"We get it. You think your opinions make you a sexy truth-teller. Congratulations. Now stop being a racist sexist asshole and study something useful to society."

*claps*

While I totally agree with your post and concern about this ridiculous article, I'm a little aggrivated with your depiction of and referral to psychology. I mean, Psychology Today is a magazine, not a well known, peer-reviewed, letgitimate journal. And while I agree that this article is completely bogus, both discriminatory and prejudice in nature and content, I don't agree with your assumption that it's because it's psych.

To me, this article could've easily been found in an edition of Cosmo.

With that being said, I do think that people with PhDs could spend their time researching something "useful to society". But that doesn't mean psychology isnt useful to society.

As a brunette [and Portuguese woman] I found the article ridiculous. And I would hope that anyone who read it would, too. But I can deifnitely see your concern as I'm sure many people would take Psychology Today as a reliable resource. I found the last section describing how sexual harassment/assault is not sexists to be incredibly "WTF?"-like.

I remember reading that article when it first came out and my jaw hit the floor. How the hell do they get away with publishing shite like this? I know Psychology Today isn't exactly an APA accredited scholarly journal, but people read this stuff and want to believe it. It's like an entire article to legitimize for a bunch of racist, sexist, heterosexual old dudes that what they like/believe is just "human nature".

I also hate that the term "politically incorrect" is like the new way to disguise racist/sexist/homophobic beliefs as okay.

The entire blonde/blue eyed thing always sounds like some Nazi eugenics. I love my dark brown hair and my brown eyes and they can shove it.

Nessa, would it make you feel better if I add that I kept psychology as a minor?

I second what Nessa said. Psychology Today is NOT psychology. It's a popular magazine and it quotes whatever researchers it feels like quoting, not necessarily well respected ones. It's more about who has a pop psych book that's controversial in some way, which usually means there's not much science behind it.

That was rather unfair and uninformed to connect the entire field of psych and that godawful magazine.

Mm... Yes Jen. After all, I wouldn't want you to be "politically incorrect" :)

Politically incorrect-ness is like the whole "no offense BUT... [insert extremely offensive comment]". It's awful what people do/say to remove guilt.

My point was mostly about how I felt initially when reading the post. Looking back, your post is important because most people are not psychology people, and therefore probably WOULD believe whatever they read in Psychology Today [and Cosmo for that matter]. This is a serious issue, as our society is relying on said news "sources" to inform and educate people.

I just wanted to defend the psychology name, haha. Your overall point is for sure right on-- this article is CRAZY.

I don't think it's fair to discredit pscyhology because of a stupid article in Psychology Today. As someone who will be receiving a BS in psychology very soon, I can't stand so much of the evolutionary psychology articles about what type of women men are usually attracted to, or "scientific" evidence that gives excuses for sexist behaviors. Fortunately, I go to a great university, and the psychology professors do not teach us in such a way as to support sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination (I'm sure most universities follow that as well). I think evolutionary psychology is very much in its infancy, but I think it runs the risk of being manipulated, which many psychologists did after Darwin's theory of evolution by trying to justify eugenics; it is definitely a dangerous study. And I agree with Nessa. It's just a magazine, not a peer-reviewed article, which requires much more research and evaluation of the research. Don't dismiss all of psychology because of this article. Their are so many PhDs doing great research within communities (and probably in your own communities) for things directly related to women, children, HIV/AIDS, the poor, post-partum depression, and ssooo much more.

Changing the subject a little, a 50-year old man who marries a 25-year old woman is having what I would call a mid-life crisis.

Two things:

First, I am not saying all psychology is sexist racist crap. Which should be obvious.

Second, a lot of people do use psychology, and a lot of sciences to support sexist racist crap. That's the point here. Sheesh.

"Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist"

Ah okay, I got it: They do it, because they are so full of love, they can't help but share it with us.
Gimme a break already!

Can't believe that this pile of whatnot was published in such a reliable paper. Is it April's Fools yet?

Mention “politically incorrect truths� and I will almost always hold you suspect. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. It’s almost always a way of saying, “you won’t like what you read and any arguments against me are moot, not because I can back up my claims, but because you’re being politically correct.�

Yep. This is one of the primary reasons I have a mental killfile.

That's a disturbing article.

I think PERHAPS, not positive, but perhaps men AND women are more attracted to symmetry (perhaps indicators of health/fertility?) but this is regardless of hair, eye and skin color, and body type. (Read Survival of the Prettiest: I don't know if i agree with everything in the book, but it certainly is interesting.) Anyone can be attracted to anyone. And I LOVE the hints that men are more attractive to women because of status while men are JUST attracted to physical appearance. I could honestly give a SHIT about what car a guy owns or how much money he makes. its offensive to me that someone would assume I, and every women, care ONLY about status and money. psh.

This whole article is ridiculous, especially about the midlife crisis thing. pissed me off. hmm.. did they say ANYTHING about a women's reason or supposed reason for a midlife crisis? didn't think so.

The scary thing is that this is not just an article in a magazine, but a published book by researchers in the field of social and evolutionary psychology. I think it is alright to call out the two people in the psych. community who wrote this book and the publisher for allowing this sexist/racist/heternormativetripe to be put on the market.

Book link here: http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399533656

Being olive skinned, seriously dark dark brunette, and juuust able to fill a B-cup, if any man I'm around prioritizes blonde, giant breasted, blue-eyed women over every other permutation of shape, size, and color that women come in (not to mention that they did not include any other qualities that may be attractive, i.e. intelligence, fields of interest, hobbies, talents, etc., etc.), then chances are he's incredibly unattractive to me. So, I guess it's a win-win.

In my experience, the phrase "politically correct" (and for that matter "politically incorrect") is never used by people who think "political correctness" is a good thing, but rather by people who want a bogeyman comparison to use to justify their disrespect of others.

I agree with Nessa, and I also got the gist of what Jen was talking about, even though I was like, "It's Psychology Today. No professional takes that rag seriously." It's kind of weird that a lot of people don't consider psychology a science, but when pychological and social experiments are used to confirm racist or sexist opinions, suddenly psychology is believable after all! I think psychology is a very influential science, and it sucks when people like those of Psychology Today use it irresponsibly.

I found the time to tear this article a new one back in September. Evolutionary psychology -- even if it's just published in a bunk magazine like this -- is just believable enough for the mainstream that it has some serious damage potential for most feminists who are social constructionists. If you're into reading a feminist, woman-friendly, anti-evo-psych writer, you should check out Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography -- she gets into hormones and how even those aren't evolutionarily controlled, among other things.

Credentials, FYI:
Dr Kanazawa is an instructor in management at the London School of Economics. [He] received his MA in sociology from the University of Washington (1987) and Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Arizona (1994). He has previously taught at Cornell University and the University of Illinois - Urbana. Prior to joining the LSE in 2003, he was Postdoctoral Fellow in evolutionary psychology at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand.

I believe Alan Miller was at the University of Hokkaido, in the department of behavioral sciences. I'm not sure where he is now.

Both have published shitty articles on evolutionary psychology in refereed journals (I like: Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved?
Author(s): Miller AS, Stark R
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 107 (6): 1399-1423 MAY 2002, which attempts to explain why women are more religious than men-- hint, it involves testosterone).

My point is, there are people that do really bogus, sexist, racist "science" and it is accepted by some corners of the scientific community. That's not a condemnation of all scientists or all psychologists. However, blowing this off because it was in "Psychology Today" misses the point.

Here's the link for my reference to Dr. Kanazawa: ahref="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/people/kanazawa.htm

Also, another think I've noted, when people put "Ph. D." after their names, their often about to say something they can't back up. The people I know with doctorates never use that label, even when publishing.

And yet somehow, defying all the forces of natural selection, my family's dark-haired, small-breasted, dark-eyed genes have not only not been bred out, but have lasted down generations and generations. Amazing.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19242

its a pdf of Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved?

Ive read the first few pages. no comment.

and i will check out that author you mentioned, laceyfish. Thanks:)

Hi. I testify as a (formerly) conventionally attractive, C-cupped, blue-eyed blonde, (who recently died her hair brown), who also has a degree in psychology: kernel of truth.

What the "researchers" forgot to point out is that while men are sexually attracted to blonde, blue-eyed women, they are largely unable to see them as anything BUT sex objects with whom they would like to copulate. Actual relationships are to be had with brunettes, which is why the world tends to be, I don't know, 80% brunet?

(The above is said with a fair bit of snark; I dyed my hair brown last month after a lifetime of blonde, and have been startled with the change: my intelligence not underestimated as much by either women or men, finding much easier acceptance with women of all ages, and a better quality of guy all around - but I'm the same damn person. Our cultural stereotypes about blondes are endlessly infuriating to me, both in the fetishization from men, and the resulting hatred targeted towards us from women.)

Not all men are attracted to that aesthetic. In fact, the mysterious brunette is fetishized as well, especially in countries where most people are naturally blonde. Granted, big boobs seem to be demanded by society as a whole (along with blondeness and blue-eyed...ness), but individual men aren't all attracted to that. Just like individual women aren't all attracted to money and status. Sure, some women are, but individual women (and men) vary as much in their preferences as they do in their shapes, sizes, and colors.

I decided to go ahead and read the linked article. Wow! What a truly asinine piece of writing. I knew from the post that it would be bad, but I was stunned at just how bad. Did they even proof-read their own article. If they're going to write bullshit, at least make it consistent. "Truth" 2 (Humans are naturally polygamous) and "Truth" 3 (Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy) contradict each other. Their reasoning on those two truths, as well as the other eight, are astounding stupid.

At one point I thought the article had to be a satire the BS was that great, but given the magazine that it was published in, the authors probably are serious. Having studied evolution of human sexuality as part of my major, I can confidently say that the authors are idiots.

Speaking as an evolutionary social psychologist in academia...

I think popular press articles such as this one really hurt the ev psych cause, and do not represent the opinions of most evolutionary psychologists.

There are little kernels of truth in that article (in my opinion). For example, I *DO* think the Trivers-Willard hypothesis is an important and interesting proposal worth investigating, and that there are evolved mechanisms for evaluating attractiveness (e.g., preferences for symmetry, shifts in women's preferences for mates across the ovulatory cycle) and other critical evolved systems (e.g., disgust mechanisms for avoiding contagions, etc.).

This article, however, is meant to be intentionally inflammatory and highlight the authors own pet hypotheses, many of which are either highly questionable or presented in a purposely offensive way. I do think it is a serious problem that the popular media likes to pick up the articles that most strongly reinforce gender dichotomies or assign evolutionary explanations to phenomenon that are completely or largely socially constructed.

But, in my opinion, evolutionary psychologists do a lot of important work in areas ranging from relationships to health to understanding psychological disorders like schizophrenia to understanding conflicts between groups to reducing crime, and more generally understanding how intelligence and the capacity for culture evolved.

http://www.bec.ucla.edu/BECSpeakerSeries.htm

http://www.ehbonline.org/issues/contents

::::Sorry, just had to step in and comment on that - I'm banishing myself back to lurker mode until I pass my preliminary orals. But hi everybody! Hope you are all doing well:::

Rachel,
As a natural brown haired girl I'm still incredibly jealous that you're blonde. I'm over the phase where I'd dislike you for it though. *sigh*

"Mention “politically incorrect truths� and I will almost always hold you suspect. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. It’s almost always a way of saying, “you won’t like what you read and any arguments against me are moot, not because I can back up my claims, but because you’re being politically correct.�

fucking seriously.

UCLA, I honestly thought you'd be here much sooner! ;o) But the exams explain it. Good luck!

You know you're in for a treat when they try to convince you that blond hair- something that less than 2% of the population of the planet has, and that, in ancient times, most of the planet wouldn't have even had a concept of- is an evolutionary advantage that most men would prefer over other hair colors. The justification, that it shows "dramtic" color change as you age? Seriously?

Suuure...

Sorry, this is WAAAAY long but here is the letter I wrote to that piece of tripe magazine in response to this article.

For a site that claims to be “here to help� I fail to see any helpful information in your recent article “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature�. In fact, as an anthropology PhD very well versed in evolutionary psychology I feel compelled to correct their misperceptions about human evolution lest anyone attempt to apply this misinformation in a clinical setting.

There are two issues with this article: first, the accuracy of the authors’ arguments and second, the modern value of evolutionary perspectives.

Certainly we evolved under a specific series of circumstances that shaped the ways that our bodies and brains function. Our shared central nervous system can explain a wide variety of human universals. In fact I would agree with some of the authors’ first point that men prefer women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. Beyond that I would suggest that every other argument made in this article is a dramatic misinterpretation of evolutionary human capacities.

For example, their suggestion that men prefer blonds because of some evolved youth detection system is laughable at best. Their central support for this argument seems to be that women in places not exposed to western media still want to dye their hair blond. Why would exposure to western media be the only reason women might want blond hair? For example, one of their supporting arguments is that women in 15th century Italy dyed their hair blond. Do the authors imagine that 15th century Italy was free of cultural beauty conventions simply because they did not have TV? Perhaps they missed the high-school class on the Renaissance. Clearly they do not know that Italy was the dye center of Europe during the Renaissance (all forms of dye including hair and clothing) and so it makes perfect sense that wealthy women would mark their access all kinds of dyes by altering their appearance, thus dyeing their majority brunette hair an unusual color. Before using historical information to support an argument, the authors would do well to research their claims.

As to the claim that humans are naturally polygamous, I would counter that humans are naturally flexible in their family structures. I am not exactly sure what the authors mean when they say polygamy is “natural� because there is no one family structure shared by all humans. It is very likely that in the earliest days of hominid evolution our non-homo sapien ancestors were polygamous, but when homo sapiens evolved, the ways in which men and women related was certainly contingent on a complex set of environmental, cultural, and social particulars. In many places polygyny is indeed practiced, in some places polyandry, pedophilia is also rather common around the world, as is monogamy. Suggesting that some vestigial trait of human physiology means something is “natural� is to misunderstand the way that human cultural capacities have evolved.

Incidentally, the authors refer to human “ancestors� during medieval times. I would like to point out that our “ancestors� evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Humans during medieval times were homo sapiens exactly like us – virtually no evolution has taken place in our species in the last thousand years and to make an evolutionary argument based on medieval times is scientifically laughable.

The argument relating sex competition and Muslim suicide bombers would carry perhaps an iota of weight if they presented any compelling support for the assertion that the vast majority of Muslim men are in fact excluded from reproductive opportunities. In fact, to conflate intra-cultural violence that arises during mate competition with suicide bombing displays a total lack of knowledge about the actual types of violence that occur in societies where there is mate competition. This mate competition violence occurs between men of the same cultural group and is very often ritualized so no serious harm is done (though there are a few exceptions to this). How suicide bombing resembles this type of violence is beyond my comprehension.

At the same time, any cursory research into actual the history of suicide bombing as a very specific cultural act could have prevented this facile association. Suicide bombing has a very specific history. Virtually every suicide attack is conducted with the same strategic goal – the forced withdrawal of an occupying force from a disputed territory.

Incidentally, it makes logical physiological sense that younger, healthier women would have more daughters and in fact the biological mechanism of this phenomena is well understood. Younger, healthier women tend to have longer follicular phases during their monthly menstrual cycle. They also tend to have healthier reproductive systems allowing fertilized eggs to travel more quickly to the uterus. Both a longer follicular phase and a shorter time between fertilization and implantation favor female offspring. Thus, younger, healthier women are slightly more likely to have daughters – this is not related to “beauty� in any way beyond a questionable association of beauty with youth.

Their suggestion that the early adulthood peak of male aggression, creativity, and general productivity is related to competition for females would also hold some water if women didn’t also have the exact same early adulthood peak. Every function of the human body peaks in the 20s and 30s. Brain function is at its highest levels, muscle tone, strength, agility, stamina, and every other measure of human capability peak and then decline as a person ages. Women are also much more likely to compose symphonies, play in rock bands, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, author books, and write new computer software in their 20s and 30s. The fact that the authors entirely ignore that this is a human trait, not just a male trait, suggests to me that they had some ulterior motive in their willful ignorance of the basic facts surrounding their argument.

The mid-life crisis and affair argument presented by the authors similarly ignores the basic facts surrounding mate selection pressures and social power. Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, a fact that does not fit in with the authors’ assertion that it is only men who might seek a new sexual partner later in life. Instead, married men are emotionally, financially, and physically better off than their single counterparts and so, evolutionarily, it would actually make more sense for men to cling to their stable mate partnership. Similarly, powerful people of high status of either gender are more likely to have a risky affair than those lacking social power.
The last point of this article is the most disturbing. First of all, the study showing that women would not have sex with a stranger in no way represents “desire to have casual sex�. Instead it more likely represents the different physical realities of sex for women. If the authors wanted to make a evolutionary argument, I would suggest that the evidence supports the notion that women are generally less willing to have sex with a stranger because the possible repercussions for women is much greater than for men. When pregnancy is a possible negative outcome women are less likely to be willing to risk casual sex. This in no way comments on desire and I have yet to hear compelling evidence that women want sex significantly less than men.

Secondly, to claim that men abusing and harassing women is a form of “equal treatment� ignores very real differences in social power as well as the way that sexual harassment applies a very specific set of gendered symbols to abuse women. I fervently hope that these authors are never allowed to treat a women who has been sexually harassed because they clearly have no grasp on the ways in which sexual harassment significantly differs from other forms of abuse.

Seriously, the authors need to take an anthropology course to balance out whatever evolutionary psychology they think they know because most of what they argue in this article is clearly culturally constructed behavior viewed through the lens of a person who has only the most rudimentary grasp of evolutionary psychology and physiology.

Finally, I question to value of these kinds of blanket “�truth� statements without any contemporary social, ethical, or cultural context. The most powerful evolved psychological mechanism is our universal human capacity to form functioning societies with cultural rules. The actual rule systems vary widely between cultures and within cultures change dramatically over time. Despite these variations, these cultural systems are the foundations upon which we construct our own moral, ethical and social values that govern our behavior. Whenever I hear an argument suggesting that “instinct� or “human nature� is to blame for bad behavior, I turn to my knowledge of world cultures. In observing the incredible variety of social systems, I conclude that the only true human universal is that we are cultural animals and that cultural values are the most powerful influence on our behavior. Any argument to the contrary simply sounds to me like someone wanting to explain away their own racist, sexist bad behavior.

Over the last couple of years, I've started to notice that in pretty much every article like this, there's always some point at which the writer lets something slip that reveals a whole other level of skeezyness:

"Men can cognitively understand that many blond women with firm, large breasts are not actually 15 years old, but they still find them attractive because their evolved psychological mechanisms are fooled by modern inventions that did not exist in the ancestral environment."

(emphasis added)

the_becca, that part made my stomach flip over.

"Since a man's mate value is largely determined by his wealth, status, and power—whereas a woman's is largely determined by her youth and physical attractiveness—the father has to make sure that his son will inherit his wealth, status, and power, regardless of how much or how little of these resources he has. In contrast, there is relatively little that a father (or mother) can do to keep a daughter youthful or make her more physically attractive."

Everything I hear about evolutionary psych is terrible. I feel like in most cases, evolutionary psych is code for "explaining why men get to have more sex and be assholes and are better." As UCLA pointed out, there are probably some people in evo psych who aren't working under these assumptions, but a lot of the things they attempt to explain could be better explained by theories about gender socialization and less by biology. I also love how he cites the random stranger study about asking people in a coffee shop for sex, without mentioning that maybe women have more fears about rape/distrust/being hurt, by a physically large, strange male, than a male might have about a physically smaller female.

kmp and the_becca, I almost missed that! This guy is a skeeze.

Thanks so much for the link. I read the original article awhile ago (I'm not sure from where; I never read the mag), and it just pissed me off that these ideas were being legitimized by being attached to a scientific field.

political correctness: http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/61030.html

being attracted to white girls:
http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/76671.html