courtney
ellie
Not Afraid To Use It
Jacob
Jill/Twipply Skwood
muskrat
SciFi Dad
Seattledad (Luke,...
The Unbearable Ba...
AllieGod, I hate the news media sometimes.
A story caught Dr. O’C’s eye in our local Murdoch owned fishwrapper the other day, the juicy lead of which was:
MODERN men have got it so good. According to scientific research, women are gradually becoming more attractive in an evolutionary ‘beauty race’.
Without reading either the article or the ’scientific research’, I issued a summary judgement:
“That’s crap. Rubbish science.”
It is silly season for the Northern Hemisphere news media and that means time to publish pseudo-science swill featuring a sexy lead backed up by little or no fact. I hypothesized that this was one of those stories.
So let’s see if my experimental hypothesis holds up, let’s take a look at this tripe. Is it bad science, bad journalism, both or neither?
The article that appeared in the Advertiser and countless other Western papers is pulled from a story in the Times of London (another Murdoch rag) by their Science Editor, Jonathan Leake. Leake draws more or less the same conclusion as the Advertiser’s reporter does:
“Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female*. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.”
He cites a study by Finnish psychologist Markus Jokela. The first hurdle in breaking this story down is that Leake does not state the source of this study. Is it a peer-reviewed paper? A conference abstract? A barroom chat? I contacted both Leake and Jokela to figure it out. No answer from Leake, but Jokela promptly replied that his paper is in press in Evolution and Human Behavior (a peer-reviewed Elsevier Journal). The paper in its entirety is available at Jokela’s website.
What Jokela did was to attempt to correlate physical attractiveness with reproductive success – in other words, to see whether beautiful people have more children. To this end, he used the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a long-term study based on a random sample of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957, and assessed whether attractiveness of the participants could predict the number of children that individuals bore. To gauge attractiveness, Jokela used a panel of judges who rated the study participants’ yearbook photos on a scale of 1 – 11.
Let’s stop here, for just a moment. Let’s even leave aside the fact that what one person finds beautiful another person finds horrifying. Let’s give Jokela a pass on that. But yearbook photos? Christ, I wouldn’t want anyone judging my attractiveness based on my Senior yearbook photo. Also, yearbook photos are headshots. A lot of what’s attractive about people is below the neck, if you get my meaning. Nudge, nudge. Know what I mean. Say no more.
But even if we give Jokela these obvious discrepancies, let’s take a look at his data. Based on these attractiveness scores, he then looks at a number of demographic factors including years of education, number of children, years of marriage and so on in unattractive, less attractive, attractive and very attrative results. Jokela writes that his results suggest that attractive women have slightly more children than less attractive ones and the unattractive men have less children than attractive or average looking men. He supports this finding with some statistical analyses but if you look at his data, there isn’t strong support for this finding. The differences seen in men is within the margin for error. The data for women does hold up but the real difference is that unattractive women have slightly fewer children on average than attractive women. However, when you adjust for marital status – leave out the unmarried women and that difference vanishes.
But my biggest problem with this work is that this study looks at a single generation, and a culturally and ethnically homogenous one. No offense to readers who grew up in Wisconsin, but the Cheese State (or whatever it’s called) in 1957 was Happy Days. Literally. “Happy Days” was set in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There wasn’t a lot of cultural diversity in 1950’s Wisconsin and there isn’t a lot of cultural diversity in the show and there isn’t a lot of diversity in this study.
To be fair, Jokela points these shortcomings out and is hesitant to make any conclusions regarding the evolution of beauty. His only real statement about evolution is “that fertility behavior of modern humans may still be partly under the influence of evolved psychological adaptations. I don’t know much about ‘psychological adaptation’, but I spent an Oxford post-doc looking at evolution and recognize that this is a pretty tame statement. Probably because Jokela knows that you can’t say a damn thing about evolution by looking at a single generation.
Leake, however, doesn’t appear to be restrained by this fairly basic fact and writes:
“Over generations, the scientists argue, this has led to women becoming steadily more aesthetically pleasing, a “beauty race” that is still on. The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans.”
That term in his quotes, ‘beauty race’, does not appear in Jokkela’s paper, nor does the sentiment. If Leake got the quote from an interview with one of his sources, he doesn’t say which one. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Times science editor is quoting himself. Because this statement, to be blunt, is bollocks.
So, what’s the verdict? Bad science? Bad journalism? In my opinion a bit of both but more of the latter. What do you think?
UPDATE
After a series of e-mail with Times Science Editor Jonathan Leake, I want to offer him a chance to respond regarding the source of the ‘beauty race’ quote:
“The phrase beauty race came from the other academic quoted. I think her name was Gayle Brewer (a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Central Lancashire)*. It also seemed to encapsulate the points being made by Karnazawa. And, as I said, I did send her a draft of the story in advance.”
*My parantheses.
———————-
Irish popsters The Thrills had a geographic problem. Musically grounded on the sandy beaches of California, but feet firmly planted on the damp cobbles of Dublin. Their music doesn’t have much staying power, but it was fun it its time and I can’t think of a better song to accompany this post. The Thrills’ “Let’s Bottle Bohemia” is available from 
.
Image credits:
———————————-
*Leake’s statement that attractive women have more female children comes from a 2007 paper looking at the Trivers-Willard hypothesis which states that “large healthy mammals produce more male offspring when living in good conditions, such as areas where there is an ample food supply. Conversely, female mammals living in less desirable conditions would tend to have female offspring.” Doesn’t really apply here, but every now and again someone trucks it out and tries to apply it to humans and in this case invokes physical beauty – the case in the 2007 paper. Leake apparently wasn’t bothered by the fact that in Jokela’s paper, very attractive women have more male offspring than female, though this is not statistically significant.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz
Actually, the most attractive thing about any person IS above the neck – it’s what’s between their ears.
Jan´s last blog ..RTT: Just Say Maybe
Any time a “news” story does not refer to a source of the “news”, I am already there in the disbelieving mode, so the “news” is a load of “stuff” and not “news”worthy. You were right on to jump all over this one. And in the second case, woman’s beauty in not skin deep, it’s not heart deep, it’s not brain deep, it is soul deep.
Technobabe´s last blog ..Hair Every Color Of The Rainbow And More
well i guess plastic surgery is now giving the ugly an evolutionary advantage ….. i agree with you chris …who gives these guys money for research anyway?…
Hippie told me the basic claim of this article the other day, but she took it as proven fact. I told her it sounded sketchy. I’m trying to teach them critical reading skills, and the first question to ask is where did you read it because if it came from a Fox news source it’s probably bunk. Angst has caught on fully, but I’m still working on Hippie.
Cat´s last blog ..It’s Vinyl – Real Vinyl
The lack of cultural diversity is what bothers me the most here. I cannot say I was raised in a place that lacked as much cultural diversity as Milwaukee, WI in the 1950’s. But it was lacking enough that a girl with white skin but dark features and amazingly curly hair was apparently confusing to some and, looking back, seemed to make a difference depending on how someone decided I was mixed. (I had no answers. I was an orphan.) Sadly, I do know those who decided I was part black seemed to find me unattractive while those who decided I was part Italian found me attractive and mysterious.
In other words, I just don’t know how ‘attractive’ is defined as only about how someone looks. Other commenters have made good points about inner beauty, and I would like to add my point about other influences such as biases for/against a particular race.
mongoliangirl´s last blog ..Once a cock smith, always a cock smith. (And no, I’m not talking about my dad.)
I’m thinking there is a bit of truth to this study. After all, the girls on “That 70’s show” (also set in Wisconsin) are much more attractive than those on “Happy Days”, while the guys seem to be equally aesthetically unappealing.
I must say that the researchers seem to have selected a population that has plenty of room for increased attractiveness. To prove my case, check out the stands the next time you are watching a Packers game.
I think the easiest way to refute this article is to go to Wal*mart on a Saturday morning. There’s a whole lot of really ugly people producing a whole lot of kids (which are breaking merchandise and screaming unheeded). Obviously these ugly people are having much more reproductive success than any good-looking person I know. So there.
Hey, my science is at least as good as Leake’s!
Theresa B´s last blog ..The Wonderful Blizzard From Paws
As a “plain” looking woman, I feel a small thrill that I’ve put forth some spawn, just to fuck with this guy’s “findings”. What a wanker. Makes me want to crank out a couple more, just to fuck with him further.
Ginny´s last blog ..I Just Wanna Bang on the Drum All Day. (And Sometimes I Do.)
well i knew it was rubbish without even reading it, but now i have a properly researched rebuttal for my next cocktail party, so thanks!
jen´s last blog ..one day i’ll be able to say, “i knew him when…”
You’re probably headed for trouble any time a group of people are put into four different categories based on physical attractiveness.
I think what he’s saying is that unmarried attractive women are less competent at using birth control.
Did he compare very attractive with not attractive, or less attractive with attractive?
For the record, (and because we could put in whatever photo as long as there were no direct drug references) my high school yearbook photo was of me sitting in a the window of a stone fort/fortress type thing in Maine and was of my whole body, not just my head.
I don’t know if that gain or lose me points in the attractiveness scale, but I hope they hurry up and let me know so that I can decide whether or not to have more children. That way I can help support the evolutionary beauty race…
Jill/Twipply Skwood´s last blog ..I’m Pretty Sure a Total Stranger Is Going to Buy Me a Transmission
I’ve always found the opposite to be true–that beautiful people throw ugly kids. Seriously. If you get two gorgeous people, their offspring is very likely to be off-putting. That being said, it is amazing how two ugly people can throw such gorgeous children. Take a look around the local park sometime.
As an amateur science geek and former professional journalist, this kind of thing makes me twitch. It’s “Star Trek Science” – it sounds all cool and logical on the surface but it doesn’t stand up to any deeper inquiry.
The problem is that less discriminating readers skim through things like this and take them at face value. No, this particular article is probably not going to do much damage. But the general decline of critical thinking – and critical reading! – makes me just … grrrr.
ZenMom´s last blog ..Let’s talk about sex
Not sure about everyone else but my mom had crappy plastic surgery and I am really good at Photoshop so that TOTALLY helps my odds.
Right?
Take that science.
moosh in indy.´s last blog ..crash test lupron red.
So we are breeding the ugliness out of mankind? That’s an interesting idea! What happens when we get a wild card like the hideous Octomom to muck up the experiment? It’ll never work.
The Unbearable Baishment´s last blog ..david v. goliath new york version
Are there any papers one can get here that aren’t Murdoch rags? I miss the weekend Guardian:(
suzer´s last blog ..Movies for Old White Racist Bastards
P.S Check out this article in the Australian today – Seizing the Sauce Bottle, in The Australian Literary Review.
suzer´s last blog ..The Daily Paper
yeah this is why I don’t like to read or watch the news but rarely. It just annoys me. It’s basically: pick a research paper, skim it, make something up, and publish! And Theresa B got it so right. ahh WalMart…
Danielle´s last blog ..Chicken & Sweetcorn Soup
This study was doomed for failure the minute they started assuming they could decide what was “attractive” and what wasn’t.
Definitely bollocks, all of it.
Agnes´s last blog ..Archives Shortcode
The problem isn’t so much bad journalism – which it totally is, btw – but the fact that media outlets have fired all their science journalists and instead have reporters or non-science journalists trying to write about science. And then you get crap like this, or the one a few weeks before that had a headline that screamed how more attractive, provocatively dressed women were more likely to be raped when what the study actually demonstrated were the tendencies of the offenders, the men, to actually commit the assault. But which headline sells more papers, or generates more hits on a website? Bring back journalists who understand how to interpret a scientific paper and stop passing crap writing off as fact.
Now where can I store my soapbox…
Mooselet´s last blog ..Words of Wisdom
One small step for bad journalism and one giant backward leap for science.
Monty´s last blog ..Recession? What Recession?
Jan – Yeah, yeah. Of course. But for guys…
Technobabe – It just annoys me, because people read this and then think it’s true and before you know it we’re teaching kids junk science. Like ‘intelligent design’ for example.
Aish – The Finnish government most likely – damn Scandanavians.
Cat – That’s what I’m saying. Your kid now thinks that there’s an evolutionary advantage in being pretty. Crap.
Theresa – I can’t imagine anywhere I would like to be less than Walmart on a Saturday morning.
Ginny – I, as an ugly fucker, felt exactly the same way.
Jen – I know, but why does it get in the papers?
Mongola – Well said.
Jason – I’m pretty sure that would be the case with any NFL game. What about pro wrestling?
Ooh, this one stings. I am from Wisconsin and *long moment of sighing* the daughter of an honest to cheese WI Beauty Queen. The study is obviously weak. I hate to point this out, but, WI was heavily settled by Scandinavians, Germans, and some Eastern European countries. We tend to be fair, light hair, and light eyes. A list that sounds like Aryan selection, so could racism be a factor too.
heather´s last blog ..Með suð í eyrum
I couldn’t get past the ratings scale: “it goes to eleven.”
Jud´s last blog ..The Rover
Are you telling me that the press has misreported a scientific paper? That’s never happened before and I would hope it never happens again!!!
jams O’Donnell´s last blog ..Support bands I have seen #2
I love it when you get all scientisty on a random study.
Carolyn Online´s last blog ..Zoom.
Well, obviously this is bullshit, because I don’t know if you’ve heard, but I just got named The Most Attractive Person Ever To Grace The Earth With Her Noble and Softly Stunning Presence, and I don’t have any kids at all.
So there, science.
What kind of criteria are they using to determine attractiveness anyways? I mean, I shouldn’t even have to ask, because I’m sure they’re just using my face as a template or something.
rassles´s last blog ..I Want To Spend My Life Thinking About Things Other Than This.
I love Science Tuesdays…. Total rubbish though… because I know I’m way hotter than my father is. Men are just as unappealing, PSHAW.
Joe @ IrrationalDad´s last blog ..Wordless Wednesday v. Photoshoot with daddy
The press calls it as they see it? Wishful thinking. We all know that the news media can spin any topic under the sun into whatever the individual or entity who is in control would like the reader to believe. Global warming anyone? I’m not scientific minded, but I do check my source(s).
As far as beauty and attractiveness goes…my theory is that there is someone for everyone whether both individuals are (by opinion of majority) hot or ugly, smart or dumb, whatever. I tend to believe that we pair up based on a complex formula of looks, intellect and a side of randomness. Some women might bear children for an ugly dude who has a big wallet. For guys, it’s a different story. We’re even less selective. My wife sometimes talks about morbidly obese ob patients. I often ask “How can that be – she’s 350 pounds? Yikes.” She replies “Yeah, but she’s female.”
Damon´s last blog ..Dear So and So….Numero Dos
This idea makes no logical sense. It assumes beautiful people will have beautiful kids. Genes will revert to the mean. Plus lots of ugly people manage to hook-up, some out of their league.
yellojkt´s last blog ..Be A Birther
This makes me think, “So, wait, I have no children, does this mean I’m unattractive? FUCK! Knock me up now!” which is really not where I want to go with my life, so screw this study.
Gypsy´s last blog ..His Apology
Yup, pure crap in terms of both science and journalism.
I hate the notion that there’s one standard of beauty out there that everyone should aspire to. People are attracted to different things. I also hate the fact that women are still judged based on these ridiculous and superficial standards. Dumb.
courtney´s last blog ..Introducing … The Greenists!
Women aren’t more attractive. It’s that those damned airbrushes are more prevalent.
Coal Miner’s Granddaughter´s last blog ..Answers, Part 2
Unbelievable. Some of those scientific journals are only read by a handful of people, and yet the peer review process they go through is grueling. On the other hand, the Times can publish whatever it feels like and millions will read it.
blues´s last blog ..I almost got you a keychain
[...] of the Times and my not vendetta, I feel obligated to report some correspondence. If you remember this post of a couple of weeks ago, I had some unkind words for The Times Science Editor Jonathan Leake regarding an article he wrote on beauty and evolution. [...]