surprise, surprise: it's culture after all.

Post Reply New Topic

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/ ... an-living/

I don't know how many times I've argued this and been told that I was just 'denying the evidence' because I didn't like the implications. No, it's just Bad Science to extrapolate from Western university undergrads to all of humanity.

I believe it's primarily the environment as well.

While not at all obvious, this shouldn't be too surprising.

When meeting someone for a short period of time in a highly mobile society, all we often have to go on is first impressions and those are the most superficial. In a very rural, less mobile culture where you tend to know fewer people but those you do know, you know for far longer, first impressions would likely matter much less.

At the extreme, on Pitcairn Island, where the mutineers from the Bounty ended up along with the Tahitians that went with them, there are not many people and they have known all their entire lives. One islander was quoted elsewhere a few years ago as saying that on Pitcairn, there is usually only a choice of something like two or three eligible husbands/wives to choose from and they have known them since they were very small kids. I would imagine that on Pitcairn, extreme male or female features would be completely immaterial.

^That's a good example of the type of 'just so' story that creationists are constantly accusing evolutionists of making, but which one usually sees most in evopsych type articles. Women are better at details? Oh, it must be because they made fine, useful crafts at home. Men are better at details? Oh, it must be because they needed to see details to track injured animals. Women like red? Oh, they're attracted to ripe berries. Men like red? Oh, they're attracted to blood from prey/battle.

I've never said anything about you "denying the evidence" or that Western college students could be generalised to everyone. I've never bought into this idea of western concepts of masculine and feminine being a product of evolution anyway, so the fact that it's a product of the environment doesn't bother nor surprise me.

Rather, what bothers me, however, is a dismissal of an entire potential field of study simply because some ideas are bad. I mean seriously, if every single mammal has behaviours influenced by evolutionary adaptation then what makes humans such special snowflakes that we are exempt from this? Surely it cannot be so unreasonable to assume that humans have adapted or instinctual behaviours just the same way as every single other mammal on planet Earth does? That's not to say that environmental and cultural differences don't influence things but there has to be some species-wide behaviours that are influenced by adaptation as well.

Jono, I *absolutely agree* that some human behaviors *must* be evolutionarily driven, just as they are with other species. However, more of human behavior is driven by culture than is typical of other species, and it is exquisitely difficult (and the studies costly and time-consuming) to separate cultural behavior from genetic predisposition; most evo-psych studies are, to put it politely, insufficiently rigorous to do so.

Very masculine faces were perceived as aggressive in the study. Perhaps the urban environment feels more threatening to some women, causing them to prefer a partner who looks more capable of defending them (not necessarily, or even probably, on a conscious level). In a less hostile environment, that preference fades.