Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 131 (739659)
10-26-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
11-08-2013 5:17 PM


Re: beauty standards
Just in general, though, not many women get plastic surgery, etc. A preference for a plastic-surgery-esque body will favor women in the general population who inherently possess traits more toward that end of the continuum.
With breast implants and facial plastic surgery we are seeing "memes" replacing "genes" in the selection process, but we are still seeing selection of the phenotype, and that is part of evolution.
Since people can't see genes, I don't see how they could have ever been part of the sexual selection process. The process is naturally restricted to observable characteristics. Naturally those are defined by genes; plastic surgery allows the patient to 'trick' the process, but not to change it.
Observable characteristics are still the criteria of sexual selection, as they have always been.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2013 5:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2014 12:47 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 131 (739708)
10-27-2014 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
10-26-2014 12:47 PM


Re: beauty standards
The purpose is not to pass on genes for those traits but to pass on the genes you have ... which incidentally include the genes for wanting to alter your appearance to better fit the desired icon appearance and the genes for selecting that appearance ... maintaining and reinforcing the runaway sexual selection process.
That assumes that the desire to alter one's physical appearance by shaving, dying one's hair, and augmenting one's breast size with artificial implants is genetically encoded.
I think that is quite an assumption and I don't think it would withstand any serious testing.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2014 12:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2014 7:53 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 131 (739711)
10-27-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
10-27-2014 7:53 AM


Re: beauty standards
Nice try.
If a newborn from parents obsessed with their physical appearance is traded with a newborn from parents that doesn't care one hoot what they look like, do you think that the newborns will grow up to care about their appearance only and exactly as much as their biological parents?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2014 7:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 10-27-2014 9:08 AM Jon has replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2014 5:53 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 131 (739781)
10-27-2014 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
10-27-2014 9:08 AM


Re: beauty standards
There can be little doubt that personality traits have a heritable component. We could look into the scientific evidence, my guess is that it would be sparse, but for a dramatic real-world example listen to the Switched at Birth episode of This American Life.
We are particularly talking about whether an obsession to be attractive (as measured against a culturally-agreed upon ideal, I guess) is heritable.
The things discussed in that program were pretty vague, and if you listen until the very end, you'll actually hear the woman who grew up in the outgoing household admit that she tried out to be a cheerleader.
Breast implants are pretty extreme. I don't think a general desire to attract a mate fully accounts for such drastic behaviors.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 10-27-2014 9:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2014 8:47 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 10-28-2014 6:47 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 131 (739818)
10-28-2014 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
10-27-2014 5:53 PM


Re: beauty standards
If you don't think this is happening then you are not that observant imho of cultures here and elsewhere.
Yes, cultures.
I think you have not demonstrated that the amount of desire to attract a mate necessary to compel one to get plastic surgery is instinctual instead of mostly learned.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2014 5:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2014 5:24 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 131 (739858)
10-28-2014 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
10-28-2014 6:47 AM


Re: beauty standards
Well first, thanks for listening to the program, I didn't expect that. It involved an investment of 15 minutes of your time. This American Life isn't everyone's cup of tea, I hope you enjoyed it.
Sure; it was actually an hour, and I listened while eating.
But second, the program wasn't at all vague when it described how the personalities displayed by the switched babies were at distinct odds with the other children of the respective families. While not scientific, it's a clear real-world example of personality traits having a heritable component.
I mean that the qualities themselves are vague. "Outgoing" and "shy" mean different things to different people. Something I didn't mention in my first reply is what we hear at the way end of the program: the biological daughter of the preacher admits to having wanted to be a cheerleader but failing to qualify at tryouts. The fact that the blond-haired girl had been a cheerleader is cited at the beginning of the program as a personality difference.
But obviously they both had want-to-be-cheerleader personalities. Only one was successful.
It is also hard to discount their physical difference when considering their personalities:
quote:
"Blondes Paid More than Other Women" from The Telegraph:
Blonde-haired women, who are often stereotyped as carefree and ditsy, earn seven per cent more than women with hair of other colours, researchers claim.
And in addition to their preferential pay packets blondes also marry wealthier men, who earn an average of six per cent more than the husbands of other women.
Perhaps the more outgoing personality and success as a cheerleader were simply the results of receiving more personable treatment than the dark-haired members of the family were used to. I too would probably be more outgoing if people were constantly fighting one another to be around me (actually, I'd probably be a megalomaniac, but anyway).
That's kind of what I was talking about when I said 'vague': the traits aren't very specific and they don't really demonstrate heritability of personality traits.
Of course genetics doesn't "fully account for" personality or behavior. The point is that personality has a heritable component, not that personality is "fully accounted for" by genetics. Your own personal experience should also tell you this is true.
I don't think either explanation fully accounts for the behavior. Likely accounting for the behavior is an instinctive drive to attract a mate (probably present in many creatures) combined with personally- and culturally-learned ideals, standards, etc.
The flow of genes doesn't tell the whole story. And the change in 'ideals', even though it may effect a change in population characteristics, isn't likely bringing about a change in instinctive desire to attract a mate. Even when the desire appears stronger people may still care just as much as always about attracting a mate but voice their concern more due to increasing difficulty of meeting the 'ideal' standards.
I don't think we are evolving to a population instinctively more accepting/desiring of getting cosmetic surgery. That's the evolution of our culture and it is fueled by an innate desire to attract a mate that probably hasn't changed a whole lot in the last several thousand years.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 10-28-2014 6:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2014 5:30 PM Jon has replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 10-28-2014 8:11 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 131 (739893)
10-28-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
10-28-2014 5:30 PM


Re: beauty standards
Which is still within the time-frame of runaway sexual selection for specific traits ... the only thing that has changed is the ability to provide such services, the desire for it was there before.
Then what is the point you are trying to make?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2014 5:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 131 (739915)
10-29-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-29-2014 1:29 AM


Re: beauty standards
That runaway sexual selection has been a factor in human development for a very long time, that it is how we came to be "the hairless ape" in the first place, that it is how we cam to be sexually active on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis, that this is how we came to have females with year-round full breasts and men came to have much larger penises than all other apes ... that sex is what made us distinctively human. It may well be what set hominids apart from chimps.
That's a very strong argument. I think it will require more evidence than 'dudes like tits' and 'chicks like dicks'.
There have been individual threads on each of these points, and in every case it was clear that there is ambiguous evidence and enough evidence to argue for either position (or both).
I think sexual selection probably plays a pretty big role. But I don't think it plays the only role, and I would never go so far as to claim it solely led to the hominid line and eventually us. I think that overlooks the existence of obvious non-sexual benefits to our upright walking, our big brains, our use of language, etc.
So I'll say it again: you simply haven't provided the nail-in-the-coffin evidence required to support your conclusions to the level of certainty that you preach them.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024