of different software running to process, interpret, and respond to environmental stimuli. Some of these systems seek out specific information from the environment (internet), some of them deploy only when this information is obtained, some of them deploy differently depending on the specific information received, and some of them operate the same way regardless of the environmental stimuli.

For example:
A) People have automatic fear responses to snakes and spiders. Even monkeys with no prior experience with snakes have this reaction. This is probably an example of how you think of evolved mechansism - stable and fixed.

B) Foraging strategy: Animals shift their behavior to pursue riskier foraging strategies when hungry, even in predator filled environments. This is an example of an evolved system that has decision rules change behavior according to environmental cues (predator frequency) and internal state (hunger).

C) Socially transmitted information. People need some sort of system to manipulate, represent, and process symbolic information. No other species can do this so obviously we evolved some sort of system to handle this information. Other evolved systems likely interact with this system (e.g., emotion regulation systems, systems that calculate perceived risks vs. rewards, etc.). Further, other evolved systems might influence the content of socially transmitted information
(e.g., representations of snakes in the culture).

If you are thinking like an evolutionary psychologist, you are interested in A-C. If you are thinking like a social constructionist, you think that "evolved" or "genetic" behaviors are just A.

My point is that behaviors influenced by transmission of social norms aren't somehow magically "non-evolved". That's a very narrow way of thinking about our evolved psychology.

Like I said. Defining yourselves out of existence.

"Here's the thing, though. If literally everything about humanity is part of evolutionary psych, then the term itself has no meaning."

No, for the reasons I outline in the post right above this one.

Let's put it this way, which you (probably) won't find very controversial.

Obviously every physical part of our body is evolved, right? Our body is composed of a bunch of different modules, each of which serves a specific function (heart, liver, lungs) and each interacts with all of the other modules.

Some of these are amazingly complex, like the immune system, which takes in information from the environment, reacts to it, and responds by forming new structures.

Every action of the body is designed to react to environmental stimuli or to change the environment. For example, muscles build as response increased use. Thus, every physiological response is, in some way, the product of evolution.

The assumption in ev psych is that the brain operates the same way. It is composed of a variety of different systems or modules, all of which interact. Some are designed to process social information and respond contingently based on the perceived rewards and costs. Some are designed to process faces. Some of these are built to be sensitive to changes in the environment. Some are relatively fixed.

The main debate between ev psych and others is which of these factors are relatively fixed.

Regardless of whether they are fixed or varying, however, it is nonsensical to say they are not "evolved".

So, since literally everything ever done, said, or thought by a human being is considered part of ev psych, ev psych means nothing. It's not a discipline, it's just a term that means "stuff humanity does, says, and thinks." If it means everything, it means nothing. And nothing you've said here contradicts that.

"Like I said. Defining yourselves out of existence."

Actually I quite clearly defined the boundary conditions and the assumptions of ev psych. See above two posts.

"Good job."

Thanks!!!

Anyways, you don't have to take my word for it. Here is how ev psych folks view culture and evolution:

http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/evolutionary.html

Lots of people on this board like to refer newbies to a "feminist 101" blog. Consider the link above an ev psych 101 post.

Thank you for assuming I'm an idiot. I've actually read up on this subject before. And you've yet to have said anything that contradicts my conclusions. I've yet to see you mention any particular boundaries as to what areas of human thought, behavior, etc. are not supposed to be part of ev psych. Those would be boundaries. Defining different areas of ev psych is not describing a boundary, it's just a subset within the larger whole. Which, as described, contains everything about humanity and thus means nothing.

So, either start describing the parts of humanity's action, thought process, and interaction that you don't think are part of ev psych, or admit that I'm right.

"So, since literally everything ever done, said, or thought by a human being is considered part of ev psych, ev psych means nothing. It's not a discipline"

Well hopefully one day it won't be it's own subdiscipline. Since you can't have behavior without evolution, hopefully one day every field will take a serious approach that considers how evolved mechanisms influence and create the given phenomenon of interest.

"not a discipline, it's just a term that means "stuff humanity does, says, and thinks." If it means everything, it means nothing. And nothing you've said here contradicts that."

Actually, everything I said contradicts that, including by specifying a specific mental model for how evolved mechanisms generate behavior.

Go ahead. Try to enact a behavior without using evolved mechanisms. I dare you. Can't be done!

"Thank you for assuming I'm an idiot."

Where did I assume you were an idiot? If I didn't think you were intelligent, I wouldn't bother to respond.

"So, either start describing the parts of humanity's action, thought process, and interaction that you don't think are part of ev psych, or admit that I'm right."

Oh no, I definitely don't think you are right.

"I've yet to see you mention any particular boundaries as to what areas of human thought, behavior, etc. are not supposed to be part of ev psych. "

All right, let me put it this way:

Social constructionists have a very limited scope of interest: They are basically interested in how social influences determine behavior. Typically they don't specify how mental structures might support this behavior, and never consider how evolved mental structures support this behavior.

Evolutionary psychologists have a broader scope of interest. Specifically, they are interested in how social, hormonal, genetic, and other factors influence behavior. Specifically, they propose that all of these behaviors requires some sort of mental structure to process and respond to these influences. The goal of evolutionary psychology is to specify how

What's different about the perspectives is that social constructionist consider "social" influences to be non-evolved in nature. Evolutionary psychologists consider the study of social influences to be one subset of evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychologists consider these to be, as they obviously must be, dependent on evolved mechanisms. The goal of ev psych is to specify precisely how these evolved mechanisms are operating.

Since you accuse me of not specifying boundary conditions, let me give you a concrete example. Take the case of facial attractiveness. You need a whole set of evolved mechanisms:

1. One that processes faces and facial characteristics
2. One that internalizes social information about what is considered attractive or prestigious
3. One that assesses whether the face contains traits that might have indicated health in the ancestral environment such as symmetry
4. One that ties these assessments to the sexual arousal system

Etc. The presence of each one of these systems can be tested for. Alternatively, some people might propose that evolution crafted a more general cognitive model - one that builds up each of those systems from scratch. Either way, you still need to specify how evolved mechanisms support, direct, or cause the preference in question. The brain doesn't just soak up information and spit it out.

Uh, saying that evolved mechanisms generate behavior proves my point. If you're making that claim then, as I've been saying, ev psych involves everything human beings do, say or think. And that means that ev psych doesn't mean anything. It's just another word for humanity. All you did was give me the model you use to make your claim, it doesn't disprove the claim or the conclusions that one is forced to draw from that claim.

In order to show me that you are not claiming ev psych = everything, you'd have to list areas of human behavior and thought that aren't supposed to be covered by ev psych.

"So, either start describing the parts of humanity's action, thought process, and interaction that you don't think are part of ev psych, or admit that I'm right."

1. Yes, you are right that ultimately every behavior is in someway dependent on evolved mechanisms.

2. No, you are not right that this makes ev psych meaningless. Once you recognize this obvious fact that all behavior depends on evolved mechanisms, the question then becomes how do these mechanisms operate. This is a question that social constructionists completely ignore. How is the mind and brain structured, and how and why did evolution create the mind this way.

3. One popular approach in ev psych to tackle this question is to use the modular approach, described above.

What Kimmy said.
If everything humans do = evo psych, then why even have a separate term or field of study for it?

Liking the color blue and disliking yellow is not an "evolved behavior." It's a preference for one color over another.

You'd swear all men were the same and all women the same, the way you speak about "sex differences." [And women wearing make-up while men do not is not a sex difference. It's a gendered behavior. Girls aren't born knowing they're supposed to wear make-up in order to gain social approval. Boys don't know it's socially unacceptable for them to wear make-up. If that were the case, you might be able to call it a sex difference. An actual sex difference would be males have external sex organs while females have internal sex organs.]

So, like I said, you're using ev psych as another word for humanity. Good for you. I now feel fairly comfortable in going back to ignoring it, since it doesn't mean anything.

Oops! That whole final sentence was supposed to be in italics.

Ahh, I see the problem. I pointed this out earlier, but I'll point it out again.

1) An evolutionary perspective can't explain the CONTENT of all social norms. For example, why it's okay for men but not women to have bushy eyebrows. However, that does not make the behavior non-evolved, because you still need to specify how people process social norms, which obviously relies on evolved mechanisms. See the difference? Mechanism vs. content?

2) There are behaviors that a social constructionist perspective simply can't explain, such as why women's preferences for men with dissimilar MHC genes increases over the course of the ovulatory cycle.

"I now feel fairly comfortable in going back to ignoring it, since it doesn't mean anything."

Yes, you can safely ignore it if you aren't interested fully understanding human behavior, which includes sex differences in behavior.

"You'd swear all men were the same and all women the same, the way you speak about "sex differences." [And women wearing make-up while men do not is not a sex difference. It's a gendered behavior. Girls aren't born knowing they're supposed to wear make-up in order to gain social approval. Boys don't know it's socially unacceptable for them to wear make-up. If that were the case, you might be able to call it a sex difference. An actual sex difference would be males have external sex organs while females have internal sex organs.]"

Whatever terminology you want to use doesn't matter to me. It's a sex difference in my vocab because Sex A does the behavior more than Sex B. Nothing more, nothing less.

I ignore ev psych as an explanation for everything the same way (and for the same reason) I ignore faith as an explanation for everything. Neither of them means everything when used the way you're using it. Take it down to an actual discipline, as opposed to a term broadened beyond all definition, and we'll talk.

And it's so cute that you think your way of understanding things is the only way of understanding things. It's like when I switched from SBC to digital telephone. The SBC message told me to make sure I informed people that I would have no phone in the future, since I was cancelling my account with them.

They assumed there was no way to get phone service outside of themselves, and you assume that your way of looking at the world is the only one that matters. It's adorable, really. I laughed both times.

"So, like I said, you're using ev psych as another word for humanity. Good for you. I now feel fairly comfortable in going back to ignoring it, since it doesn't mean anything."

Or, more specifically, it's more useful than a social constructionist perspective because not only can it examine the role of social norms in behavior, it can also examine how various evolved mechanisms influence those behaviors.

I think I may understand what you're saying, UCLA, but you began speaking about evo psych using terms that were never defined (and in some cases have different meanings to evo psych people), to a bunch of people who don't study it for a living.
This is even more complicated by the fact that you're talking to feminists, because "sex differences" implies inherent/inborn to us. Now, I understand that you're not using it that way, but we never agreed upon the terms.

"I ignore ev psych as an explanation for everything the same way (and for the same reason) I ignore faith as an explanation for everything."

Obviously two different things. One is completely testable, as evidenced by the 1000s of articles testing predictions derived from specific evolutionary theory.

"And it's so cute that you think your way of understanding things is the only way of understanding things. "

It's adorable the way that you cling to the obvious fantasy that your view of evolved psychology is a plausible one. So snuggly!

When you think on it a while hopefully the confusion will clear up. How can an animal have behavior that is not in some way supported by evolved systems?

Once you recognize that, which again, seems pretty obvious, then the question is HOW those systems operate to generate behavior.

"This is even more complicated by the fact that you're talking to feminists, because "sex differences" implies inherent/inborn to us. Now, I understand that you're not using it that way, but we never agreed upon the terms."

All good to know! I'm co-teaching a class next year with a social constructionist feminist researcher, which should be interesting - good to get the lingo down.

I understand what you mean about sex vs. gender - yes, was just referring the relative frequency of the behavior by sex, not the origin.

""So, like I said, you're using ev psych as another word for humanity. Good for you. I now feel fairly comfortable in going back to ignoring it, since it doesn't mean anything."

Maybe I'm not framing the debate properly.

Kimmy's view as I understand it is: If some evolved mechanisms are evolved in every behavior, then this makes evolutionary explanations meaningless.

My view is this:

Some evolved mechanisms are involved in every single behavior - this makes it critical to understand which of these specific mechanisms are involved in the behavior, which are not, and how these mechanisms are influencing or supporting the behavior.

Let's take an example similar to SarahMC's: preferring blue vs. red.

At a minimum you need evolved systems that process color. You also need some sort of system that processes rewards (i.e., whether blue or red is perceived as more rewarding). Etc.

All this probably uncontroversial to you but fits with an ev psych paradigm. What you may find controversial is perhaps there is an a strong evolved preference for red because many food sources in our ancestral environment were red. Individuals who were better at detecting red or were attracted to red may have have slightly higher survival rates.

Then imagine how this might feed in to systems A and B described above. This might shift the relative weighting how blue vs. red colors are linked to the reward system.

Does this mean all people will prefer red? No, because other environmental stimuli might feed into the reward system if blue is associated with various positive things in our culture. But this may still lead to, on average, a slight bias for red over blue.

As a side note, a study of mine got a lot of press last month that basically had the same findings.free online games