The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Maybe Beauty Is Just "Cognitive Cheesecake"?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

41czavSUnNL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ Beauty matters a lot in our world. The entertainment and fashion industries are based on beauty. Obviously some aspect of beauty is socially constructed and contextual. Beauty standards can change. There was a time when many aspects of European physical appearance, from light hair and eyes, down to the lack of an epicanthic fold, were excluded from idealized canons in East Asia. Obviously that is not the case today, and one can give a very plausible explanation through recourse to recent history as to why those norms shifted. Similarly, there is even a possibility that something as central to evolutionary psychology as preference for a particular waist-to-hip ratio may vary as a function of material conditions. I is clear from the social historical scholarship that the ideal characteristics of a female mate are strongly conditioned on the resources of the male; lower status males put greater emphasis on the direct economic benefits which their partner may bring because they are more on the margin of survival. For much of history lower status males meant most males. That is, peasants.

And yet cross-culturally there does seem to be a certain set of preferences which one might argue are “cultural universals.” People from “small-scale” societies are still able to consistently rank photographs of people from WEIRD societies in facial attractiveness which correlation with results from participants in developed nations. This indicates that there is a strong innate basis. An element of taste deep in our bones, even if we may inflect it on the margins, or increase or decrease its weight in our calculations of what makes an optimal mate. There may be societies where Lena Dunham’s “thick” physique may be preferred to Bar Refaeli‘s svelte profile, but I am skeptical that there would be societies where the former’s facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color, but European norms are pretty widespread outside of small-scale societies now, so that shouldn’t be a major issue). So the question then becomes: is this adaptive?

Evolutionary psychologists have a panoply of ready explanations. They are often grounded in correlations, and then adaptationist logic. For example, women with lower waist to hip ratios (0.7 being the target) have more estrogen, and are more likely to be nubile, and so are more fertile, all things equal. Since being more fertile is going to be a target of selection, a lower waist to hip ratio is going to be a target of selection, because implicitly there is a genetic correlation between estrogen and waist to hip ratio. The problem is that genetic correlations have to be proved, not assumed. Correlations are not necessarily transitive. Just because A has a positive correlation with B and B has a positive correlation with C, does not entail (necessarily) that A has a positive correlation with C.

With that in mind, a new paper looks at facial attractiveness, averageness of facial features, and heritability of both these traits. They use a twin design, with an N of ~1,800. And, they relate it to a comprehensible causal mechanism: mutational load resulting in increased developmentally instability. Basically, the more mutations you have, the more likely you have to exhibit facial asymmetry, and therefore facial averageness is a good proxy for genetic quality. It is well known that average faces tend to be rated better looking than non-average faces. This is part of an argument that Geoffrey Miller put forth in The Mating Mind, a very fertile work. There is an elegance to it. Unfortunately follow up work over the past ten years is suggesting that this simple model is either wrong, or, everything is a whole lot more complicated.

First, the paper, Facial averageness and genetic quality: Testing heritability, genetic correlation with attractiveness, and the paternal age effect. The abstract gives away the game:

Popular theory suggests that facial averageness is preferred in a partner for genetic benefits to offspring. However, whether facial averageness is associated with genetic quality is yet to be established. Here, we computed an objective measure of facial averageness for a large sample (N = 1,823) of identical and nonidentical twins and their siblings to test two predictions from the theory that facial averageness reflects genetic quality. First, we use biometrical modelling to estimate the heritability of facial averageness, which is necessary if it reflects genetic quality. We also test for a genetic association between facial averageness and facial attractiveness. Second, we assess whether paternal age at conception (a proxy of mutation load) is associated with facial averageness and facial attractiveness. Our findings are mixed with respect to our hypotheses. While we found that facial averageness does have a genetic component, and a significant phenotypic correlation exists between facial averageness and attractiveness, we did not find a genetic correlation between facial averageness and attractiveness (therefore, we cannot say that the genes that affect facial averageness also affect facial attractiveness) and paternal age at conception was not negatively associated with facial averageness. These findings support some of the previously untested assumptions of the ‘genetic benefits’ account of facial averageness, but cast doubt on others.

I’m going to reproduce some of the results from Table 4 below.

Averageness Attractiveness
Heritability Non-heritable Heritability Non-heritable Genetic correl Env correl
Female 0.21 0.79 0.6 0.38 0.11 0.21
Male 0.22 0.78 0.62 0.39 0.11 0.08
Overall 0.21 0.79 0.6 0.4 0.11 0.16

What you see is very modest heritability for averageness, and a decent one for attractiveness. But, there’s no statistically significant evidence that the genetic correlation is there (the confidence intervals are huge around 0.11, from 0 to 0.35). Though they state the environmental correlation passes statistical muster (so common environmental variables might be producing attractiveness and facial averageness). Please note that a heritability of 0.6 does no mean a correlation of 0.6. The heritability of height is 0.8 to 0.9, but correlation of the trait across siblings is ~0.5. Heritability is the proportion of variation of the trait explained by variation in genes, in the population.

If you just look at heritabilities, averageness seems to have been under stronger selection than attractiveness all things equal. Usually strong directional selection removes the heritable variation on a trait. The high heritability gives us a clue that there are a lot of ugly people around still, and some of that is just the way they are born. In contrast, there are fewer people with lop-sided faces. These are subjects from a Western society, so I bet the results are going to be different in a high pathogen load environment (my expectation is that heritability will decrease, but perhaps it will actually increase because as genetic factors which allow for one to be robust to disease will become more important in explaining variation in the trait).

Finally, in the near future there will be high coverage genomic sequences from many people. If you hit the same marker more than 30 times you can conclude with decent confidence if it’s a de novo mutation unique to the individual. You can actually check how well mutational load tracks with averageness and attractiveness (each human has <100 de novo mutations, so there’s a lot of inter-sibling variance presumably). At this point I’m moderately skeptical of a lot of the selectionist models, whereas five years ago I’d have thought there would be something there, and it would be easy to discover. And it may be that beauty, like many aspects of culture, is not about adaptation and function in any direct sense, but simply a cognitive side effect. Like what Steve Pinker has stated about music. I don’t really believe that, but we can’t dismiss that position out of hand anymore.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Beauty, Sexual Selection 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. jb says:

    A while back I read about an experiment on fish. This is just from memory, so I’m sure I’m leaving out details, but as I recall the males of a certain species had a red stripe that the females found attractive — and the redder the stripe (they tested this by painting the fish), the more attractive. Sort of like an underwater peacock tail.

    Just to see what would happen, the scientists tried painting a red stripe on the males of a related species that was not striped (and as far as they knew had never been), and lo and behold, the females of that species went nuts for the painted males! The conclusion I drew from this seems inescapable: fish have aesthetics! For whatever reason — perhaps, as you suggest, some sort of cognitive side effect — red stripes just tickled something deep in their little fishy brains.

    The side effect hypothesis also has the benefit of explaining how sexual selection arms races get started in the first place. Why a red stripe and not yellow? It’s not a matter of selection, it’s just that yellow doesn’t trigger the same side effect. Why one species and not the other? A lucky (or maybe unlucky) mutation in one and not the other.

    I see no reason this couldn’t happen with people as well. As a speculative example, I remember being a young child and hearing chimes and thinking the sound itself was so pretty. I don’t think this was something I had to learn; I remember the appeal as being immediate and visceral. Is this a universal reaction? I can’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, and it’s certainly something that would be easy to test. This would make an interesting research project — see if you can come up with a list of things that that everybody just immediately likes for no obvious evolutionary reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /gnxp/maybe-beauty-is-just-cognitive-cheesecake/#comment-1100053
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. JayMan says: • Website

    Yup.

    The biggest give away is that attractiveness is uncorrelated with IQ.

    This led me to say:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    Note that in our days of "thin privilege" there would be a lot of SJW pressure to deny any links between IQ and attractiveness even though it was well known to the ancient Greeks.

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.

    In the UC system, it is UC Santa Barbara that has a reputation for having the hottest undergrad chicks. (I am pleased to see alcohol fueled conversations empirically confirmed! UCLA also appears in the list). UCSB and UCLA are considered middling-to-high on national university rankings, implying an IQ of perhaps 120. But UCB won't be making any of these lists (IQ ~125-130), neither would the low tier UCs, to say nothing of the local community college.

    So my observations strongly suggest that beauty/attractiveness peak around 115.

    Go lower than 100 and people start getting that vacuous look in their eyes that's hard to describe but which you know when you see it and which is quite offputting.

    This would be an observation in favor of the theory that both IQ and attractiveness differences are driven by mutational load.

    I suspect a big part of why 130+ IQ people might have a reputation for unattractiveness is that they feel less sensitive to social pressure to tidy themselves up, apply the mascara, etc. Also the image of the ugly but super intelligent genius - rare in real life, but prominent in media - might be distorting stereotypes. Marilyn Monroe - very intelligent. Emma Watson - Oxford grad. Neither "known" for their IQs though. (Well Watson did play Hermione but character ≠ actress).

    I strongly suspect that when these factors are accounted for you don't even have so much a peak at 115 as a flattening plateau.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I am not at all sure about this one. In most pre modern societies mating was arranged by families without much input from the younger generation. Factors like land ownership, bride price, dowry, and reciprocal obligations between families, clans, and tribes far outweighed personal attraction. Even royalty were contrained by raison d’etat. Only in their choice of mistresses, could kings go for good looks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Pandatshang
    I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses. Given downward social mobility, I imagine it's more than one would think intuitively. I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife.

    In any event, what you're describing might be mesotypal, by which I mean that it is not a feature of "pre-modern socities" broadly but of post-agricultural, pre-modern societies. Certainly, land ownership and kings with or without mistresses are mesotypal; not sure about bride price and dowry; and, while there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don't know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times.

    It would be fascinating to know more about how evolution during the agricultural period changed our instinctual urges about who makes a good mate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Jim W says:

    While averaging faces brings you to a local maximum in attractiveness space, I don’t think it puts you at a global maximum. This is because there are some features (symmetry) where the optimal is at the mean of the distribution but others (cheekbone size, eye-nose vs nose-mouth distance ratio) where the optimal is on one side of the distribution.

    People like Cameron Diaz or Kristen Scott Thomas are strikingly attractive but nowhere near the mean.

    So one question to ask is why (like the red stripes on fish mentioned above) are the majority of people on one side of the distribution for certain traits? There must be other constraints preventing people from evolving in those directions.

    Finally, as someone with >average asymmetry (identity politics alert), I wish people would stop harping so much on it. Yes, it is important, but must account for only a small fraction of variance in attractiveness. People like Harrison Ford (extremely attractive) or Forrest Whitaker (moderately attractive) both have noticeable asymmetry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Does Cindy Crawford being famous for her "beauty mark" mean we should stop harping so much on the attractiveness of clear skin? No, obviously, because she's an exception. People known both for attractiveness and crooked smiles, scars, abnormally large eyes (noses, mouths, etc.), or general weirdness like Forrest Whittaker, don't disprove the rules. The rules weren't ever meant to be absolute.

    We're in no danger of thinking we need to conform perfectly to conventional standards of beauty in order to be beautiful, or at least so long as people still read Hawthorne.
    , @Kyle a
    There is nothing moderately attractive about Forrest Whitaker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Sean says:

    And it may be that beauty, like many aspects of culture, is not about adaptation and function in any direct sense, but simply a cognitive side effect

    Think about the currently fashionable silver hair look for young women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. I know I’ve read before that we tend to pick partners who are similar to ourselves in overall attractiveness. E.g., while it’s often assumed an average-looking man really wants to have a beautiful wife, in general they are more comfortable with an average-looking wife. This may be due to (subconscious or conscious) fears of adultery if one shoots too far “out of their league.” It may just be a variant of the whole “groupness” complex of behavior as well. I’ve noticed many average-looking people tend to stereotype attractive people as having unpleasant personalities (conceited, rude, dull, etc). If you don’t identify as a “beautiful person” you may in some sense look at them as being a different tribe from yourself.

    If it is true that people tend to have a natural tendency to desire as a long-term mate someone of similar attractiveness to themselves, we should expect that all things considered, beauty will not be selected for, unless beautiful people have more healthy offspring who survive to adulthood. I’m not sure I’ve seen any information to suggest they do. I have seen studies which conclude that beautiful people are not healthier than average-looking people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @Walter Sobchak
    I am not at all sure about this one. In most pre modern societies mating was arranged by families without much input from the younger generation. Factors like land ownership, bride price, dowry, and reciprocal obligations between families, clans, and tribes far outweighed personal attraction. Even royalty were contrained by raison d'etat. Only in their choice of mistresses, could kings go for good looks.

    I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses. Given downward social mobility, I imagine it’s more than one would think intuitively. I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife.

    In any event, what you’re describing might be mesotypal, by which I mean that it is not a feature of “pre-modern socities” broadly but of post-agricultural, pre-modern societies. Certainly, land ownership and kings with or without mistresses are mesotypal; not sure about bride price and dowry; and, while there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don’t know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times.

    It would be fascinating to know more about how evolution during the agricultural period changed our instinctual urges about who makes a good mate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Walter Sobchak
    "I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses."

    The null hypothesis would be 1/n. Kings and their consorts were better feed than the masses, but they were political targets during dynastic wars and imperial invasions. Losing often meant being wiped out. Most dynasties came to violent ends.

    "I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife."

    Kings were under systematic political pressure to make sure that children of questionable legitimacy, especially males, did not get into circulation. In the 17th Century, a couple of Charles II bastards were involved in plots. Charles had not fathered a legitimate male heir. Eventually, his daughters Mary and Anne, ruled, but only after their Uncle James II had been deposed.

    An interesting contrast is the way the Ottomans handled the problem. Being Islamic, the Sultan could have multiple wives and concubines. The Ottoman solution to the problem of too many heirs was that the newly minted sultan killed his brothers (whole and half). After the 16th Century they just imprisoned them in the "Cage".

    "there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don’t know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times."

    Hunter gatherers necessarily lived in small bands. Usually the bands were part of larger groupings of Tribes and Clans. Mating involved elaborate rituals driven by membership in families, clans, tribes, and totem groups. Choice of mates was severely limited by these structures which form a large portion of anthropological literature from before the 1970s.

    Free personal choice of mates is a development of the Industrial revolution. Victorian novels treat the tension between the old and new ideas about mate selection as a driving force in their plots. I highly recommend Trollope's Palliser novels as an example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. notanon says:

    Thinking aloud, may be wrong…

    1) I wonder if male vs female attractiveness might act as a complication here?

    Say populations range from 1 to 5 on hereditable average symmetry but individuals can also vary much more randomly on a scale of 1 to 5 of having the full set of best male or female features – like even if they have attractive parents they might end up with the wrong features for their gender i.e. a girl gets her dad’s masculine nose and a boy gets his mom’s feminine chin – then what might happen is when it comes to attractiveness the hereditable symmetry acts as a base for the more random gender feature allocation and the gender feature allocation is as big an element of attractiveness.

    In which case it might be more that the gender feature 5s from a symmetry 5 population are seen as the *most* attractive of all but gender feature 5s from a symmetry 4 population still come next.

    #

    2) Ditto the previous commenter on the arranged marriage angle. Doesn’t this theory need a population who spent a long time where a lot of marriages were contracted by individuals on the basis of individual physical traits rather than family economic ones? Since agriculture I’m not sure how many populations like that there are: NW Euros for a long time maybe, long term welfare underclass, plus lots of other populations since industrial urbanization but that’s quite recent (although I think you can see it even between the grand-parents and grand-kids if they came from somewhere very rural).

    If the theory was correct groups like the Yanomani or San might be good candidates also. I had a quick google of Yanomani faces (not scientific obv) and they seemed to have a lot of symmetry although the attractiveness was very variable (maybe cos of point 1?)

    #

    2a) I think the symmetry vs IQ thing – if correct – would only work on the same kind of specific populations also for the same reason – people selecting mates on the basis of individual traits rather than family situation – and if point 1 was correct even if there was a strong symmetry vs IQ correlation any attractive vs IQ correlation might not be as strong for the gender randomness reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Greg Pandatshang
    I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses. Given downward social mobility, I imagine it's more than one would think intuitively. I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife.

    In any event, what you're describing might be mesotypal, by which I mean that it is not a feature of "pre-modern socities" broadly but of post-agricultural, pre-modern societies. Certainly, land ownership and kings with or without mistresses are mesotypal; not sure about bride price and dowry; and, while there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don't know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times.

    It would be fascinating to know more about how evolution during the agricultural period changed our instinctual urges about who makes a good mate.

    “I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses.”

    The null hypothesis would be 1/n. Kings and their consorts were better feed than the masses, but they were political targets during dynastic wars and imperial invasions. Losing often meant being wiped out. Most dynasties came to violent ends.

    “I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife.”

    Kings were under systematic political pressure to make sure that children of questionable legitimacy, especially males, did not get into circulation. In the 17th Century, a couple of Charles II bastards were involved in plots. Charles had not fathered a legitimate male heir. Eventually, his daughters Mary and Anne, ruled, but only after their Uncle James II had been deposed.

    An interesting contrast is the way the Ottomans handled the problem. Being Islamic, the Sultan could have multiple wives and concubines. The Ottoman solution to the problem of too many heirs was that the newly minted sultan killed his brothers (whole and half). After the 16th Century they just imprisoned them in the “Cage”.

    “there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don’t know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times.”

    Hunter gatherers necessarily lived in small bands. Usually the bands were part of larger groupings of Tribes and Clans. Mating involved elaborate rituals driven by membership in families, clans, tribes, and totem groups. Choice of mates was severely limited by these structures which form a large portion of anthropological literature from before the 1970s.

    Free personal choice of mates is a development of the Industrial revolution. Victorian novels treat the tension between the old and new ideas about mate selection as a driving force in their plots. I highly recommend Trollope’s Palliser novels as an example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Charles II never had legitimate sons or daughters. Mary and Anne were the daughters of James. If they had been the daughters of Charles, they would have been ahead of James in the line of succession.

    He is also a bad example for your thesis because he had a large number of at least fifteen illegitimate children. Some died young or unhappily, but others certainly "got into circulation" - four of the lines he started still hold dukedoms to this day. The line of one illegitimate child eventually led to Diana Spencer, so Charles has become an ancestor of Prince William - the first heir apparent to actually be descended from Charles II.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Jefferson says:

    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes in a country where less than 1 percent of the population has blue eyes/green eyes.

    Not even the vast majority of light skin Indians have blue eyes/green eyes, let alone dark skin Indians. Light skin Indians like Freddie Mercury, Charli XCX, Nikki Haley, and Ben Kingsley all have brown eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes
     
    None, as far as I know. Light skin, definitely. And Aishwarya is no more popular than any of the other celebrities (light-skinned or not). Also, there's been a lot of pushback on the light skin preference in public discourse over the past few years, but it hasn't had much discernible effect.

    (And nitpick: she seems to have blue eyes, not green. At least in the pictures I have seen.)
    , @Razib Khan
    just to be clear, mercury was a parsi, who are only ~25 percent south asia. xcx and kingsley are half indian.91.42.224.68
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. RCB says:

    “we did not find a genetic correlation between facial averageness and attractiveness”

    Embracing the null. Unfortunately, the take-away that people will get from this paper is that there is no genetic correlation between these variables. But that hasn’t been demonstrated at all, as Razib noted: there is a large confidence interval around this unknown variable. In fact, if you had to guess one number, the data say that the correlation is 0.11 (small, but maybe not for selection). I wouldn’t put money on it actually being 0.11, but, then, I’d put even less money on it being 0.

    This is a big pet peeve of my because it is taught in intro stats courses. It is something that researchers should understand. Failing to prove that something is not 0 is not the same as proving that it is 0.

    Anyway, I wonder how much measurement error could be reducing these heritability calculations. Don’t have access to the paper, but it sounds like noisy data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. ryanwc says:

    Isn’t it possible that the advantage of choosing a beautiful mate is precisely because differences in symmetry and most other aspects of beauty are not primarily genetic, but environmental, and reflective of resources accumulated rather than a theoretic potential for accumulating resources? Today, a full-breasted woman may be a woman with different genes than her neighbor, but I’d guess that for thousands of years, a comparatively full-breasted woman was simply one who was better nourished than her neighbor.

    What advances one’s own genes more, partnering with a mate whose genes are superior, or with an overperforming mate whose genes aren’t that great? Might it not be choice b, which will allow grandchildren with most of your genes to outperform grandchildren who have inherited more of your partner’s genes? Might not this be particularly important in a village/band environment, in which there is group selection vis-a-vis other bands, but also pretty strong selection pressures within the village, in a competition between relatively few lineages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Numinous says:
    @Jefferson
    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes in a country where less than 1 percent of the population has blue eyes/green eyes.

    Not even the vast majority of light skin Indians have blue eyes/green eyes, let alone dark skin Indians. Light skin Indians like Freddie Mercury, Charli XCX, Nikki Haley, and Ben Kingsley all have brown eyes.

    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes

    None, as far as I know. Light skin, definitely. And Aishwarya is no more popular than any of the other celebrities (light-skinned or not). Also, there’s been a lot of pushback on the light skin preference in public discourse over the past few years, but it hasn’t had much discernible effect.

    (And nitpick: she seems to have blue eyes, not green. At least in the pictures I have seen.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Sunny Leone's Bollywood career ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @JayMan
    Yup.

    The biggest give away is that attractiveness is uncorrelated with IQ.

    This led me to say:

    http://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/624541900016648193

    http://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/624566094276202496

    http://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/624542384236462080

    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    Note that in our days of “thin privilege” there would be a lot of SJW pressure to deny any links between IQ and attractiveness even though it was well known to the ancient Greeks.

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.

    In the UC system, it is UC Santa Barbara that has a reputation for having the hottest undergrad chicks. (I am pleased to see alcohol fueled conversations empirically confirmed! UCLA also appears in the list). UCSB and UCLA are considered middling-to-high on national university rankings, implying an IQ of perhaps 120. But UCB won’t be making any of these lists (IQ ~125-130), neither would the low tier UCs, to say nothing of the local community college.

    So my observations strongly suggest that beauty/attractiveness peak around 115.

    Go lower than 100 and people start getting that vacuous look in their eyes that’s hard to describe but which you know when you see it and which is quite offputting.

    This would be an observation in favor of the theory that both IQ and attractiveness differences are driven by mutational load.

    I suspect a big part of why 130+ IQ people might have a reputation for unattractiveness is that they feel less sensitive to social pressure to tidy themselves up, apply the mascara, etc. Also the image of the ugly but super intelligent genius – rare in real life, but prominent in media – might be distorting stereotypes. Marilyn Monroe – very intelligent. Emma Watson – Oxford grad. Neither “known” for their IQs though. (Well Watson did play Hermione but character ≠ actress).

    I strongly suspect that when these factors are accounted for you don’t even have so much a peak at 115 as a flattening plateau.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
    I'm reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn't due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.
    , @JayMan

    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    ...

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.
     
    The Mitchem et al study is methodologically far superior to all the studies claiming to find a link between attractiveness and IQ (use of a large, ethnically homogeneous twin sample, multiple raters, raters blinded to IQ score or purpose of study, etc.).

    This makes is clear there is no such link. Which shouldn't be surprising: facial attractiveness is controlled by comparatively few genes, where as IQ is controlled by many, many genes. Even if genetic load was behind low IQ, there's a good chance attractiveness genes would be unaffected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Hi Razib,

    i was blocked from your site today with this message:

    “Your access to this site has been limited

    Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)

    Reason: Manual block by administrator”

    Same thing happened a couple of weeks ago. I’ve never commented before so i doubt it’s intentional. Not a huge deal but it would be sweet not be banned in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    doesn't match an IP i blocked so no idea what's going on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Jefferson
    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes in a country where less than 1 percent of the population has blue eyes/green eyes.

    Not even the vast majority of light skin Indians have blue eyes/green eyes, let alone dark skin Indians. Light skin Indians like Freddie Mercury, Charli XCX, Nikki Haley, and Ben Kingsley all have brown eyes.

    just to be clear, mercury was a parsi, who are only ~25 percent south asia. xcx and kingsley are half indian.91.42.224.68

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Anonymous
    Hi Razib,

    i was blocked from your site today with this message:

    "Your access to this site has been limited

    Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)

    Reason: Manual block by administrator"


    Same thing happened a couple of weeks ago. I've never commented before so i doubt it's intentional. Not a huge deal but it would be sweet not be banned in the future.

    doesn’t match an IP i blocked so no idea what’s going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    I've seen the same message as Henissart maybe three times over the past month or two. I read unz.com regularly, and I've only seen the message when trying to read your blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Anatoly Karlin
    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    Note that in our days of "thin privilege" there would be a lot of SJW pressure to deny any links between IQ and attractiveness even though it was well known to the ancient Greeks.

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.

    In the UC system, it is UC Santa Barbara that has a reputation for having the hottest undergrad chicks. (I am pleased to see alcohol fueled conversations empirically confirmed! UCLA also appears in the list). UCSB and UCLA are considered middling-to-high on national university rankings, implying an IQ of perhaps 120. But UCB won't be making any of these lists (IQ ~125-130), neither would the low tier UCs, to say nothing of the local community college.

    So my observations strongly suggest that beauty/attractiveness peak around 115.

    Go lower than 100 and people start getting that vacuous look in their eyes that's hard to describe but which you know when you see it and which is quite offputting.

    This would be an observation in favor of the theory that both IQ and attractiveness differences are driven by mutational load.

    I suspect a big part of why 130+ IQ people might have a reputation for unattractiveness is that they feel less sensitive to social pressure to tidy themselves up, apply the mascara, etc. Also the image of the ugly but super intelligent genius - rare in real life, but prominent in media - might be distorting stereotypes. Marilyn Monroe - very intelligent. Emma Watson - Oxford grad. Neither "known" for their IQs though. (Well Watson did play Hermione but character ≠ actress).

    I strongly suspect that when these factors are accounted for you don't even have so much a peak at 115 as a flattening plateau.

    I’m reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn’t due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honorary Thief

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.
     
    Dunning-Kruger effect? Average to below average IQ people perceive high IQ people to be dumb because "well, I know I ain't dumb and them folks don't sound nothing like me when they talk about stuff."
    , @AG

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.
     
    Totally agree.

    For personal anecdote of my college classmate and myself, this is true. Most average folk were really puzzled how in the world we can get into top university because we did not look smart to them.

    In graduate school, one janitor also felt our technician smarter than me (a PhD student). In my professors eyes, I was the brightest student.

    My explanation is that you take one to know one. People with closer mental ability can appreciate each other better than people with big gap. This also explains that better politicians or salesmen can not be too bright for average folk to appreciate. If Einstein run for political office, he would fail. Only 1 out of 261 people has IQ above 140. If you have IQ above 140, you will meet a lot of frustration with average folk . Then you would rather be alone until you get into top college or elite professions where you have better odd to meet some one who really appreciate you. So self-actualizers mostly have very few friends.

    So only way to defeat perception illusion is objective measurement of intellectual ability including IQ test, academic score/achievement, income/wealth, brain size ect which correlate with g factor.

    When you feel some one smart or dump, do not trust your own perception. only take measurement. When someones going around judging other mental ability with their own perception only, these folk can not be too bright. That is why we can not simply use our perception to vote who become doctor or scientist. Only stupid people judge every things based on their perceptions. You can spot those morons easily on blog or comments.

    Morons also have hard time to differentiate fact vs opinions. They often form their opinion based on very little evidence (more imagination). No wonder stupid people are sucker for religions or cults.
    , @JayMan

    I’m reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.
     
    Range restriction (college students), minor ethnic confound. I suspect their result was spurious.
    , @Difference Maker
    "Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent."

    Interesting. IIRC the military of old determined that the threshold for incomprehensibility of thought processes was an IQ gap of 30+ points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Sean says:
    @Numinous

    I wonder how much Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s popularity in India has to do with the fact that she has green eyes
     
    None, as far as I know. Light skin, definitely. And Aishwarya is no more popular than any of the other celebrities (light-skinned or not). Also, there's been a lot of pushback on the light skin preference in public discourse over the past few years, but it hasn't had much discernible effect.

    (And nitpick: she seems to have blue eyes, not green. At least in the pictures I have seen.)

    Sunny Leone’s Bollywood career ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I'm not sure I get your point. As I mentioned earlier, light skin is still a huge advantage in professions like acting and modeling. The intelligentsia has been trying to push back against this, but it hasn't had much effect in these industries. ("Fair and Lovely" creams sell like hot cakes in India.) Sunny Leone has exactly the kind of looks that Bollywood prizes. She looks Indian and she looks white (at least of the southern European variety.) Bollywood wants its actors (actresses, really) to have ambiguous looks, so they'll never cast light-haired women in leading roles, nor would they have a preference for light-eyed women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. jb says:
    @Razib Khan
    doesn't match an IP i blocked so no idea what's going on.

    I’ve seen the same message as Henissart maybe three times over the past month or two. I read unz.com regularly, and I’ve only seen the message when trying to read your blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's all over unz.com, not just gnxp. this has been blocked for months and this for a week.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Karl Zimmerman
    I'm reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn't due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    Dunning-Kruger effect? Average to below average IQ people perceive high IQ people to be dumb because “well, I know I ain’t dumb and them folks don’t sound nothing like me when they talk about stuff.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @J Yan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. J Yan says:
    @Honorary Thief

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.
     
    Dunning-Kruger effect? Average to below average IQ people perceive high IQ people to be dumb because "well, I know I ain't dumb and them folks don't sound nothing like me when they talk about stuff."

    Or maybe the Newt-Gingrich effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. I feel kind of shamed for having this thought after reading the article, but it came and went nonetheless. What is with the male obsession with female breasts? Mind you, I’m not putting forth any opinion on it, I love’m myself, but is there any science behind why guys like them so much?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. AG says:
    @Karl Zimmerman
    I'm reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn't due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    Totally agree.

    For personal anecdote of my college classmate and myself, this is true. Most average folk were really puzzled how in the world we can get into top university because we did not look smart to them.

    In graduate school, one janitor also felt our technician smarter than me (a PhD student). In my professors eyes, I was the brightest student.

    My explanation is that you take one to know one. People with closer mental ability can appreciate each other better than people with big gap. This also explains that better politicians or salesmen can not be too bright for average folk to appreciate. If Einstein run for political office, he would fail. Only 1 out of 261 people has IQ above 140. If you have IQ above 140, you will meet a lot of frustration with average folk . Then you would rather be alone until you get into top college or elite professions where you have better odd to meet some one who really appreciate you. So self-actualizers mostly have very few friends.

    So only way to defeat perception illusion is objective measurement of intellectual ability including IQ test, academic score/achievement, income/wealth, brain size ect which correlate with g factor.

    When you feel some one smart or dump, do not trust your own perception. only take measurement. When someones going around judging other mental ability with their own perception only, these folk can not be too bright. That is why we can not simply use our perception to vote who become doctor or scientist. Only stupid people judge every things based on their perceptions. You can spot those morons easily on blog or comments.

    Morons also have hard time to differentiate fact vs opinions. They often form their opinion based on very little evidence (more imagination). No wonder stupid people are sucker for religions or cults.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Numinous says:
    @Sean
    Sunny Leone's Bollywood career ?

    I’m not sure I get your point. As I mentioned earlier, light skin is still a huge advantage in professions like acting and modeling. The intelligentsia has been trying to push back against this, but it hasn’t had much effect in these industries. (“Fair and Lovely” creams sell like hot cakes in India.) Sunny Leone has exactly the kind of looks that Bollywood prizes. She looks Indian and she looks white (at least of the southern European variety.) Bollywood wants its actors (actresses, really) to have ambiguous looks, so they’ll never cast light-haired women in leading roles, nor would they have a preference for light-eyed women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Sunny Leone being accepted in India shows things are altering there very fast.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. JayMan says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    Note that in our days of "thin privilege" there would be a lot of SJW pressure to deny any links between IQ and attractiveness even though it was well known to the ancient Greeks.

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.

    In the UC system, it is UC Santa Barbara that has a reputation for having the hottest undergrad chicks. (I am pleased to see alcohol fueled conversations empirically confirmed! UCLA also appears in the list). UCSB and UCLA are considered middling-to-high on national university rankings, implying an IQ of perhaps 120. But UCB won't be making any of these lists (IQ ~125-130), neither would the low tier UCs, to say nothing of the local community college.

    So my observations strongly suggest that beauty/attractiveness peak around 115.

    Go lower than 100 and people start getting that vacuous look in their eyes that's hard to describe but which you know when you see it and which is quite offputting.

    This would be an observation in favor of the theory that both IQ and attractiveness differences are driven by mutational load.

    I suspect a big part of why 130+ IQ people might have a reputation for unattractiveness is that they feel less sensitive to social pressure to tidy themselves up, apply the mascara, etc. Also the image of the ugly but super intelligent genius - rare in real life, but prominent in media - might be distorting stereotypes. Marilyn Monroe - very intelligent. Emma Watson - Oxford grad. Neither "known" for their IQs though. (Well Watson did play Hermione but character ≠ actress).

    I strongly suspect that when these factors are accounted for you don't even have so much a peak at 115 as a flattening plateau.

    Attractiveness clearly tapers off and possibly declines at the far right end of the IQ bell curve, but the claim that there is no correlation at all flies so much against stereotypes (aka aggregated wisdom) that I am really skeptical about the study that came up with this.

    There are also studies that claim the opposite.

    The Mitchem et al study is methodologically far superior to all the studies claiming to find a link between attractiveness and IQ (use of a large, ethnically homogeneous twin sample, multiple raters, raters blinded to IQ score or purpose of study, etc.).

    This makes is clear there is no such link. Which shouldn’t be surprising: facial attractiveness is controlled by comparatively few genes, where as IQ is controlled by many, many genes. Even if genetic load was behind low IQ, there’s a good chance attractiveness genes would be unaffected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. JayMan says: • Website
    @Karl Zimmerman
    I'm reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn't due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    I’m reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    Range restriction (college students), minor ethnic confound. I suspect their result was spurious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jb
    I've seen the same message as Henissart maybe three times over the past month or two. I read unz.com regularly, and I've only seen the message when trying to read your blog.

    It’s all over unz.com, not just gnxp. this has been blocked for months and this for a week.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. SPMoore8 says:

    Why don’t we just say that beauty is an advertisement for reproduction?

    After all, the bottom line point is to reproduce and beauty is a remarkable tool for getting from Point A to Point B.

    As for the association of beauty and intelligence; I’m unsure about that. However, it ought to be said that people are culturally or experientially conditioned to consider beauty and intellect in the choice of a mate (and probably other things as well.) I know that in my case I definitely chose for brains, because I didn’t want beautiful but stupid children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. guest says:
    @Jim W
    While averaging faces brings you to a local maximum in attractiveness space, I don't think it puts you at a global maximum. This is because there are some features (symmetry) where the optimal is at the mean of the distribution but others (cheekbone size, eye-nose vs nose-mouth distance ratio) where the optimal is on one side of the distribution.

    People like Cameron Diaz or Kristen Scott Thomas are strikingly attractive but nowhere near the mean.

    So one question to ask is why (like the red stripes on fish mentioned above) are the majority of people on one side of the distribution for certain traits? There must be other constraints preventing people from evolving in those directions.

    Finally, as someone with >average asymmetry (identity politics alert), I wish people would stop harping so much on it. Yes, it is important, but must account for only a small fraction of variance in attractiveness. People like Harrison Ford (extremely attractive) or Forrest Whitaker (moderately attractive) both have noticeable asymmetry.

    Does Cindy Crawford being famous for her “beauty mark” mean we should stop harping so much on the attractiveness of clear skin? No, obviously, because she’s an exception. People known both for attractiveness and crooked smiles, scars, abnormally large eyes (noses, mouths, etc.), or general weirdness like Forrest Whittaker, don’t disprove the rules. The rules weren’t ever meant to be absolute.

    We’re in no danger of thinking we need to conform perfectly to conventional standards of beauty in order to be beautiful, or at least so long as people still read Hawthorne.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim W
    My point is that I think there are certain features where the average is not the ideal. This is true for many features in nature. The average peacock tail will not be as appealing to a female as an outsize one, for example. Or, the average female body will not be as appealing as a voluptuous one.

    So, it would be interesting to take one of these average faces and do alterations to it to see if you can increase attractiveness. Two obvious ones to try are 1) making cheekbones larger, and 2) increase distance from eyes to bottom of nose while decreasing distance from nose to mouth.

    It's definitely true that in Hollywood you are rewarded for distinctiveness over bland good looks, so you've got a point there. In the old days, actresses would sometimes add artificial beauty marks to become more distinctive.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Kyle a says:
    @Jim W
    While averaging faces brings you to a local maximum in attractiveness space, I don't think it puts you at a global maximum. This is because there are some features (symmetry) where the optimal is at the mean of the distribution but others (cheekbone size, eye-nose vs nose-mouth distance ratio) where the optimal is on one side of the distribution.

    People like Cameron Diaz or Kristen Scott Thomas are strikingly attractive but nowhere near the mean.

    So one question to ask is why (like the red stripes on fish mentioned above) are the majority of people on one side of the distribution for certain traits? There must be other constraints preventing people from evolving in those directions.

    Finally, as someone with >average asymmetry (identity politics alert), I wish people would stop harping so much on it. Yes, it is important, but must account for only a small fraction of variance in attractiveness. People like Harrison Ford (extremely attractive) or Forrest Whitaker (moderately attractive) both have noticeable asymmetry.

    There is nothing moderately attractive about Forrest Whitaker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Sean says:
    @Numinous
    I'm not sure I get your point. As I mentioned earlier, light skin is still a huge advantage in professions like acting and modeling. The intelligentsia has been trying to push back against this, but it hasn't had much effect in these industries. ("Fair and Lovely" creams sell like hot cakes in India.) Sunny Leone has exactly the kind of looks that Bollywood prizes. She looks Indian and she looks white (at least of the southern European variety.) Bollywood wants its actors (actresses, really) to have ambiguous looks, so they'll never cast light-haired women in leading roles, nor would they have a preference for light-eyed women.

    Sunny Leone being accepted in India shows things are altering there very fast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Walter Sobchak
    "I wonder what proportion of the ancestry of modern people is from kings and their mistresses."

    The null hypothesis would be 1/n. Kings and their consorts were better feed than the masses, but they were political targets during dynastic wars and imperial invasions. Losing often meant being wiped out. Most dynasties came to violent ends.

    "I also wonder if the average king had more children by mistresses or by his legal wife."

    Kings were under systematic political pressure to make sure that children of questionable legitimacy, especially males, did not get into circulation. In the 17th Century, a couple of Charles II bastards were involved in plots. Charles had not fathered a legitimate male heir. Eventually, his daughters Mary and Anne, ruled, but only after their Uncle James II had been deposed.

    An interesting contrast is the way the Ottomans handled the problem. Being Islamic, the Sultan could have multiple wives and concubines. The Ottoman solution to the problem of too many heirs was that the newly minted sultan killed his brothers (whole and half). After the 16th Century they just imprisoned them in the "Cage".

    "there have certainly always been reciprocal obligations between families, etc. I don’t know how that interacted with good looks, etc. to determine mate choice in pre-ag times."

    Hunter gatherers necessarily lived in small bands. Usually the bands were part of larger groupings of Tribes and Clans. Mating involved elaborate rituals driven by membership in families, clans, tribes, and totem groups. Choice of mates was severely limited by these structures which form a large portion of anthropological literature from before the 1970s.

    Free personal choice of mates is a development of the Industrial revolution. Victorian novels treat the tension between the old and new ideas about mate selection as a driving force in their plots. I highly recommend Trollope's Palliser novels as an example.

    Charles II never had legitimate sons or daughters. Mary and Anne were the daughters of James. If they had been the daughters of Charles, they would have been ahead of James in the line of succession.

    He is also a bad example for your thesis because he had a large number of at least fifteen illegitimate children. Some died young or unhappily, but others certainly “got into circulation” – four of the lines he started still hold dukedoms to this day. The line of one illegitimate child eventually led to Diana Spencer, so Charles has become an ancestor of Prince William – the first heir apparent to actually be descended from Charles II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Lady Di is indeed illegitimately descended from both Charles II and James II, but Queen Elizabeth II is doubly directly and legitimately descended in 10 and 11 generations from James' I daughter Elizabeth Stuart, the famous "Winter" Queen of Bohemia and grandmother to George I. This makes Prince William independently descended from the lines of three different generations of Stuart kings.
    , @Walter Sobchak
    My bad on Charles:

    Ancestry of Lady Diane Spencer
    http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id295.html

    Diana by birth was a member of the Spencer family, one of the oldest and most prominent noble families in Britain which currently holds the titles of Duke of Marlborough, Earl Spencer and Viscount Churchill. * * *

    Diana's ancestry also connects her with most of Europe's royal houses. Diana is five times descended from the House of Stuart from Charles II's four illegitimate sons James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton, Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, and from James II's daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, Countess of Newcastle, an ancestry she shares with the current Dukes of Alba. From the House of Stuart, Diana is a descendant of the House of Bourbon from the line Henry IV of France and of the House of Medici from the line of Marie de' Medici. She is also a descendant of powerful Italian noble families such as that of the House of Sforza who ruled as the Dukes of Milan from the line of the legendary Caterina Sforza, Countess of Forlì. Diana is a descendant of the famous Lucrezia Borgia (18 April 1480 - 24 June 1519), who was Princess of Salerno, Duchess of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio. Diana also descends from the House of Wittelsbach via morganatic line from Frederick V, Elector Palatine and of the House of Hanover via Sophia von Platen und Hallermund, Countess of Leinster and Darlington, the illegitimate daughter of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the half sister of George I. Diana also descends from the House of Toledo of the original dukes of Alba and Medina Sidonia.

    * * *

    I like Marie de' Medici and Lucrezia Borgia better. Marie was up to her ear lobes in palace intrigue while she was regent for Louis XIII as a child.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Sean says:

    I am skeptical that there would be societies where [Bar's] facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color,

    Bar Refaeli‘s face is what sets her apart and facial shape is affected by 2D:4D .

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1576/1995

    Shape regression within females on the 2D : 4D ratio of the left hand (left figures), the right hand (middle figures), and the mean 2D : 4D ratio (right figures). The three upper figures are visualizations of predicted faces for 2D : 4D ratio 6 s.d. higher than the average. Accordingly, the lower figures are predicted faces for 2D : 4D ratio 6 s.d. lower than the average.

    They don’t say, but I think one row looks much more like like cheesecake than the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Bar Refaeli‘s face is what sets her apart and facial shape is affected by 2D:4D
     
    A lot of that digit ratio stuff isn't holding up to scrutiny. It certainly has nothing to do with prenatal hormone exposure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Jacobite says: • Website
    @James Kabala
    Charles II never had legitimate sons or daughters. Mary and Anne were the daughters of James. If they had been the daughters of Charles, they would have been ahead of James in the line of succession.

    He is also a bad example for your thesis because he had a large number of at least fifteen illegitimate children. Some died young or unhappily, but others certainly "got into circulation" - four of the lines he started still hold dukedoms to this day. The line of one illegitimate child eventually led to Diana Spencer, so Charles has become an ancestor of Prince William - the first heir apparent to actually be descended from Charles II.

    Lady Di is indeed illegitimately descended from both Charles II and James II, but Queen Elizabeth II is doubly directly and legitimately descended in 10 and 11 generations from James’ I daughter Elizabeth Stuart, the famous “Winter” Queen of Bohemia and grandmother to George I. This makes Prince William independently descended from the lines of three different generations of Stuart kings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    I said no previous heir apparent was descended from Charles II, not from James I. Every monarch since James I himself has been his descendant, and I never said otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. like over 10 years ago. I read a study that used a program that averages out scanned faces into 1 single face.

    the more faces the program adds to final face, the more attractive it appears to the human eye.

    just something very interesting and has stuck in my mind over the last 10 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    averaging multiple faces like that makes them more symmetrical as a side effect (and note they average the male and female faces separately)

    symmetry makes a lot of sense as one factor in attractiveness if it's proportional to load

    but i think mixing up symmetry with overall facial attractiveness likely confuses the issue
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Sean says:

    “Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.619109

    “Why Are Israel’s Top Models Blonde and European Looking? “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    this preference did not exist in much of the world before european influence. so that's what i was referring to. stop repeating yourself about stuff i know about as if you are a citation bot. it annoys me a lot.
    , @Jacobite

    “Why Are Israel’s Top Models Blonde and European Looking? “
     
    Because the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews who colonized Palestine *are* Europeans. If current theories (as opposed to the various Koestlerian, lost 13th tribe of Israel, Khazar type hypotheses) that the founding population of Northern and Eastern European Jews are from a small initial group that migrated over the Alps into Germany and then east after the fall of Rome, then despite discrimination against them and Jewish maternity laws, there would still have been ample opportunity for small but continuous interbreeding with their light colored German and Slav neighbors over the past 1500 years.

    As for the widespread preference for "Aryan" goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    https://soverydeep.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/g11.jpg

    http://cdn1.ouchpress.com/media/celebrities/153/charlize-theron-135117.jpg

    All sorts of guys choose to marry white women, me among them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Jim W says:
    @guest
    Does Cindy Crawford being famous for her "beauty mark" mean we should stop harping so much on the attractiveness of clear skin? No, obviously, because she's an exception. People known both for attractiveness and crooked smiles, scars, abnormally large eyes (noses, mouths, etc.), or general weirdness like Forrest Whittaker, don't disprove the rules. The rules weren't ever meant to be absolute.

    We're in no danger of thinking we need to conform perfectly to conventional standards of beauty in order to be beautiful, or at least so long as people still read Hawthorne.

    My point is that I think there are certain features where the average is not the ideal. This is true for many features in nature. The average peacock tail will not be as appealing to a female as an outsize one, for example. Or, the average female body will not be as appealing as a voluptuous one.

    So, it would be interesting to take one of these average faces and do alterations to it to see if you can increase attractiveness. Two obvious ones to try are 1) making cheekbones larger, and 2) increase distance from eyes to bottom of nose while decreasing distance from nose to mouth.

    It’s definitely true that in Hollywood you are rewarded for distinctiveness over bland good looks, so you’ve got a point there. In the old days, actresses would sometimes add artificial beauty marks to become more distinctive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Karl Zimmerman
    I'm reminded of this study from last year, which found the following:

    1. People can accurately perceive IQ based upon looks for men, but not women, where people confuse attractiveness for intelligence.

    2. Perceived intelligence is associated with certain facial features, such as widely-spaced eyes, a narrow face, and a small chin. Even though people can accurately assess the intelligence of men based upon looking at a picture, it isn't due to these different facial features, but some other cues which analysis of facial shape cannot ascertain.

    3. There is no association between IQ and attractiveness.

    4. Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.

    “Men with an IQ above 140 are perceived as being less intelligent.”

    Interesting. IIRC the military of old determined that the threshold for incomprehensibility of thought processes was an IQ gap of 30+ points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Regrettably I am sleepy, constraining my vocabulary and conciseness, but some elucidation of simple points:

    1) Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis. In addition, there are also other factors such as indirect effects on fertility, and randomness introduced into the mental filter from natural variation. Which leads to the next point -

    2) Different preferences. As with different species, so with natural variation within a species there will not surprisingly be some different preferences. Food spiciness and hetero/homosexuality are somewhat analogous. That said, I’m certain there are enough relatively universal beauty features grounded in enough genetic commonality.

    3) Exceptional different from average. Must necessarily be the case. A helpful illustration: Average of ugly people will be uglier than average of beauty.

    4) Intelligence beauty correlation. No doubt we are familiar with the goofs of dubious hygiene and graces who think themselves intelligent.

    But beyond that, the development of beauty (as well as other traits) is ultimately the luck of the draw (though some people start with a stacked deck), and therefore there are true geniuses of perhaps looks remarkable in some other way than earthshattering beauty or certain populations selected for intelligence but not so much for beauty.

    On the balance, however, the best men will win the most beautiful women, and in order to be great, one must have brains as well as brawn. Their descendants will have a headstart in both beauty and brains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    "1) Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis."

    A quick expansion on this point, simplistically the easiest to identify attractiveness indicators are masculinity and femininity. These apply to the mind as well as the body.

    I suspect as well that there is some merit to the idea of the structure of the jaw and nose introducing constraints on the braincase. If so, it would not be surprising that they are included in sexual selection

    , @JayMan

    Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis.
     
    One study did find that attractive women (Wisconsin, Boomer cohort) had more children (Jokela, 2009). The difference was very small and barely significant, however.

    Intelligence beauty correlation. No doubt we are familiar with the goofs of dubious hygiene and graces who think themselves intelligent.
     
    Doesn't exist. See above.

    On the balance, however, the best men will win the most beautiful women, and in order to be great, one must have brains as well as brawn. Their descendants will have a headstart in both beauty and brains.
     
    This apparently is not the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Difference Maker
    Regrettably I am sleepy, constraining my vocabulary and conciseness, but some elucidation of simple points:

    1) Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis. In addition, there are also other factors such as indirect effects on fertility, and randomness introduced into the mental filter from natural variation. Which leads to the next point -

    2) Different preferences. As with different species, so with natural variation within a species there will not surprisingly be some different preferences. Food spiciness and hetero/homosexuality are somewhat analogous. That said, I'm certain there are enough relatively universal beauty features grounded in enough genetic commonality.

    3) Exceptional different from average. Must necessarily be the case. A helpful illustration: Average of ugly people will be uglier than average of beauty.

    4) Intelligence beauty correlation. No doubt we are familiar with the goofs of dubious hygiene and graces who think themselves intelligent.

    But beyond that, the development of beauty (as well as other traits) is ultimately the luck of the draw (though some people start with a stacked deck), and therefore there are true geniuses of perhaps looks remarkable in some other way than earthshattering beauty or certain populations selected for intelligence but not so much for beauty.

    On the balance, however, the best men will win the most beautiful women, and in order to be great, one must have brains as well as brawn. Their descendants will have a headstart in both beauty and brains.

    “1) Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis.”

    A quick expansion on this point, simplistically the easiest to identify attractiveness indicators are masculinity and femininity. These apply to the mind as well as the body.

    I suspect as well that there is some merit to the idea of the structure of the jaw and nose introducing constraints on the braincase. If so, it would not be surprising that they are included in sexual selection

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Sean
    "Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color"

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.619109

    "Why Are Israel's Top Models Blonde and European Looking? "

    this preference did not exist in much of the world before european influence. so that’s what i was referring to. stop repeating yourself about stuff i know about as if you are a citation bot. it annoys me a lot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Jacobite says: • Website
    @Sean
    "Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color"

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.619109

    "Why Are Israel's Top Models Blonde and European Looking? "

    “Why Are Israel’s Top Models Blonde and European Looking? “

    Because the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews who colonized Palestine *are* Europeans. If current theories (as opposed to the various Koestlerian, lost 13th tribe of Israel, Khazar type hypotheses) that the founding population of Northern and Eastern European Jews are from a small initial group that migrated over the Alps into Germany and then east after the fall of Rome, then despite discrimination against them and Jewish maternity laws, there would still have been ample opportunity for small but continuous interbreeding with their light colored German and Slav neighbors over the past 1500 years.

    As for the widespread preference for “Aryan” goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    All sorts of guys choose to marry white women, me among them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    As for the widespread preference for “Aryan” goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    stop being a moron. i note in the article specifically to the fact that in east asia there's a wide record of preferring light skin, but NOT light eyes or hair. it's universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age.

    this is why sean's link was moronic too. i'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not contingent history. the discussion goes better when you address what's being spoken of instead of side issues.

    stop being stupid or i'm closing the thread.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. JayMan says: • Website
    @Sean

    I am skeptical that there would be societies where [Bar's] facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color,
     
    Bar Refaeli‘s face is what sets her apart and facial shape is affected by 2D:4D .

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1576/1995

    Shape regression within females on the 2D : 4D ratio of the left hand (left figures), the right hand (middle figures), and the mean 2D : 4D ratio (right figures). The three upper figures are visualizations of predicted faces for 2D : 4D ratio 6 s.d. higher than the average. Accordingly, the lower figures are predicted faces for 2D : 4D ratio 6 s.d. lower than the average.
     
    They don't say, but I think one row looks much more like like cheesecake than the other.

    Bar Refaeli‘s face is what sets her apart and facial shape is affected by 2D:4D

    A lot of that digit ratio stuff isn’t holding up to scrutiny. It certainly has nothing to do with prenatal hormone exposure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. JayMan says: • Website
    @Difference Maker
    Regrettably I am sleepy, constraining my vocabulary and conciseness, but some elucidation of simple points:

    1) Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis. In addition, there are also other factors such as indirect effects on fertility, and randomness introduced into the mental filter from natural variation. Which leads to the next point -

    2) Different preferences. As with different species, so with natural variation within a species there will not surprisingly be some different preferences. Food spiciness and hetero/homosexuality are somewhat analogous. That said, I'm certain there are enough relatively universal beauty features grounded in enough genetic commonality.

    3) Exceptional different from average. Must necessarily be the case. A helpful illustration: Average of ugly people will be uglier than average of beauty.

    4) Intelligence beauty correlation. No doubt we are familiar with the goofs of dubious hygiene and graces who think themselves intelligent.

    But beyond that, the development of beauty (as well as other traits) is ultimately the luck of the draw (though some people start with a stacked deck), and therefore there are true geniuses of perhaps looks remarkable in some other way than earthshattering beauty or certain populations selected for intelligence but not so much for beauty.

    On the balance, however, the best men will win the most beautiful women, and in order to be great, one must have brains as well as brawn. Their descendants will have a headstart in both beauty and brains.

    Correlation between beauty and simple fertility must necessarily have some basis.

    One study did find that attractive women (Wisconsin, Boomer cohort) had more children (Jokela, 2009). The difference was very small and barely significant, however.

    Intelligence beauty correlation. No doubt we are familiar with the goofs of dubious hygiene and graces who think themselves intelligent.

    Doesn’t exist. See above.

    On the balance, however, the best men will win the most beautiful women, and in order to be great, one must have brains as well as brawn. Their descendants will have a headstart in both beauty and brains.

    This apparently is not the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Every species has evolved to seek the best mate possible.

    Humans are incredibly preoccupied with peering into the face of potential mates and making quick choices after doing so if this person is attractive or not. The super model types are on one end of the spectrum and the “funny looking” people are on the other end.

    I have little doubt that part of the preoccupation we have with facial symmetry is because it is the best window we have into the healthy genome of a potential mate. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and humans mix up attractiveness with all kinds of cultural influences. I don’t want to go further with these speculations because it is pointless, nobody knows at this time. But I will keep reading this blog because it will keep me up to date with what science does know. That the super intelligent get less attractive is very interesting. I don’t know what this means but it hints at things. I am reminded of a conversation that Cochran lead over at his westhunter blog that a high percentage of math geniuses are to put it kindly flaky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Matt_ says:

    I wonder about whether what variants for facial averageness (in the sense of proportions) actually are.

    One form would be, they’re simply the consensus variants for the population. So if on average the majority in your population has a particular variant, then that’s the “facially average” variant.

    The other would be variants which specifically encourage regulation, to allow compensation for changes in a face’s modules. So if you carry a variant that encourages a lot of bone deposition in your lower jaw, then if you carry another variant that regulates the expression of that variant, downregulating it to match the bone deposition in the upper jaw, to give a more average face, but doesn’t do anything perhaps if that “strong” bone deposition variant isn’t active. Crucially these variants would have to promote averageness of facial shape on whatever genetic background (or at least for the range in that population), or they wouldn’t really be “averageness” genes.

    Average variants vs averaging variants. Of course, the averaging variants would probably also be average variants, in any population, if they exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. notanon says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    like over 10 years ago. I read a study that used a program that averages out scanned faces into 1 single face.

    the more faces the program adds to final face, the more attractive it appears to the human eye.

    just something very interesting and has stuck in my mind over the last 10 years.

    averaging multiple faces like that makes them more symmetrical as a side effect (and note they average the male and female faces separately)

    symmetry makes a lot of sense as one factor in attractiveness if it’s proportional to load

    but i think mixing up symmetry with overall facial attractiveness likely confuses the issue

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Jacobite

    “Why Are Israel’s Top Models Blonde and European Looking? “
     
    Because the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews who colonized Palestine *are* Europeans. If current theories (as opposed to the various Koestlerian, lost 13th tribe of Israel, Khazar type hypotheses) that the founding population of Northern and Eastern European Jews are from a small initial group that migrated over the Alps into Germany and then east after the fall of Rome, then despite discrimination against them and Jewish maternity laws, there would still have been ample opportunity for small but continuous interbreeding with their light colored German and Slav neighbors over the past 1500 years.

    As for the widespread preference for "Aryan" goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    https://soverydeep.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/g11.jpg

    http://cdn1.ouchpress.com/media/celebrities/153/charlize-theron-135117.jpg

    All sorts of guys choose to marry white women, me among them.

    As for the widespread preference for “Aryan” goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    stop being a moron. i note in the article specifically to the fact that in east asia there’s a wide record of preferring light skin, but NOT light eyes or hair. it’s universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age.

    this is why sean’s link was moronic too. i’m talking about evolutionary psychology, not contingent history. the discussion goes better when you address what’s being spoken of instead of side issues.

    stop being stupid or i’m closing the thread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    "stop being stupid or i’m closing the thread."

    Sometimes your ... authoritarianism ... makes good sense.

    These sorts of threads I call the Snow White discourse, "mirror, mirror, on the wall, whose the fairest of them all." Or darkest, depending on preference.
    , @Sean

    I am skeptical that there would be societies where the former’s facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color, but European norms are pretty widespread outside of small-scale societies now, so that shouldn’t be a major issue).

     

    "it’s universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age. "


    OK, you are saying forget about colouring, Bar is an example of cheesecake because OF HER FACIAL FEATURES. But it seems to me you ought to be able to come up with an Indian or Ethiopian model with features that all could agree are tasty (and I don't doubt you could). In other words, no one forced you to use the vanilla cheesecake. She does not need help with her career!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Isn’t beauty related to neoteny?

    It’s hard to see how men would be attracted to women with, say, heavy brow ridges, large protruding mouths, and a large nose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MKL
    Neoteny in humans relates to overall face size and not facial shape or any facial features. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11953945

    Sexual dimporphism could be the driver behind the preferences you mentioned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. MKL says:
    @james ennis
    Isn't beauty related to neoteny?

    It's hard to see how men would be attracted to women with, say, heavy brow ridges, large protruding mouths, and a large nose.

    Neoteny in humans relates to overall face size and not facial shape or any facial features. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11953945

    Sexual dimporphism could be the driver behind the preferences you mentioned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @James Kabala
    Charles II never had legitimate sons or daughters. Mary and Anne were the daughters of James. If they had been the daughters of Charles, they would have been ahead of James in the line of succession.

    He is also a bad example for your thesis because he had a large number of at least fifteen illegitimate children. Some died young or unhappily, but others certainly "got into circulation" - four of the lines he started still hold dukedoms to this day. The line of one illegitimate child eventually led to Diana Spencer, so Charles has become an ancestor of Prince William - the first heir apparent to actually be descended from Charles II.

    My bad on Charles:

    Ancestry of Lady Diane Spencer

    http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id295.html

    Diana by birth was a member of the Spencer family, one of the oldest and most prominent noble families in Britain which currently holds the titles of Duke of Marlborough, Earl Spencer and Viscount Churchill. * * *

    Diana’s ancestry also connects her with most of Europe’s royal houses. Diana is five times descended from the House of Stuart from Charles II’s four illegitimate sons James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton, Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, and from James II’s daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, Countess of Newcastle, an ancestry she shares with the current Dukes of Alba. From the House of Stuart, Diana is a descendant of the House of Bourbon from the line Henry IV of France and of the House of Medici from the line of Marie de’ Medici. She is also a descendant of powerful Italian noble families such as that of the House of Sforza who ruled as the Dukes of Milan from the line of the legendary Caterina Sforza, Countess of Forlì. Diana is a descendant of the famous Lucrezia Borgia (18 April 1480 – 24 June 1519), who was Princess of Salerno, Duchess of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio. Diana also descends from the House of Wittelsbach via morganatic line from Frederick V, Elector Palatine and of the House of Hanover via Sophia von Platen und Hallermund, Countess of Leinster and Darlington, the illegitimate daughter of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the half sister of George I. Diana also descends from the House of Toledo of the original dukes of Alba and Medina Sidonia.

    * * *

    I like Marie de’ Medici and Lucrezia Borgia better. Marie was up to her ear lobes in palace intrigue while she was regent for Louis XIII as a child.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Jacobite
    Lady Di is indeed illegitimately descended from both Charles II and James II, but Queen Elizabeth II is doubly directly and legitimately descended in 10 and 11 generations from James' I daughter Elizabeth Stuart, the famous "Winter" Queen of Bohemia and grandmother to George I. This makes Prince William independently descended from the lines of three different generations of Stuart kings.

    I said no previous heir apparent was descended from Charles II, not from James I. Every monarch since James I himself has been his descendant, and I never said otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. dcite says:
    @Razib Khan
    As for the widespread preference for “Aryan” goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    stop being a moron. i note in the article specifically to the fact that in east asia there's a wide record of preferring light skin, but NOT light eyes or hair. it's universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age.

    this is why sean's link was moronic too. i'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not contingent history. the discussion goes better when you address what's being spoken of instead of side issues.

    stop being stupid or i'm closing the thread.

    “stop being stupid or i’m closing the thread.”

    Sometimes your … authoritarianism … makes good sense.

    These sorts of threads I call the Snow White discourse, “mirror, mirror, on the wall, whose the fairest of them all.” Or darkest, depending on preference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Robert Ford says: • Website

    just got around to reading this so i apologize if this is redundant:

    “This suggests that we find thinness in females so attractive because we equate it with youth…This was to be consistent across European, African and Asian test groups.”

    http://phys.org/news/2015-08-evolutionary-key-females-physically.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Sean says:
    @Razib Khan
    As for the widespread preference for “Aryan” goddesses among disparate ethnic groups, who can blame them?

    stop being a moron. i note in the article specifically to the fact that in east asia there's a wide record of preferring light skin, but NOT light eyes or hair. it's universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age.

    this is why sean's link was moronic too. i'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not contingent history. the discussion goes better when you address what's being spoken of instead of side issues.

    stop being stupid or i'm closing the thread.

    I am skeptical that there would be societies where the former’s facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color, but European norms are pretty widespread outside of small-scale societies now, so that shouldn’t be a major issue).

    “it’s universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age. “

    OK, you are saying forget about colouring, Bar is an example of cheesecake because OF HER FACIAL FEATURES. But it seems to me you ought to be able to come up with an Indian or Ethiopian model with features that all could agree are tasty (and I don’t doubt you could). In other words, no one forced you to use the vanilla cheesecake. She does not need help with her career!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    But it seems to me you ought to be able to come up with an Indian or Ethiopian model with features that all could agree are tasty

    you don't dictate how i write blog posts. stop pulling this bullshit or i'll never post your comments again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Sean

    I am skeptical that there would be societies where the former’s facial features would strike individuals as preferable to those of the latter (one might have to correct for Refaeli’s species-atypical hair and eye color, but European norms are pretty widespread outside of small-scale societies now, so that shouldn’t be a major issue).

     

    "it’s universal idealization (more or less) is an artifact of the modern age. "


    OK, you are saying forget about colouring, Bar is an example of cheesecake because OF HER FACIAL FEATURES. But it seems to me you ought to be able to come up with an Indian or Ethiopian model with features that all could agree are tasty (and I don't doubt you could). In other words, no one forced you to use the vanilla cheesecake. She does not need help with her career!

    But it seems to me you ought to be able to come up with an Indian or Ethiopian model with features that all could agree are tasty

    you don’t dictate how i write blog posts. stop pulling this bullshit or i’ll never post your comments again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS