Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolutionary psychology solves the Problem of Beauty (Goodness and Truth are next)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It’s amazing what passes for science these days (as well as what doesn’t):

The first evidence that beauty is infectious is published today by scientists who have shown that when women see a rival smiling at a man, he becomes more attractive as a result. . . .

Why has nature designed women to be so in thrall to the opinion of others? Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists.

As a result, it pays to get as much information on a man as possible, including what other women think of him. “Using information from others can only improve your decision about a mate,” said Dr Jones.

SOURCE: click here.

Comments
"Why has (the) nature (god) designed women to be so in thrall to the opinion of others?" (added) I find sometimes evolution is nothing but a nature god like those in time past.Smidlee
January 25, 2007
January
01
Jan
25
25
2007
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
I’m siding with Post #7. i.e. "This study seems to detect self evident truth. Any cursory consideration of changes in fashion or advertising will reveal how we tend want what we see other people want." , Even when we don’t want it. Was this theme not portrayed in the movie “legally blonde”, where the blonde gets a date for the nerd, by pretending she has been stood up by him. chance.chance
January 23, 2007
January
01
Jan
23
23
2007
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
30 Joseph "years, not tears- D’oh" No, Joseph, 'tears' works just fine...sigh. How about a study on how women see a man when another obviously tipsy, (relatively) unattractive woman smiles at him?kvwells
January 22, 2007
January
01
Jan
22
22
2007
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
some of this evopsych stuff would be less disturbing if we could accept that humans have a dual nature: we are spiritual beings who incarnate in a physical body for the purpose of development. The physical body has much in common with the animal, but in the human, the rulership is in the spirit. So this duality means that there is no real need to deny that instinctual or animistic type behaviors exist. It would be strange if they didn't. Rather, it is the responsibility of the individual to make the spirit the leader in all things, a leadership which quickly and soundly trumps the strictly material limits of the animal body with the far more uplifting and expansive life of the spirit: love over lust, altruism over self-seeking, true nobility over mere physical beauty. Etc.tinabrewer
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Personally, I think it's an issue of humans being very complicated and very unpredictable. Some people do things for pleasure that most of us would find confusing at best and disgusting at worst. How do you craft a theory that can cover every facet of every subgroup in a population, when the different groups and people are SO varied? These simple 'you do this and this because your ingrained desire to reproduce' just don't fit most of us...NDE will always come up with an exception. Men are dominant over women, except when the woman are dominant over the men. Families show love to each other, except when they kill each other. Our genes have programmed us to help strangers in mortal danger, except when we freely choose to drive by and let someone else worry about the woman being attacked on the side of the road. Everything and nothing are what these simple ideas explain.JasonTheGreek
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
bFast, I agree, and that was one of the stereotypes I was attempting to "skewer" (since it is obvious to the Darwinist that marriage is an evolutionary adaptation).Douglas
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Douglas
How to recognize when desperate women are using Evolutionary principles in attempting to corner you into marriage.
I think that the "it's women who want to get married" is a steriotype as well. I have met a lot of men who are highly interested in getting married, and have met my share of women who are not.bFast
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
JasonTheGreek wrote: “I’ve known girls who have had literally dozens of sex partners (and no babies), yet I’ve known some guys who have been with one girl their entire life.” Me too. I know women who sleep around like the end of the world is coming, and if a pregnancy occurs, then an abortion occurs shortly after. These generalizations about men sleeping around more than women are just wrong I think. Personally, I just think men “exaggerate” the truth a little/lot when it comes to number of sex partners – and women tend to do the opposite.shaner74
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Next on "Dr. Phil" - How to recognize when desperate women are using Evolutionary principles in attempting to corner you into marriage.Douglas
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Next on "Oprah" - How to take advantage of Evolutionary principles in order to win the man of your dreams.Douglas
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
years, not tears- D'ohJoseph
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Alcohol and dim lights can change one's perspective on beauty. "Beer, helping ugly people get 'some' for over 1000 tears."Joseph
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Borne, I wholeheartedly agree with your tyrade. If darwinism, then why the heck would Dawkins care that we acknowledged darwinism? What difference does it make!bFast
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
The whole idiotic concept of Darwinism, is that everything, literally everything, in life has only one "purpose" - reproduction. Itself also purposeless. Underlying Darwinism is the concept that there is no ultimate purpose to anything. Yet another bland and futile Darwinist dullard idea that no one believes - including Dawkins; for if Dawkins believed that, he would not be wasting time writing useless books and doing useless "science". If any of this poppycock pseudo-science were true then he and all other Darwinists would spend all their fruitless lives seeking mates to reproduce. The stats reveal that Darwinist high priests don't reproduce much. Go figure. They reduce everything in life to a mere bio-chemical accident. I find bdelloid's questions perfectly pointless and vain. As though some mysterious explanation were required in the first place.
"Specifically, the result that women find men more attractive if it appears that another woman finds that man attractive....What does ID offer as an explanation for this observation ? That this feature of behavior is designed ?"
The very question pre-supposes that the results require some explanation other than free choice. Nonsense. It also implies that the result is some sort of unconscious, involuntary consequence of genetic makeup - rather than choice based on jealousy or rivalry or whatever. Ages-old life knowledge now brought back by Darwinist addleheads to try to diminish to some boring bio-chem reaction - thus reducing the will and the soul to feckless voids. As always. Evolutionary psychologists are not scientists, nor are their nonsense theories science. Like Thornhills "rape is an evo adaptation" bull. They themselves are either intellectual drones or mere snollygosters looking to make an easy buck off the heads of the gullible or braindead.Borne
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
bdelloid, "if a properly done survey indicates that the average number of partners for men is higher than the number of partners for women, then someone is lying. Probably the men !" Careful surveys show that men exaggerate their sexual partner count. Guess you were right. However, it appears that women also underreport their sexual partner count. Nope, seems both genders are a bit weak on truthfulness.bFast
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
i think rampant promiscuity has alot to do with the sex obsessed culture we live in.a5b01zerobone
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
bdelloid the fact that men on average have a stronger sex drive than women does nothing to vindicate darwinian theory of natural selection and random mutation. average people and scholars have known this as fact of life since antiquity. would you be open to explanations outside of materialist orthodoxy?a5b01zerobone
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
JasonTheGreek, For what it's worth, the average numbers of partners for women must equal the average number of partners for men (assuming strict hetero partnerships and a 50:50 sex ratio). If a properly done survey indicates that the average number of partners for men is higher than the number of partners for women, then someone is lying. Probably the men !bdelloid
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Russ, So I understand: You are saying that the designer designed humans in such a way, specifically, to enhance the ability of women to find a desirable spouse using available information. The idea here, being, that humans are designed, in part, to achieve some measure of life satisfaction. OK, that seems reasonable. Taking it from there, how does ID explain the fact that the average man has a stronger sex drive than the average woman (keeping in mind there are exceptions) ?bdelloid
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
One aspect I forgot to mention- I've known girls who have had literally dozens of sex partners (and no babies), yet I've known some guys who have been with one girl their entire life. Sure- you're more likely to see a man having more partners than a woman...but this isn't universal- all people are different. Which is another reason I don't think theories like this can even touch "mating" in regards to reproduction. How can a theory purport to explain why men have many more sex partners than women...when there are millions of men who have few partners while millions of women have dozens or more. Does NDE theory attempt to explain 1. why men aren't as choosy and have more sex...except when 2. a large group of women aren't as choosy and have more sex than men? Seems like these theories have built-in contingency sub-theories for every exception to the rule.JasonTheGreek
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
I think the idea that men sleep around a lot (more so than women, in general) because the hardship of reproduction is greater on women than men makes no sense for most people. Simply because most people sleep around with the abject goal of doing everything humanly possible to NOT reproduce. I don't know too many that sleep around, with the goal of making babies. No one has an extramarital affair to make kids. The business of contraception brings in billions. So, you first have to question the bold claim that people have sex to make babies, when in fact MOST sexual encounters across the globe are for pleasure, and most of these encounters include the active decision to avoid reproduction at all costs. Men and women both have surgeries to make sure they can't have children (why would a man get his tubes tied, go out and have sex, yet we're still stuck with the claim that sex is for baby making?) I don't think anyone is really saying that reproduction is always the goal of sex...but the theories of better genes for better babies falls apart when you look at sex as an act of pleasure. If your goal is to avoid babies, you don't pick a mate based on some aspect of their physical appearance that portrays "good genes." That much is obvious. As for ID- I don't think that ID, or ANY theory has to explain or even TRY to explain every facet of everything that has ever existed. NDE does this everyday. You can find stories daily that claim to find a Darwinian explanation for, literally, EVERYTHING. Sex, beauty, kindness, altruism, rape, cheating, gambling, the stock market, and on and on and on...JasonTheGreek
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
bdelloid: "Many of you seem to be criticizing this study, but do not seem to be questioning the actual results of this study. Specifically, the result that women find men more attractive if it appears that another woman finds that man attractive." If you see lots of people in a restuarant, you infer that the food is good or the service is fantastic. This inference is generally rewarded, because all humans like tasty food and helpful service. Why is random mutation and natural selection needed to explain this? Doesn't it make just as much sense that a designer might use a similar mechanism to insure that humans get good food?russ
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
The headline claims too much. The problem of beauty is only superficially dealt with between the sexes. Just like conscienceness, TOE doesn't explain the beauty in a sunset or seascape.Latemarch
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
#12 bdelloid: What does ID offer as an explanation for this observation ? That this feature of behavior is designed ? There is no need for ID to offer an explanation for this observation. Instead of evolution ID doesn’t explain everything we observe. I believe that this kind of behaviour is easily explained by the intelligence of the woman in question.Avater
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but how is ID and evolution really that different? I can line of up stack of dominoes (ID) and can knock them over (evolution). I think the answer is both is right. The ID'er is that good of an ID'er!lsybrandt
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au., Perhaps this result is intuitive to many, but it is good that someone tested it to demonstrate it scientifically. And yes, it does not provide confirmation about it's evolutionary origin. However, evolutionary theory provides at least one explanation for this observation. My question: Does ID explain this observation as it being designed this way ? Thanks.bdelloid
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
The results of this study show that people are influenced by the opinions of others, both verbal and non verbal. This is not new. This does not provide confirmation that Random Mutation and Natural Selection provide the origin of this finding. Extrapolating findings like this usually involves mere speculations and ill structured logic. Conclusions are often emphatic where they should be tentative at best.idnet.com.au
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
I couldn't help but laughing at the title of this tred, but mostly at the content. How much does it pay to be an evolutionary psychologist?Mats
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Hello, Many of you seem to be criticizing this study, but do not seem to be questioning the actual results of this study. Specifically, the result that women find men more attractive if it appears that another woman finds that man attractive. Evolutionary theory has a reasonable explanation for this observation - the sexy sons hypothesis. Now this may not be correct, but it is one possible explanation. What does ID offer as an explanation for this observation ? That this feature of behavior is designed ? Secondly, I have been wondering this for a while: how can ID explain the fact that males have a higher sex drive than females and that females are the choosy sex. Men would sleep around much more if it were not for the constraint that women provide. Why is this ? Evolutionary theory explains this based on the fact that the cost of reproduction is much higher for a female. For a male, there is nearly no cost. Does ID propose that humans (and many other species) were designed this way ? I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.bdelloid
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
By the way. Notice this:
Why has nature designed women to be so in thrall to the opinion of others? Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists. As a result, it pays to get as much information on a man as possible, including what other women think of him. “Using information from others can only improve your decision about a mate,” said Dr Jones.
This is what's wrong with this study. The absurd notion that women look for "healthy" men that can give them "healthy" children. 1. Many women have NO desire to have children, and have made a conscious decisions that they will do anything possible to prevent pregnancy. Heck- women abort millions of unborn babies each year to prevent a new child in their life! So, clearly life isn't all about finding a mate and raising children. 2. Millions of men and women NEVER marry. Some of us never even look for a mate. Priests and nuns come to mind. Are they biologically broken? Less evolved than those who look for mates and want kids? 3. Does ANYONE here look for a mate based on supposed unconscious clues as to their genes/health in relation to possible children you might or might not have with them? I personally don't want kids. I'm 30, and I've never cared for children, and can say with 99.5% certainty I will never have kids. Thus- children is the last thing on my mind when choosing a "mate." Furthermore- I've chosen to remain abstinent until marriage. Which clearly shows I'm not thinking of sex at all when looking for a companion. Since I don't have sex, sex doesn't figure into the equation whatsoever. Does that alone prove that life isn't all about having kids...and it's certainly not about finding a good sex partner or a partner who might give you healthy kids when so many of us have NO desire to ever have kids and will spend obscene amounts of money on drugs, condoms, abortions, etc. to PREVENT these children that evobio claims is the point of life? The point of life is to have kids and further your genes...except when the point is to spend tons of money to prevent theJasonTheGreek
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply