[JerryLove]

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...622-000002.xml

[Nate]

There were an awful lot of unfounded assumptions and logical missteps in there.

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure how you can say that since the articled doesn't describe the reasearch involved... but what would be some examples?

[Nate]

Do black men in Africa who for centuries before modern times had, presumably, had no contact with white people (and, thus, no contact with blondes) also have a natural preference for blondes? How about blue eyes? Did those males also develop this natural preference for blue eyes? How about Orientals, Indians, or Mid-Easterners? I guess they just didn't evolve as much?

The article is just ridiculous.

The underpinning assumption that absolutely everything our distant ancestors did was for the sake of attracting a better mate and making better offspring is also ridiculous and entirely unfounded. Sure, some of the things the article claims make sense given that assumption, but where the hell did that assumption come from in the first place? It's pure speculation, at best.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

Do black men in Africa who for centuries before modern times had, presumably, had no contact with white people (and, thus, no contact with blondes) also have a natural preference for blondes?

You don't appear to have read that article. Men are attracted to signs of youth. Where blonde hair is understood, it is a sign of youth and therefore appealing.

Men perfer younger parteners and blonde hair is a sign of youth.

How about blue eyes? Did those males also develop this natural preference for blue eyes? How about Orientals, Indians, or Mid-Easterners? I guess they just didn't evolve as much?

Yes. Blue (and to a lesser extent green) eyes were prised in all of those areas.

But again you seem to have failed to actually read that article. People prefer partners who show signs of arousal, which is easiest to pick up on in blue eyes.

The article is just ridiculous.

Your dismissiveness of a psycological article that you don't appear to have really read, much less performed competing reasearch is rediculious.

The underpinning assumption that absolutely everything our distant ancestors did was for the sake of attracting a better mate and making better offspring is also ridiculous and entirely unfounded.

It's also not claimed in the article. I'm sure that our ancestor's preference of sweet foods over sour foods was not related to attracting mates... but that's not discussed.

Sure, some of the things the article claims make sense given that assumption, but where the hell did that assumption come from in the first place? It's pure speculation, at best.

So you can say with absolute certainty that no one in the antropoligical or pyciatric community could possibly have ever done any reasearch to support that conclusion?

THAT is pure speculation.

[Nate]

I'd reply, but I really just don't care.

"A sign of youth" is so ridiculously arbitrary.

[Jeffrey]

I've bookamrked the article, but I'd like to chime in that I don't find blondes attractive, or blue eyes. I mean, there are individuals with those characteristics that I find attractive, but I prefer brunettes on whites, and I prefer women of African descent overall (blonde hair and blue eyes are therefore fairly non-existent in women I find attractive).

Not that it changes the article, since I'm only one man, but it makes me wonder if I'm wired wrong? Or is there some evolutionary explanation for guys like me?

[JerryLove]

"A sign of youth" is so ridiculously arbitrary.

It's not... though it can be subjective.

Not that it changes the article, since I'm only one man, but it makes me wonder if I'm wired wrong? Or is there some evolutionary explanation for guys like me?

It's a valid point. Generalities don't always turn into specifics. Though the general preference for blondes is well-established, it's not true for all individuals.

Certainly a large percentage perfer people of their own gender. This is obviously not an adaptation which promotes reproduction... but illustrates that the article discusses trends not individual absolutes.

Look at the rise in violence and crime where poligany is in practice. That doesn't mean that all poliganists are warlike rapists... just that the society as a whole leans more that way.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...622-000002.xml

Includes somewhat interesting trivia, but I don't see much beyond that -- was there something in particular that you were thinking of?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've bookamrked the article, but I'd like to chime in that I don't find blondes attractive, or blue eyes. I mean, there are individuals with those characteristics that I find attractive, but I prefer brunettes on whites, and I prefer women of African descent overall (blonde hair and blue eyes are therefore fairly non-existent in women I find attractive).

Not that it changes the article, since I'm only one man, but it makes me wonder if I'm wired wrong? Or is there some evolutionary explanation for guys like me?

People like you are less likely to survive/reproduce/flourish and so, in time, you'll just be an evolutionary blip that was weeded out. Prepare to vanish into oblivion.

(I don't know why I felt like being saucy just now...)

[JerryLove]

Nothing in particular. I found it very interesting and wanted to share.

As a fan of poligany, I was saddened to come to realize that it would both lower my access to mates and result in a more violent society.

My new stance? Poligany for just me

[Jeffrey]

That's right, you're involved in an open relationship, correct?

Perhaps discreet poligany in a monogamous society is the best for you, hypothetically speaking.

There's a path in philosophy I'm interested to see - the idea of operating within a system and doing nothing to change it because while one regards its philosophies as flawed, it allows the opportunity to pursue one's self-interest.

Which sounds like many pacifistic post-Reformed Christians I know, myself leaning in that direction. But I'm curious about it more from an atheistic standpoint - should one only stand up for causes that directly impact one's seventy years here on earth?

CGR's probably not the best place to discuss Serge Kreutz and his post-Objectivist philosophy (summed up as "Best sexual experiences one can undergo and a gentle death as goals and means of fulfillment, instead of God.").

[tlj009]

I thought it was interesting, it is just the first time that I have heard this particularly reasoning behind some of the statements.

Men prefere blondes and blue eyes - I had read several times that it was just rare and was prefered for that reason. I can understand that blonde hair may make a woman look younger but I have my doubts that men pick up on something like the dilation of the pupil. Same things with the reasoning behind large breasts. I just doubt that it is a good reasoning. I may be wrong in all cases, but then it doesn't really matter a whole lot either.

[JerryLove]

while individual false conslusions are always possible, and I certainly agree that there's a mix of social norms and reproductive reasoning; I also think you underestimate the subtle cues we use to make decisions.

We do indeed respond to very little details. So much of makeup and surger are about those little details.

[tlj009]

while individual false conslusions are always possible, and I certainly agree that there's a mix of social norms and reproductive reasoning; I also think you underestimate the subtle cues we use to make decisions.

We do indeed respond to very little details. So much of makeup and surger are about those little details.

Could be. But pupil dialation? I can't even tell you the eye color of most people I know.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Could be. But pupil dialation? I can't even tell you the eye color of most people I know.

You don't always notice what you notice. It's a topic I've explored and discussed a lot in martial arts.

Ironically I do agree that the answers offered are not the whole answers on some of these (we do seek that which stands out as different, because it promotes diversity in the gene pool); but we cannot use your example either.

We know that there's a preference for blue eyes; this obviously predicates on the fact that people do notice eye color... whether consiously or subconsiously.