August 23, 2003
Mate Choice and Attractiveness
There are two important factors to be considered when using mate choice as a proxy for attractiveness:
1. Mate choice is bi-directional. If A chooses to marry B, that does not mean that A necessarily likes B best, since it's possible that A would choose C, who however does not like A. In other words, the object of choice is not passive.
2. Mate choice is dependent on availability of potential mates. It's well-known, for example, that the number of "marriageable" people is zero up to some age, then increases to a peak, then decreases again as people get married or die. Or for example, a group of immigrants has a very high male/female ratio; this would create an incentive for males to outmarry, regardless of whether or not they find the females of their own group more attractive or not.
Let's work with a concrete example, Mongoloids in the USA. Mongoloid men outmarry less frequently than Mongoloid women. I won't comment on factor #2 for which I don't have good quality data, but will focus on factor #1.
Why do Mongoloid men outmarry less frequently than Mongoloid women? There are many potential reasons:
1. Mongoloid men like Caucasoid women less than Mongoloid women like Caucasoid men.
2. Caucasoid men like Mongoloid women more than Caucasoid women like Mongoloid men.
both 1,2 might occur at the same time. It is not possible to determine, from outmarriage statistics alone what is actually going on. In fact, it is entirely possible that neither 1,2 are good explanations, but rather it is in the manner of interaction, or structure of the two groups where the answer is to be sought.
There is an additional note of caution to be made: the assumption that people want to marry those that they think are attractive is -without further qualification- wrong. In some cultures, e.g., traditional India, people marry whoever their parents choose for them. In poor cultures, people will obviously put wealth above looks in this choice. When diverse groups co-exist, there is a barrier (racial/linguistic/cultural/religious...) between them that cannot be easily bridged, no matter how attracted to each other the interested parties are.
Moreover, people marry each other because of their phenotypes, not because of their genotypes. Individuals who make sub-optimal use of their genotypes (i.e., don't work out, use makeup, wear good clothing, etc.) will be unattractive, even if they would otherwise be very attractive. It is well known that different human groups have fewer resources to devote to phenotypic enhancement, or in some cases are less interested in such things (*)
In conclusion, while mate choice is influenced by attractiveness, it is not attractiveness itself and should not be used as such.
(*) It would be interesting to note that the less attractive might be more interested in phenotypic enhancement than the most attractive. Also, modern technological society has created the means for drastic enhancements of phenotype (e.g., braces, plastic surgery) that were not formerly available. The result of this will be to reduce the advantage of "beautiful" genotypes.
Posted by Dienekes at August 23, 2003 01:39 PM | PermaLinkI do not think braces are a good example of improving phenotype in capitalist economies, because it is the mode of life in these economies that makes crooked teeth more common. I think people in developed economies have a high prevlance for crooked teeth due to environmental factors, thumb sucking,(due to substituting the thumb for the mothers nipple as many women in capitalist economies do not breastfeed) tongue thrusting, mouth breathing, eating too much soft food, etc. The dentist Weston Price who traveled extensively in primitive societies found that these socities if they retained their traditional primitive diet had remarkable faces and straight teeth with nice arches but as soon as they were introduced to processed foods their teeth became crooked and cavities became much more prevalent. This is recorded in Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Most people are born with straight teeth in our society and then they become crooked later after the baby teeth fall out. For sure the kids such as those who are born with adult like teeth with no wide spaces in between their baby teeth, their problem is genetic and there will be havoc in the mouths of such kids with no spaces when their baby teeth fall out and the permanents come in.
Posted by: Nikephoros_Phokas at August 28, 2003 11:42 PMBut even today, some people (despite civilization) have naturally good teeth while others are a basketcase of dental problems. Braces are thus a "phenotype masking" device in the specific context of today.
Posted by: Dienekes at August 30, 2003 08:12 AM