August 14, 2003
How blondness evolved
As I have hinted in the previous post, blondness gives an advantage to ugly women by drawing attention away from their features in an "absence of frame" effect. This is why millions of women try to beautify themselves with a dye job.
It is doubtful whether blond hair confers any advantage to beautiful women with good features, who are beautiful irrespective of their hair color (*) Indeed, such women might look more beautiful with dark hair which frames their features. This latter point is not however necessary for the following.
Now, blondness is not a natural condition of mankind. It most certainly evolved in a northern Eurasian population, its frequency augmented via some sort of sexual selection (+).
Let's take two hypothetical populations:
1. Population A is northern and has an initial frequency of blondes c>0.
2. Population B is southern and does not have blondes.
In Population B, hair color is not a target for selection: all women in B have uniformly dark hair. Hence, sexual selection for attractive features can only involve that which is variable, i.e., facial features. In Population A, both hair color and facial features are targets for selection.
An woman with ugly features in population B would have a reduced fitness, because she would not be an attractive mate. As a result, ugly features would gradually reduce in B.
On the other hand, in A, some women with ugly features would counter-act their ugliness with their blondness, which enhances their appeal -using the mechanism described before. As a result, the average fitness of a woman with ugly features in A would be greater than in B.
The consequence of the above is that culling of ugly features in B would proceed at a faster pace than in A. In A, blondness would increase in the whole population, because it provided an advantage to a particular segment of the population, i.e., women with ugly features whose looks are enhanced by blondness.
So, blondness evolved because it confers an advantage to women with less than ideal features by drawing attention from their features via the "absence of frame" effect. As a side effect, culling of ugly features in a partially (@) blond population occurred at a slower pace, since women with such features sometimes have a high fitness due to blondness.
PS: The above makes no assumptions as to the "initial" percentages of 'blond'/'ugly' features in the two populations. The relative frequencies of 'blonds'/'uglies' depends on the initial conditions, relative fitnesses and duration of selection. It's interesting to note that in all likelihood population A started from a less feminine, bonier initial configuration. This would have the effect of making selection for blondness stronger (because the target group of this selection, i.e., women with ugly features would be larger). This would explain the rapid evolution of blondness. Additionally, it would probably mean that the differential in beauty of facial features in the two populations would be larger, since they don't start from the same point.
PPS: Actually, it is not necessary for the mechanism presented here for the "absence of frame" effect to be valid. As long as blondness enhances the looks of ugly women in whatsoever way, the mechanism would still work. I think that the high rates of hair lightening is evidence that they do indeed enhance the looks of women. The particular way in which this takes place is not important.
(*) You may think of some celebrity examples that have tried different hair colors. Generally speaking, they remain very attractive -in the sense that they'd have no trouble finding a mate- irrespective of their hair color, unless it is very extreme and "unnatural"-looking.
(+) With perhaps some help from natural selection inasmuch as hair color is influenced by skin color which might have been a target for natural selection in northern latitudes.
(@) No such effect would be observed in a fully blond population, where again only selection for good features would take place. Such a population however has never existed, probably because of the opposite sexual selection in men.
Allow me the pleasure of extending your theory.
Greeks have a high variability in hair form, ranging from straight to wavy to curly. Many women today get "perms" to deflect attention away from their ugly-ass faces; Greeks have this advantage naturally. Besides the great variability in hair form, Greeks have up to 25% light eyes, and hair color that ranges from black to various shades of brown to even blond occasionally.
East Asians have only straight black hair and brown eyes.
In Greece, hair form, eye/hair coloring and facial features are targets for selection. In East Asia, sexual selection for attractive features can only involve that which is variable, i.e., facial features.
Conclusion: Asians are more beautiful than Greeks (what I knew already). Europeans, who have the most variability in hair form, hair color, and eye color, have the ugliest faces on the planet. I like it!
Posted by: Iki at August 14, 2003 10:45 PMOh yes, I don't doubt for one second that East Asians are very attractive for East Asians. However, the direction in which they evolved is the opposite from that which Caucasoids evolved, hence it's inaccurate to say that they are attractive in general.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 15, 2003 03:06 AMDienekes, you're full of it.
Do you ever get out of the house, let alone actually travel overseas?
Ever been to Scandinavia???
Well I have, and I've been to Greece as well.
On average, Scandinavian women are hot, much hotter than Greek women.
Sure, you do get some pretty girls in Greece, but nowhere near as many as in Sweden or Norway.
The girls there are really tall, long limbed, with beautiful tanned skin, and yes, often blonde hair and fantastic blue eyes.
Greek girls, on the other hand, are often short, stumpy, and they often have quite shocking noses.
Let's face it man, no matter how biased you may be, you have to admit, Greece has nothing on the Nordics when it comes to women. Nothing at all.
Get real.
Posted by: JL at August 15, 2003 06:08 AMDienekes,
Like it or not, your theory predicts that Caucasoids should have uglier faces than Asians. Every point of your essay works in favor of Asians vis-a-vis Caucasoids.
Dienekes if ALL women would have blond hair in a population, the (maybe) former advantage of hair color would be no one any more.
Because of 2 blonds men would choose the prettier anyways.
And I dont think that sexual selection was that important in post-neolithic times at all.
I strongly prefer the hypothesis that blond hair developed with overall depigmentation at first, and maybe just the 2nd or 3rd factor was beauty.
And on the average dark haired Mediterraneans are not more beautiful than the corded nordic type.
The Dalofaelic and Osteuropid type is blond too.
Most people of mankind got darker hair.
I would just say that (corded) Nordic and Mediterraneans (Atlantide, Gracilmediterranide) are just the 2 most beautiful races and the difference is not to big.
Blond is just more advantageous to women and they look more innocent.
On the average they got longer legs do not tend that often to Adipositas (fat) than the Gracilmediterranide do.
Between Atlantide and Teutonordide (corded Nordics) there is almost no difference morphologically, this two types you could compare correctly.
The dalofaelic ones got another evolutionary background and its not just like "they are blond and so they are still ugly" which they arent at all, even if they are not as beautiful as (corded) Nordics and Mediterraneans.
Posted by: Chris at August 15, 2003 08:23 AMAnd in fact to much gracility even if it looks beautiful (at womens) is some kind of adaptation to low energy levels as well.
If this goes to far, f.e. in some tropic regions or through self-domestication it lets populations degenerate.
They are no longer as competitive if its about physical strenght.
And to gracile women sometimes get more troubles with birth too.
F.e. the Khoisanid adaptation to a low level energy household is some kind of weakness in the intraspecific selection.
Same is true for the pygmaes or Andamans.
They are physically adapted superior to ther environment, but not for intraspecific selection were they are not just culturally but also physically inferior. (in war, partly in sexual selection etc.)
So in my opinion, gracility/paedomorphy if too extrem is not just positive.
Dienekes wrote, in reply to Iki,
"Oh yes, I don't doubt for one second that East Asians are very attractive for East Asians."
This, for me, is precisely the most interesting thing about this whole topic whenever it crops up (it's come up before in many variations, of course, both here and at "Gene Expression"): Are the members of each race most attracted to their own race? Specifically (for any Dienekes readers who may live in Rio Linda): Do whites find whites to be physically the most attractive of all the major races, do yellows find yellows most attractive, and do Negroes find Negroes most attractive?
The final result of the Dienekes.com poll in which that question was explicitly put ("I am of pure race and find members of my own race most attractive," etc., etc., etc.) suggested that the answer is yes: the members of each race find that the most attractive people are other members of their race. It is certainly true for me: a white man, I find whites most attractive and it's not even close. I've always more or less assumed the corresponding preference holds true for members of all other races -- they find their own racial brethren to be most attractive. Indeed, one would think it MUST hold true, since if it didn't, different traits would've been selected over time until the people came out looking just right in their judgement.
About Dienekes' blond theory, I agree it sounds at first blush a bit far-fetched but I agree with Razib that, when one gives it some thought, it seems to pass a few tests. It is an interesting idea.
I lived a long time in Europe (more than eleven years), mainly in the spot where Flanders, Wallonia, Holland, Deutschland, and the Grand Duchy all come together (so, my friends and I were constantly basking in all those different cultures), i.e., right on one of the major Latin-Germanic fault lines of Europe. The Latin/Mediterranean people have not only more refined physical appearances but more refined personalities. The Germanic world in general is grosser, less refined, less subtle, and the Latin-Med one finer, more refined, subtler. (I am Germanic, BTW, so not "tooting my own horn" here.)
What does "corded" mean, in the expression I keep seeing here, "corded Nordics"?
Posted by: Unadorned at August 15, 2003 08:59 AMI personally dont like the term "corded" but as I read Coon he named the narrow-faced, dolichocephal, lean-tall type of the Neolithicum "corded" which is so far as I know a cultural term for their ceramic characteristics.
The leptomorphic Nordic Hallstatt type is much more influenced/has similarities to this type than the other blond races in particular the Dalofaelic type.
So I think its useful to divide the Nordic group in at least 2 types the Hallstatt/corded or Teuto-Nordic type and the Bruenn/Dalofaelic one.
The first seems to be in average much more attractive.
>> Let's face it man, no matter how biased you may be, you have to admit, Greece has nothing on the Nordics when it comes to women. Nothing at all.
Then our women are safe from the likes of you - not that they'd give you a second look with your charming attitude.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 16, 2003 03:25 AM>> Like it or not, your theory predicts that Caucasoids should have uglier faces than Asians.
You fail to realize that the esthetic prototype of Mongoloids and Caucasoids is different. The broad-faced Mongoloid type is not that attractive to Caucasoids.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 16, 2003 03:27 AM>> Dienekes if ALL women would have blond hair in a population, the (maybe) former advantage of hair color would be no one any more.
Exactly, that is perhaps why blond hair is not an advantage per se, but rather via the mechanism I've described. Obviously beautiful brunettes will always reproduce, hence total blondeness is unlikely. As blondeness increases, its advantage for ugly women decreases (because it's more common). A balance is found at an intermediate stage of blondeness.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 16, 2003 03:29 AMHi, Dienekes. Do you know how I met the woman I married? At the movies one night, I spotted a blonde/blue, very Nordic-looking actress on screen who radiated a beauty, warmth, and grace unmatched by any of those swarthy Greek girls my mother was trying to force upon me. I was so transfixed by her Northern beauty that I decided right then that I must have her as my wife. I arranged to meet her, and the rest is history. Maybe if you become like me, the most famous man of Greek descent in the whole world, you too can win a woman as beautiful as my wife.
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/dailynews/pop/01_01/images/bwilson4.jpg
Posted by: Pete Sampras at August 16, 2003 06:53 AMBeing the greatest footballer and most famous celebrity in Portugal, I could have had any Portuguese girl I wanted. However, no Southern European could possibly match the beauty of the Swedish woman I chose to be my wife. Hey Dienekes, don't you wish you were rich and famous like I am? Then you could get someone as beautiful as this
http://www.terravista.pt/guincho/8899/helen2.htm
Posted by: Luis Figo at August 16, 2003 06:55 AMI am president of my country and the richest man in all of Italy. Like Pete and Luis, I had my pick of women, so it should come to nobody's surprise that my wife looks almost Northern European. But I wonder if any of you guys can recommend a good plastic surgeon to get rid of her heavy Mediterranean eyelids.
http://images.forbes.com/images/2001/06/27/silvio_400x260.jpg
Thanks,
Silvio
To "Luis Figo":
Figo is the only Portuguese player I can remember that has a foreign wife. He has been living in Spain since he was 22 or 23, and therefore it shouldn't surprise anyone that his wife isn't Portuguese. His wife is very beautiful and intelligent (she even learnt how to speak a fairly decent Portuguese).
What matters is that your argument is completely ridiculous. Thomas Eriksson married (?) a dark Italian girl, Tom Cruise dumped Kidman for Penelope Cruz, and the list is endless, meaning: even if you had a point, you don't have an argument. What you should be trying to explain is why Nordic women are drooling themselves over southern European men (see Griffith+Banderas) .
By the way, Nuno Gomes scores higher amongst the Portuguese girls than Figo, and yes, he has a Portuguese wife/girlfriend.
PS: If you want to see Portuguese girls way prettier than Helen Svedin, check my site's galleries or this one, which has at least 20 or 30 much prettier Portuguese women.
Posted by: alex at August 16, 2003 01:12 PMThreads that threaten the Nordicist self-image of perfection tend to degenerate into the above. What I haven't seen so far is a valid criticism of my theory.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 16, 2003 07:00 PMSexual selection especially after the Neolithic revolution is in my opinion not the No 1 selection factor.
Blonds with tanned skin and fair hair (the typical Teuto- or Skandonordic type) got a frame too and look more innocent/angel-like and younger.
I would say in average blond hair take the hard frame, and thats a advantage, but there is no disadvantage for blond women due this factor.
And if a brunet European woman with dark mediterranean skin is tanned the frame isnt that hard.
Just look at your picture of your typical caucasian woman which is to me a Mediterranean. There is no hard frame and thats not just because its a good photograph.
If you say blond take the hard frame away, you could say that it is a sign for a specific race, ethnic group and it was important to distinguish the blonds from the rest.
Like some monkeys, fishes or birds etc. have a different appearance to distinguish them from others.
(I dont believe its like that but its a theory as good as yours)
Nordic women are disgusting they are too fair too pink and too slender and less curvaceus! greek women and italian women arab women, egyptian women indian women are 1,have melanin, 2, are nicer then nordic and nordic+alpine women, 3, are more curvaceus voloptuos etc, 4,have larger eyes beautiful ovalitic face shape, and 5, know how to coook and they know how to treat us well and not act like bitches like the cold northern euro women! and as for attractivness well sophia loren compared to claudia schiffer???? lollolool no comparison!! maria cucinotta compared to kate moss?? LOLOLLOLOOLOL NO COMPARISON!! maria fernanda candido compared to giselle bundchen??? ROFLMAO!! NO COMPARISON! Nordic women and nordic+alpine women are some of the ugliest women in europe and maybe the world! they have fat harsh faces, harsh chins, no color at all, are pink ass hell, never tan and when they do its just a light golden pink tan LOL! med women of the exoctic southern european variety, indian variety, arab variety, north african variety, levant/middle east variety, balkan variety, iberian variety etc blow Nordic and alpine women out the fucking water!! theres no way in hell marillyn monroe can beat a sophia loren or a maria cucinotta or a korina stergiadou! Ciao!!
Posted by: Tony Morello at August 21, 2003 02:19 AMWhat you said about "emanzipated women" is true for the recent western culture, no matter which race in Europe is under pressure of this contra-selective and degenerative structure they fertility goes down.
Just look at Italy. From the point when there are more working women and the new social modell was established they got less children.
Today the fertility of Italians is on of the worst in the world! And that in the land of the "Italian mama".
In fact its better to have not degenerated Leptosom and Athletic women like the Nordic race got.
I dont say that the Mediterraneans dont got such women, but especially in the East Mediterranean there is a tendency to degenerated Adipositas.
Dont forget, women are not just there to be fat and to have big boobs, they should be competitive and not degenerated too.
If you looking more for fat women you follow the wrong trend. Its the same like with some animals which follows negativ sexual selection.
Just think about some birds which got to heavy feathers which cause even dead sometimes, just because it is for sexual attraction.
Thats the same with fat women or such with too big boobs.
They are not competitive and for me even not as aesthetic as lean and athletic woman are.
There are many very beautiful Mediterraneans, and I like some women with curves too, but if its too much its just disgusting and as I guessed even some form of degeneration.
The best example are the Arabs of the desert. The non degenerated ones especially the Beduins are normally not as fat as the urban ones.
In fact they are not just more slender than the urban ones, if the beduins would have such fat women like some in the cities they wouldnt be such effective workers and couldnt go on with the group.
They would have more problems in the heat etc...
And dont forget they got usually worse condition and are not as able as lean people to flee if necessary.
And if you say they are not as fertile thats not true too. I know a pure Nordic Leptosomic woman which got 17!!! perfect childs.
All with good education and successful.
A perfect example that just our to-day society is contra selective.
childs = children
Posted by: Chris at August 21, 2003 05:38 AMIf you look at this picture and say Nordics are not one the most beautiful races of the world you are mad:
http://www.npj.com/homepage/teritowe/jmcm78g.jpg
and if you like woman with curves
http://i1img.com/perm/images/shopping/lounge/models/angie_190.jpg
I could bring pictures of Mediterraneans which are as beautiful as Nordics, but was you said
(and I think not just here) is not even funny.
The second woman is a tanned brunette that is not even a Nordic, but rather square-faced.
Also keep the talk about "degenerated" people off this blog please.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 21, 2003 07:10 AMTony, don't post here please.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 21, 2003 07:11 AMDienekes not all Nordics have platinum blond hair and milky skin.
The 2nd picture goes somewhat in a Dalofaelic direction, but she is still (even if mixed) more Nordic than anything else in my opinion.
And when you brought us the pictures of square faced Dalofaelics which was quite interesting but not representative for Nordics you were not as precise as you are now.
The term degeneration is useful to me and I would even say that f.e. some Europeans (maybe me too) have compared to Australoids degenerated teeths which looks more aesthetic but isnt just good at all.
The question in such cases is just how important is the loss of a (at least under natural - pre civilized living conditions) better feature and the derive of somewhat newer sometimes weaker ones.
I personally think that human evolution after the Neolithic revolution especially in settled farmer societies is going in the wrong direction and doing this even more today. (contra-selective factors, lower energy levels in Neolithic societies compared to hunters and herders)
The aim should be to have very versatile humans which can live under as many as possible environmental conditions and on the highest possible cultural level.
So if someone is a mental Genius but wouldnt be able to hunt or build a simple house he is not progressive.
If someone is the fastest runner but has no brain ...
If someone looks really beautiful but is not able to do anything else but looking beautiful...
etc.
Versatile human generalists are the better ones, the progressive ones.
So in my view there are primitive, degenerated and progressive features and thats not just a question of race even if it sometimes correlates.
But I will try to use other terms in the future I just wanted to explain what I really meant when I was speaking about generalized "degeneration".
I agree with Dienekes...some of these posts are ridiculous & offensive. Everyone has their own opinion of what is or is not beautiful and/or attractive. There are few natural blondes in the world, due to the fact that blondness is a recessive trait & thereby uncommon. I am not Greek or Nordic but I personally balk at these comments that are borderline racist.
Not all blondes are universally beautiful. At the same time, we shouldn't put them down for perhaps being thin & fair-skinned, nor should we sneer at dark-haired Mediterranean women & tout them as being less or more attractive. The world is made up of different types of people...no one type is superior to another. Tony, it's good that you appreciate brunettes, but try to keep it clean for the rest of us please. It's very disrespectful to put down certain groups...and I am not even blonde. We need to stop generalizing, back up our statements with factual evidence, & basically be civil to one another.
Posted by: anonymous at August 31, 2003 10:53 PMMaybe, the average isn't the same as the most beautiful. For example, I am a Chinese, but I found and admitted that in average white women are more beautiful than Chinese women, but the most beautiful women (to me) that I have seen are almost all Chinese. Then should we define beauty with the most beautiful since beauty is devine or with the average since we are talking about statistics?
Posted by: jian at September 2, 2003 12:46 PMI came across this site trying to find a way to distinguish the facial features of different nordic groups; I found myself shocked by the idiocy of some of the posts.
One thing for you all to consider as you discuss beauty:
(1) Psychologists have shown that regardless of skin/eye color etc, people tend to judge the symmetry of a face as a far more important characteristic in judging beauty. Symmetry is a fairly universal beauty concept--hair color is not.
(2) Outside of that, culture effects what we think of as beautiful. In the US, we're presented with many different pictures of beauty, though we're still biased towards a northern european version of it.
Nature and nurture at work, people. If you correct for biases of culture (and wealth), I think it would be pretty hard to say one race was naturally more beautiful than another. That'd be like trying to say one form of music is better than another--people like what they like.
Posted by: Alina at September 3, 2003 11:59 AM
brabble, brabble, brabble, brabble. That is enough.
Posted by: zanehu at September 5, 2003 05:00 PMhey what's up? I have to agree with most of the comments here. Everyone has their own interests about what is attractive and what is not. I myself am half Sicilian and the other half is a mixture of Italian, Irish, English, French, and German. I look like my father, who is the Sicilian out of the relationship. Personally, I am glad I look more Mediterranean than northern European because that makes me look more 'ethnic' and thus different than the average white American male. Sicilians are also largely of Greek and Roman descent, which is a kickass heritage filled with accomplishments to be proud of. Most people think of me as Greek or Italian-looking. I have dark brown, nearly black hair, green eyes, a fairly large Roman nose with thick eyebrows and moderately full lips, in addition to a light olive skin tone which tans pretty well.
Posted by: Alex Alioto at September 5, 2003 11:38 PMA comment on JL`s opinion about Greek women compared to Scandinavian ones.
I was last June in Norway and have to admit that I saw the most ugly women I have ever seen! Huge, overweight ( u said slender??), without feminism, pinkish like piggy from muppet show...they didnt have anything indicating they belong to female sex ( except the huge breasts). Besides, lots of people agreed on that ( even my Norwegian friends) and we concluded that Norway and UK have the ugliest women in Europe! I have met many gReek woen and most are just delicious and ( the most important) feminine!
So please...relax!
Christoph, Zurich
Hey, I am Greek and I am fucking hot, so I don't know what you are talking about!
Posted by: Greek Girl at November 7, 2003 12:20 PMSeriously these posts are pathetic. I am a blonde haired blue eyed female, and my family generation comes from Poland, German, and Turkey. Turkish people are tanned skin, beautiful brunettes. Germans and Polish are usually blonde haired, blue eyed (the Arian race). My skin is not pinkish. I am a tanned-skinned blonde, and i consider myself beautiful. We are all humans, and i cannot believe you people are discriminating the way you are, its just ridiculous. The fact is: Every race may have certain people that are uglier than the other, but there is definently not just one race in particular that is ugly, and one race in particular that is just oh so beautiful. I responded to these posts to get it into your minds that BLONDES and BRUNETTES can be beautiful, depending on the person themself.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2003 03:38 AMthis is the most shallow scholarly website I have ever seen...what's the point?
Posted by: Janice at February 24, 2004 04:05 PMIs this all a joke?? I thought the site was supposed to be serious.
Some work has been done regarding the influence of physical appearance on attraction (which should be related to sexual selection) From memory things like facial symmetry, body morphology etc. are important but hair colour is not. It is much more likely that hair colour is influenced by variables that influence pigmentation overall.
Start thinking critically guys. And remember no-one likes women with hairy backs. (Except maybe the Greeks)
Posted by: Eric Schiffer at March 24, 2004 04:55 PM>> Is this all a joke?? I thought the site was supposed to be serious.
This is of course not a joke, your post however is.
Posted by: Dienekes at March 24, 2004 10:55 PM