Interesting papers from the new volume of Evolution and Human Behavior

A single sentence on this article: more (somewhat limited) evidence that 2D:4D correlates to masculinity.

Abstract:“In humans, the ratio of the second digit to the fourth digit — the 2D:4D ratio — is a sexually dimorphic trait (men, on average, exhibit lower 2D:4D ratios than do women) that is influenced by prenatal testosterone exposure, but not by circulating testosterone levels in adulthood. Consequently, 2D:4D ratios are commonly used as indirect measures of prenatal testosterone exposure. Many studies have examined the associations of 2D:4D ratios with sexually dimorphic adaptations that are thought to be influenced by such exposure, including physical prowess. The existing literature, however, remains unclear as to (1) whether 2D:4D ratios are more closely linked to strength or to endurance; and (2) whether 2D:4D ratios are linked with physical prowess for both men and women. In 100 men and 122 women, the relationship of 2D:4D ratios with maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) scores (hand grip strength) and maximum endurance time (MET) scores (local muscular endurance) using a hand dynamometer was examined. Controlling for age, height, weight, and average digit length, we found that 2D:4D ratios significantly predicted MVC scores in men, but not in women. 2D:4D ratios did not significantly predict MET scores for either sex. These results suggest that prenatal testosterone exposure in this sample is significantly related to hand grip strength in men, but not in women (and to local muscular endurance in neither sex), and, therefore, that strength, rather than local muscular endurance, potentially drives the relationship between 2D:4D ratios and physical prowess.”

A single sentence on this article: We may think Africa is poor and in trouble, and it is true is some ways, but they still reproduce more than the west (which makes them more biologically successful in a way) and enjoy their children more than they enjoy their cellphones/emails/reality TV…

Abstract: “Previous research has demonstrated that having more children decreases marital satisfaction among parents. However, the universality of these findings is limited since the vast majority of the studies have been conducted in Western countries. In the present study, 374 people from the Igbo ethnic group (Nigeria) were assessed for levels of marital satisfaction and the number of children. In contrast to almost all previous findings, we found a positive relationship between the number of children and marital satisfaction among parents. Number of children was the strongest predictor of marital satisfaction even when compared to other variables like wealth and education. Our results suggest that the negative relationship between the number of children and marital satisfaction is not culturally universal and probably only characterizes developed, individualistic Western countries. We discuss our findings from a sociocultural and evolutionary perspective.”

A single sentence on this article: Feminine women with symmetric faces have more children than ugly fat cows (in rural places, not in the developed west).

Abstract:“Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not. Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.”

A single sentence on this article: Waist-to-hip ratio, which is an indicator of female attractiveness, is distorted by body fat, i.e. fat women are unattractive regardless of their waist to hip ratio.

Abstract: “The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of body fat percentage (BF%) on female attractiveness. To this end, a series of female body images were selected from a collection of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans. Images were stratified by three levels (low, mid, and high) of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and seven levels (15%–50%) of BF%. These 21 images were presented in a random order and rated for attractiveness. Results indicate that WHR, BMI, and BF% are all significant predictors of female attractiveness when regressed separately (R2=0.19, 0.70, and 0.76, respectively). When regressed simultaneously, all three variables accounted for 87% of the variance in image attractiveness, with only BF% and WHR being significant predictors. Further analysis revealed that body fat might disrupt the negative linear relationship between WHR and attractiveness. Men and women differed significantly in most categories of WHR and BF%, with men generally rating images as less attractive than women. These data indicate that BF% appears to be a strong cue for attractiveness and that the impact of WHR and BMI on attractiveness is dependent, in part, on BF%. The appearance of body fat may provide disruption in the visual cues of both shape and size of the female body, potentially impacting behavior.”

Two sentences on this article: High testosterone makes you more likely to impregnate women and have more children but being a father reduces your testosterone. Education makes one mechanism more important than the other.

Abstract: “Most research shows that fatherhood is related to reduced testosterone (T) levels, but relationships between the number of children and T levels are not addressed. In humans, paternal care usually involves obtaining adequate resources to support children, which may require engaging in male–male competition and maintaining high T levels. We hypothesize that T levels in fathers should increase with increasing family size. In 78 Polish men, aged 30 to 77 years, the number of children was significantly correlated with paternal T levels, but the direction of this relationship was dependent on the fathers’ education. In agreement with our hypothesis, in men with below-college education, T levels increased with increasing number of children. In contrast, in men with college education, the number of children was negatively related to paternal T levels. Drop in T levels throughout the day tended to be less pronounced the more children fathers had, irrespective of their educational level. Our results suggest that a hypothesis of simple trade-offs between mating and parenting effort may be too simplistic to explain changes in testosterone response to parenting in human males. In order to understand functional response of changes in T levels, it is crucial to account for family size and socioeconomic factors. However, due to the cross-sectional study design, we cannot exclude the possibility that T levels influenced reproductive behavior (rather than vice versa) and thus the number of children produced by men.”

Three sentences on this article: Women with low income are less likely to have children than high income women, while the inverse is true for men (high income men have more children than low income men). Gender dimorphism with regard to status and income seems to increase, not decrease, in feminist-controlled countries. Social engineering seems to be backfiring… maybe our future sons will enjoy feminine family-oriented women instead of the lawyercunt-don’t know to cook-slut-BShD-feminist-modern-woman. 

Abstract:“The association between reproductive success and income in economically developed societies remains a controversial and understudied topic. The commonly made statement that individuals with a higher income have fewer children defies evolutionary explanation. Here we present results from an analyses of the association between lifetime reproductive success (LRS) and income for modern Europeans from 13 countries. We examine the relationships among income, partner income, sex and LRS, and the role of childlessness in driving the relationships. For women, we find a negative association between LRS and income, while for men, we find a flat or slightly positive one. The sex difference in the association appears to be driven by income’s sex-specific association with childlessness; men with a low income have a relatively high risk of childlessness, while women with a low income have a low risk of childlessness. Consequently, once childless people are excluded from the analysis, LRS is negatively associated with income for both sexes. We argue that the observed LRS–income associations may be an outcome of evolved behavioural predispositions operating in modern environments and conclude that, even though humans fail to maximise LRS at all income levels in modern settings, evolutionary theory can still help to explain sex differences in LRS.”

Also

Announcement, As maybe some of you know, I am writing this blog with the intention of collecting the ideas presented here into a book, which will be entitled ‘A Guide for a Young Patriarch’. There is already a rough draft of the book. However, in recent weeks, I decided to dump the current draft and rewrite it anew. So the book will take more time to be ready…

Wide Gender Gap on Importance of Abortion as Election Issue (From PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOR THE PEOPLE & THE PRESS)

“Women are far more likely than men to rate several issues as very important to their vote in the presidential election this year, including abortion and health care.

Among registered voters, more than half of women (54%) say the issue of abortion will be very important in their voting decision, compared with 36% of men — a difference of 18 percentage points. Among all registered voters, 46% say the issue of abortion will be very important to their vote.

While 81% of women voters say health care will be very important, fewer men (67%) view that issue as very important. Women also are more likely than men to view education (by 10 points) and jobs (eight points) as very important. There are no issues that significantly more men than women rate as very important”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Interesting papers from the new volume of Evolution and Human Behavior

  1. These are some incredibly interesting studies.

    On the testosterone I wish they had done paternity tests. It would be interesting to see if low T guys really did better with higher education, and got higher the lower they are. And/or if theres a higher cuckoldry rate with them.

    I wonder if men rate issues less important because they realistically balance them (with women sayinf EVERYTHINGS INPORTANT ASSHOLES) or if its due to a ‘fuck politics I’ll fix it myself’ atritude. Or both

    Good luck on the book man

  2. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/11/07 « Free Northerner

  3. Pingback: Stares at the World » Being a Man

  4. Nuala says:

    Hi there,

    This was a great read. I am not sure if you get many women to this type of blog but I was linked it by a male friend who watched a video on testosterone levels. I am a nurse and an MRA for almost a decade (though the latter only in the past 4 years since seeing the misandry around me). There is a lot of misinformation about testosterone and masculinity that seems to be perpetuated throughout the media and by pro-feminist culture and it is startling to see it as they are almost always wrong or well off base. I am currently back in part time education and a biochemist friend who is doing her post doctorate in this area linked me an interesting academic paper showing that higher testosterone leads to men being more honest too whereas there are key indicators that oestrogen leads to more dishonest traits.

    Here is the link to the article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046774

    There is also a truly misinformed attitude out there that testosterone leads to violence in men as most studies undertaken which had a subject group of adolescence and this increased level of aggression during the puberty stages is a natural progression in male evolution. Tantrums and mood swings can be observed in teenage girls but does the media portray and lambast oestrogen in the same way even though the hormonal changes in female adolescence is the cause of this. The answer is no and this is because of pro-feminist writing in mainstream media.

    There is more I could say on this but the journal paper above speaks volumes for itself.

    Thanks for this great article Dicipres.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s