Todo:




ADD:

Under the farrel section (perceptive observers):
include that precient Edward (?).... quote.
where is it?

Add to IM diagram:
-- description of inner and outer loops
outer: phylogenic evolutionary circuit
inner: ontogenetic evolutionary circuit
--> another (?): cultural evolutionary circuit?

-- inner one: *interacts* with evolved mental mechs
--------------

-- m & f adaptation:
problem --> adaptation to designed to solve problem
Is the adaptation designed to solve a male or female
problem?
-- evolution provides a way to "parse the mind"
--> thus,
it also parses the problems.
There would be no robust sex diffs if m & f didn't

have different adaptations!


--------------
Milk yield probably has a different heritability than
whatever
measure of intelligence you use, so the curves obviouly
would not be
exactly the same, but I see no reason why selective
breeding for
intelligence would not work technically. But even something
as
straightforward as breeding for milk yield can have
unfortunate side
effects--I think I read something about arthritis?
Or maybe that
was in beef cattle? I don't pay that much attention
to cattle.
Anyhow, selective breeding for mental traits has been
shown to work
in species such as rats and dogs. There were some classic
experiments in which rats were successfully bred for
maze-learning
ability--both high and low. Virtually all cognitive
abilities in
people are positively correlated, so breeding people
for high math
ability would probably not reduce verbal ability. But
note that
Marian mentioned that high IQ was associated with myopia.
We might
end up with a lot of blind geniuses.

Breeding for dog-show standards has produced an appalling
proliferation of inherited diseases in many dog breeds,
including
blindness, cancer, hip dysplasia (which can cripple
dogs before
their first birthday), and bloat (which is often fatal).
Farmers are
usually very careful about breeding farm animals, but
pure-bred dogs
demonstrate the disasters that are likely when artificial
selection
becomes politicized. And I see no reason to think that
politicians
would be any better at establishing successful breeding
standards
than are dog breeders.

Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions
expressed here
saswss@unx.sas.com SAS Campus Drive are mine
and not necessarily
(919) 677-8000 Cary, NC 27513, USA those of
SAS Institute.

-----------
psychological predispositions typically represent learning
rules
that predict different behavior under different circumstances,
and so
have the potential to explain not only general pan-human
patterns but
also cultural variation in their expression.


---------------

-- see chap8.add
---------------

-- we have got a big problem:
where to define: reproductive/male value, etc.

-- add: my hierarchiy of the sciences, emergents.
"consileince" --> integration of all of the sciences.

-- variability: this is not to say that it could
never
happen, but that it is transient
-- similar to a "strange attractor"
in NLD, or chaos theory.
-- to sex diff definition:
-- most robust likely to be closely related to reproduction,

or close derviative

-- to evol psy section: stuff from Buss' paper
-- "carving nature at its joints
-- tell us what is significant.

--> use example of that tribe described by diamond
in the interior of New Guinea (?) where
they never had seen white folk before.

Fausto-Sterling (1985, p. 221):
"...further research into sex differences in cognition
or
brain laterality seems to me uncalled for."

Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender. New
York: Basic Books.


== instead of using the vector diagrams, use a line
down the middle.
--> then present Buss' data the same way

-- Sexually Dimorphic Adaptations --> I like this
term!
-- change the title of "sex differences" to this?
-- use this thoughout, instead of sex / gender differences?
-- USE THIS AS THE TITLE FOR CHAPTER 4!

-----

> Any other suggestions for non-adaptations? The above
two gender differences
> seem
> truly arbitrary to me -- clearly not adaptations,
and not even derived from
> adaptations.



How about the predominantly female use of makeup in
the West? It would be
good to have an example that's really considered "feminine"
(or vice
versa) in our culture BUT IS A BEHAVIOR PRIMARILY DONE
BY THE OTHER SEX IN
SOME OTHER CULTURE (so, e.g., in New Guinea and some
African, Asian and
New World tribal cultures, we see that males are more
likely to decorate
themselves). Clothing differences do seem arbitrary,
but it's harder to
show a reversal in other cultures. Lots of good PICTURES
if you use
makeup, too.....

es, I do agree. That was my point. WE DON'T KNOW
ALL THERE IS TO KNOW
ABOUT THESE DIFFERENCES, SO IT IS NOT YET POSSIBLE
TO REALLY CATEGORIZE
THEM. Also, MOST differences are likely to have some
biological basis
that gets AMPLIFIED (or in some cases, diminished)
by culture and
socialization---- so then is it a sex difference or
a gender difference?
Take a look at my article on sex differences in the
weight room. I bring
up this idea that BIO SEX DIFFS are often AMPLIFIED
by
SOCIALIZATION/CULTURE. Readers tend to assume we can
categorize things as
EITHER/OR, but usually we can't. That's not the way
the world is.


------


-----
-- robust sex diffs:
-- human universals.
-- closely tied to reprod
-- see ADD, DATE, ref
-- ADD Freeman's quotes re "voting"
... and Mead stuff from video
-- must number tables (and boxes?)
-- get my file (or lect notes) on social constructionism.
-- add any material from Wilson's new book: Consilience.
-- need to find the "professional malpratice" of anthropologists
ref

-- add the idea that politics and science are separate...
although some have tried to combine them
-- need to remove all references in previous chaps
to
"gender differences"

Ask Hiram Caton review this chap:
H.Caton@gu.edu.au

...also, ask O'Meara.

NEED REFS: from Scientific American.
"The New Social Darwinism" (ref).
"Eugenics Revisted" (ref).

----------

simple idea that both the left and right trample on
individual rights.

----------------
Here is from chap2, REVISE, AND ASK FOR MEALEY'S OK:
... or just "redefine" in this chap.
-- under Robust gender diffs

----------------

sections divided by: =====


Opening Comments

I. Nature vs. Nurture in the Social Sciences (MILLS)

A. The Controversy in Historical Perspective
1. Political Misuses of Evolutionary Theory
2. Cultural Materialism and The Legacy of Margaret
Mead
3. "Biophobia" in the Social Sciences
4. Sex Differences and the Standard Social Science
Model (SSSM)
5. The Integrated Model

B. Evaluating Competing Theories

II. Adaptationism and Human Sex Differences

A. Predicted Human Robust Sex Differences (MILLS)
1. Robust Sex Differences
a. Facultative Reproductive Strategies
2. The Resulting "Battle of the Sexes"

B. Methods of Testing Predicted Sex Differences (MILLS
/ MEALEY)
1. Sex Difference Consistencies Aross Cultures
(MILLS)
a. Strong Testing: Empirical Cross-Cultural
Research
(Buss, Goldberg, Freeman, etc.)
b. Weak Corroboration
i. Cross-Cultural Literary Themes and Anonymous
Accounts
(Symons', etc.)
ii. Farrell's Theory of Male and Female
"Primary Fantasies"
2. Homosexuals: Strategies Without Compromise
(MILLS)
3. Experimental Research (MEALEY)
4. Proximate Mechanisms and Behavior Genetics
(MEALEY)


III. Research Approaches in Evolutionary Psychology
(MEALEY)

... approaches methods particularly used by evol
psychologists
... I will leave details of this section up to
you
(form -> function / function --> form, etc.)

IV. Caveats on Adaptationism (MILLS -- I will revise
your section from Chp 3)
A. Critics of Adaptationism
B. Responses to the Critics

Closing Comments



 

Chapter 8
Humans: Nature and Nurture

 

Copyright © 2001 Michael E. Mills

Opening comments


We have spent the last three chapters examining sexually dimorphic animal behavior. The theory and data regarding the different reproductive strategies of female and male animals is generally well accepted in biology and ethology (the study of animal behavior). However, when a similar approach is applied to the study of human sex and gender differences, the topic has been hotly controversial in the social sciences, the humanities, and in political and social discourse.

In this chapter we will explore the history and current status of the "nature vs. nurture" controversy, review the set of predicted robust human sex differences derived from evolutionary theory, and explore some of the research methods that are used by evolutionary psychologists.

Nature vs. nurture in the social sciences


The nature-nurture controversy has a long history, with the pendulum of scientific and popular opinion swaying to and fro -- generally more as a result of intellectual fashion than on the basis of conclusive scientific evidence. On the nurture side have been the "biological determinists" who argued that biological causality is a far more important determinant of human behavior than social or cultural causality. For example, the famous statistician Karl Pearson argued in his 1910 book, "Nature and Nurture: The Problem of the Future," that the influence of the environment is "not one fifth that of heredity, and quite possibly not one tenth of it" (in Freeman, 1983, p. 17).  The "cultural determinists" asserted the opposite viewpoint. Franz Boas, an anthropologist and a proponent of this perspective in the early 1900s, argued that culture "is not an expression of innate mental qualities;" rather it is "a result of varied external conditions..." His intellectual goal was "...to focus attention on cultural process, to free the concept of culture from its heritage of evolutionary... assumptions, so that is could subsequently become... completely independent of biological determinism" (quotes in Freeman, 1983).

A middle ground in this controversy is "interactionism" -- the perspective that behavior is caused by a complex interaction of both nature and nurture. The various theoretical positions can be summarized, as below, according to the relative weight given to biological or cultural influences.


Biological Causality

Social / Cultural Causality

Low

High

High

Biological Determinism

Interactionism
(The “Integrated Model”)

Low

 

Cultural Determinism
(The “Standard Social Science Model”)




Both biological and cultural determinism are false.

All behavior is a result of a complex interaction, or "co-mingling," of biological and environmental factors. With a little thought it is easy to see that it could not be otherwise. Although it is possible to statistically partition the differences between people to either genetic or environmental factors (using the "heritability index" -- a term which we shall discuss later), no behavior is caused exclusively by nature or nurture. Unfortunately, interactionism has not been, and, to a large extent is still not, fully appreciated in the social sciences. The sterile "nature vs. nurture" controversy has wasted intellectual energy for more than a century. The ramifications of this debate have also spilled out of academia. Some political philosophers and activists have embraced either extreme and then used their preferred paradigm in an attempt to "validate" certain political philosophies (Wilson, 1998).

Despite the fact that "nature vs. nurture" is a false dichotomy, strangely, the debates continue to this day in the social sciences, especially in sex and gender studies. The "nurture" perspective has been dominant in academia for most of the 20th century, and it remains highly influential. It will be useful for us to review the history of this debate to appreciate the controversy, and to understand current perspectives related to sex and gender differences.

The controversy in historical perspective

 

Political misuses of evolutionary theory


"The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle... which leave so many 'in shallows and in miseries,' are the decrees of a large, farseeing benevolence."
-- Herbert Spencer (quote in Wright, 1994, p. 330).



As you learned in Chapter 1, the naturalistic fallacy (the assumption that "what is natural is good") is generally an invalid derivation from evolutionary theory. When political philosophies have relied on this fallacy to justify social policy, history suggests that potentially dangerous politics can result. This was the case with two political movements in the late 1800s: social Darwinism and eugenics.

Social Darwinism, a political philosophy spearheaded by Herbert Spencer, was predicated on the naturalistic fallacy, as well as a second erroneous presumption: the idea that evolution "progresses" toward better, or "higher," forms (it does not, necessarily). These twin misunderstandings of biological evolution led social Darwinists to infer that advances in civilization are dependent on "the survival of the fittest." To interfere with this "natural" process would inhibit social achievements. In this view, social policy should allow the poor, the chronically ill, and the physically or mentally weak, to die or fail unaided by society -- this would contribute, in the long run, to the betterment of society.

A related political philosophy, eugenics, also confused what "is" and what "ought." The term was coined in 1883 by a cousin of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton. His idea was to use artificial selection to improve the human species by selective breeding. This included proposals for the forced sterilization of "genetically inferior" individuals -- including those of lesser intelligence or with other genetically predisposed disabilities. By so doing, society could eventually breed a superior "race" of humans. Galton wrote that in 1873 that society should accept as its "paramount duty, to anticipate the slow and stubborn processes of natural selection, by endeavoring to breed out feeble constitutions and petty and ignoble instincts, and to breed in those which are vigorous and noble and social" (quote in Freeman, 1983, p. 10). Assuming everyone could agree on the definition "vigorous, noble and social," in principle eugenics was (and is) possible. However, most people today would see such tampering as an intolerable government intrusion and a violation of individual rights. The naturalistic fallacy, as well as other inappropriate political derivations of evolutionary theory, have been used as justifications for other harmful political agendas, including imperialism, racism, sexism, colonialism and, most egregiously, for the Nazi holocaust during World War II.

A political reaction against social Darwinism and eugenics began in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, it failed to focus on the real problem: the uncritical acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy and the erroneous idea that evolution necessarily produces "progress." A different tactic was used: if it could be determined that behavior was caused by social, as opposed to biological factors, then the naturalistic fallacy would be made irrelevant. That is, if behavior is not "natural" (not caused by human nature), but purely socially constructed, then there could be no suggestion that such "natural" behavior was "good." Thus, biologically-based political justifications for discrimination, imperialism, social Darwinism, eugenics and sexism would be rendered impotent.  Using this tactic to counter the biological determinists (instead of focusing on countering the naturalistic fallacy), between 1910 and 1930 the cultural determinists re-ignited the nature-nurture controversy. One observer wrote in 1924 that "No subject of sociological inquiry within recent years has proved to be more controversial than the effort to determine the relative importance of biological and of purely social factors in the development of human society" (Rice, 1924; quoted in Freeman, 1983, p. 3 - 4).

By the 1930s a winner in this social sciences debate had emerged: cultural determinism prevailed over biological determinism (Degler, 1991). This was accomplished without scientific evidence to prove that biology did not influence behavior; instead it was due to a backlash against unsavory political theories. The consensus gradually emerged in the social sciences that all biological explanations, including evolutionary and genetic ones, were to be excluded from an analysis of human behavior. Social scientists began to avoid and denounce attempts to explain behavior using any reference to biological causality (Degler, 1991).
(ADD: Boas quote that we "shouldn't" do biological research...)

In psychology, an important proponent of the "nurture" position in the 1920s was the founder of behaviorism, John B. Watson. He wrote the passage for which he is most famous in 1924:


Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select D- doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. Please note that when this experiment is made I am to be allowed to specify the way the children are to be brought up and the type of world they have to live in. (p. 104)



While behaviorism grew in psychology, "cultural materialism" was gaining rapid acceptance in cultural anthropology. Of particular influence were the writings of perhaps the most famous anthropologist who has ever lived: Margaret Mead. The outcome of the nature vs. nurture debate  in early 20th century anthropology would come from an unlikely place: two remote islands in the South Pacific: American Samoa and New Guinea.

Cultural materialism and Margaret Mead


Margaret Mead was in graduate school during the height of the nature vs. nurture debate. Her primary doctoral professor was Franz Boas. His goal was to establish cultural anthropology as a discipline completely independent of biology. However, to support this position, Boas needed to gather empirical data. He recruited his graduate student, the 23 year old Margaret Mead, to assist him. Together Boas and Mead decided that she would study the natives of American Samoa, an isolated island in Polynesia. The question to be investigated was the extent to which adolescent rebellion and emotional turmoil (a particular concern at the time in American culture) was also evident in adolescent Samoan girls. If it was not, then such a "negative instance" could be used to counter the biological determinist notion that adolescent rebellion is biologically influenced (since it would demonstrate that adolescent turmoil is not a cross-cultural human universal).

When Mead arrived in Samoa 1925, the daughter of the Samoan chief, Fa'amotu, was assigned to be Mead's constant companion. After a nine-month stay studying Samoan culture, during which time she interviewed several adolescent Samoan girls, Mead returned to New York and wrote Coming of Age in Samoa, a book that detailed her Samoan observations. She described the Samoans as having a culture completely free of adolescent difficulties, and, moreover, "replete with easy solutions for all conflicts."  For Boas, and the cultural determinists, this was a significant finding. As noted by Mead, "in anthropology you only have to show once that it is possible for a culture to make, say, a period of life easy, where it is hard everywhere else, to have made your point" (Freeman, 1983, p. 77). The "point" was that biology had nothing to do with adolescent rebellion. The only remaining possible causal factor was, of course, culture.

In her conversations with the Samoan adolescent girls, Mead found other striking exceptions to typical Western behavior. The Samoan adolescent girls, she reported, practiced promiscuous sex. A Samoan girl would distribute her sexual favors indiscriminately among many males. According to Mead, the goal of Samoan adolescent girls was to enjoy "many years of casual lovemaking" with many different lovers, while attempting to postpone marriage for as long as possible. Mead described Samoan male adolescents as skillful lovers who's sexual aggressiveness never had to be curbed and "the idea of forceful rape... is completely foreign to the Samoan mind" (quote in Freeman, 1983, p. 93). Mead wrote that, among Samoans, neither males nor females experienced sexual jealousy, or became possessive of their lovers.

Perhaps because of these astonishing findings, Coming of Age in Samoa became a popular best seller. The Samoans' sexual "free love" and their freedom from jealousy, possessiveness, rape, and adolescent turmoil, seemed as alien to Western culture as if the Samoans had come from another planet. For many social scientists, it provided the empirical "proof" they needed to verify cultural determinism. (This was at a time before the philosopher Karl Popper had published his ideas, now generally accepted, that theories are never "proven" in science, but only "corroborated" after surviving many rigorous empirical attempts to falsify them).
Coming of Age in Samoa was used as a textbook for American college undergraduates as a definitive example of the extreme malleability of human nature, as well as the completely arbitrary nature of sex roles. Any claims about the biological influences on behavior, or the suggestion of the existence of underlying universal sex differences, could be easily dismissed with a simple question: "But, what about Samoa?" (Wright, 1994).

Cultural anthropology's research program to support cultural determinism by discovering "negative instances" to putative human universals in various cultures had just begun. To offer further evidence of the malleability of sex roles, in her next book, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Mead reported that she had discovered highly variable sex roles in three tribes in New Guinea:

 

Here, admittedly looking for light on the subject of sex differences, I found three tribes all conveniently within a hundred mile area. In one, both men and women act as we expect women to act--in a mild parental responsive way; in the second, both act as we expect men to act--in a fierce initiating fashion; and in the third, the men act according to our stereotype for women -- are catty, wear curls and go shopping, while the women are energetic, managerial, unadorned partners (from the preface to the 1950 edition)....These three situations suggest, then, a very definite conclusion. ...we no longer have any basis for regarding such aspects of behavior as sex-linked.  (p. 279 - 280)


-----------------------
Insert Figure # here
Map of the Sepik River Cultures
-----------------------


The gender roles that Mead discovered in each of these societies (the feminine Arapesh society, the masculine Mundugumor society and the sex-role reversed Tchambuli society) can be neatly summarized in the following table:

 

Females

Feminine

Masculine

 

Males

Masculine

America, circa 1950s

Mundugumor

Feminine

Arapesh

Tschambuli

 

What implications could be drawn from Mead's discovery? Mead concluded that "Many, if not all, of the personality traits which we have called the masculine or feminine are as lightly linked to sex as are the clothing, the manners, and the form of head-dress that a society at any given time assigns to either sex... the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the strength of social conditioning" (quote in Doyle & Paludi, 1998, p. 93). And the conclusion drawn by many social scientists was similar: there are no biologically mediated behavioral sex differences; the sexes are different in morphology only.

From a political perspective, it is perhaps understandable why these findings were embraced uncritically. If socialization caused sex differences, then, by implication, gender inequalities must be due to socialization as well. Presumably, socialization practices are more easily changed than "intractable" biologically mediated based sex differences. This was good news, politically, because it implied that gender inequalities could be eliminated simply by changing socialization practices. To achieve equality between the sexes, society need not work against ingrained biological predispositions. Nor must society dismantle the erroneous "but its only natural" argument from those who mistakenly assume that what is "natural" must therefore be "good." Not surprisingly, Mead's findings were highly praised and uncritically accepted in the social sciences, in feminist theory, in the humanities, and in popular culture. The older phrase that "Human nature, being what it is…" was replaced with "In our culture, ..." -- and whatever phenomenon that followed this sentence stem was implicitly culturally caused, since things could be so radically different in other cultures.

Although Mead's motives for searching to find cross-cultural variability in sex roles may have been well intentioned, for a certain set of "robust" sex differences there is not as much cross-cultural variability in sex roles as Mead might have imagined (e.g., Brown, DATE, Buss, 1989). There has never existed a culture wherein women, more than men, are more frequently the physical combatants in warfare; where women compete intrasexually more intensely for sexual access to the opposite sex; where men are viewed as "reproductive property" by women and are thus jealously sequestered and guarded; where women are generally more sexually interested in the prospect of casual copulation with a long string of novel sexual partners, where women war parties raid other villages to capture men to stock their harems with husbands; where men invest more time and effort raising young children than do women; where women are more concerned about their partner's chastity or virginity.  None of the above sex role reversals (referring to group averages, rather than individual differences) have been consistently observed in any culture, including the ones that Mead studied on Samoa and New Guinea.

For the Somoans, this was made clear in 1983 by the anthropologist Derek Freeman. In his book Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth Freeman (1983) presented evidence from his own, and others',  observations of the Samoans that -- far from being a haven for adolescent free love, and devoid of sexual jealousy and rape -- the Samoans had a sexually restrictive and protective culture, a cult of virginity, and a rape rate 2.5 times that of the United States. For example, Freeman found that boys who were suspected of having sexual intentions toward a girl were sometimes physically assaulted by the girl's relatives. The girl herself was often castigated or assaulted by her own relatives if she was found with the boy. In Coming of Age in Samoa Mead made the curious statement that "A girl's promiscuity seems to ensure her against pregnancy" (ref). Although Mead documented her informants' fertility (their menstrual cycle), surprisingly none of these sexually active girls got pregnant. Mead did not elaborate on the unexpected inverse relationship promiscuity and pregnancy in a culture that practiced birth control by "violent massage and the chewing of kava" (Mead, 1928, p. 153).

Virgin brides were so valued in Samoa that a public test of their virginity was celebrated on the brides’ wedding day. With two fingers, the groom would publicly rupture his naked bride's hymen, and then hold his bloodied fingers up high for all the assembled to see. Below are the lyrics of a Samoan song sung during a marriage ceremony to celebrate the bride's virginity (Freeman, 1983, p. 232):

The way into the vagina...
The sacred fluid gushes forth...
All others have failed to achieve entry...
He is first by being foremost...
O to be foremost!

If the groom was not "foremost" – should no blood appear on his fingers -- the wedding festivities came to an abrupt halt. The bride was called the equivalent of a "whore," gifts were taken back, the marriage cancelled, and, in some cases, the bride was brutally beaten with clubs, sometimes fatally. This is hardly the peaceful, idyllic society that Mead had portrayed.

Despite the inaccuracy of some of Mead's conclusions in Coming of Age in Samoa, it is unlikely that her accounts of Samoan culture were intentional distortions (for a review of the controversy, see Caton, 1990). She fervently believed and promoted cultural determinism, and she had a pre-conceived notion of the South Seas as romantic, earthly paradise. Mead was also inexperienced. She was only 23, and Samoa was her first anthropological field trip. When she arrived in Samoa, she had only a ten-week introduction to the Samoan language. She choose not to live full time in a Samoan village; instead, she lived with American expatriates who ran a Naval medical dispensary. For her anthropological data, Mead relied largely on the scheduled interviews at the dispensary with her adolescent girl informants.
She did not check to verify the statements of her informants with boys, adults, or with Samoan educational or cultural authorities.

Freeman (1983) reported that all other ethnographers that had studied the Samoans indicated that they (especially the adolescent girls), were very reluctant to discuss sexual matters, particularly with an outsider. Freeman (1983, p. 290) concluded that when Mead "persisted in this unprecedented probing of a highly embarrassing topic, it is likely that these girls resorted... to regaling their inquisitor with counterfeit tales of casual love... "

BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOXBOX



The controversy about Samoan culture was presented the 1988 documentary film by Frank Heimans "Margaret Mead and Samoa" (Heimans, 1988). Below are a few excerpts from several people who were interviewed in the documentary.


Samoan High Chief A. P. Lutali:

I went to the University of Hawaii in 1948. ... it was during an anthropology class that I realized that something was being taught that was not in accordance with our (Samoan) way of life and culture. And during this anthropology class I got up and objected to professor Mason, who was the instructor. I got up and I told him that I do not, and did not believe at that time, to what Margaret Mead was saying in her book about the sex life of the Samoan young people. And he said to me, "How do you know?" And I said, "Well, I should know. I grew up in that culture. I am of the age Margaret Mead is writing about. And that is not true."

Tim O'Meara, anthropologist:

One of the main forms of entertainment in a Samoan village is what I call recreational lying... it is the old pulling people's legs... People tell you stories to get you to believe it. My (Samoan) friends used to do this to me all the time. And often it's about sexual matters....

Samoan Talking Chief Toeaina Muasau:

Margaret Mead was here in 1926... I usually helped her with carrying her mosquito net, typewriters, and some folders for her work. ...I think some girl told her a wrong story. The Samoan people, you know, if they want a laugh (at the expense of) a foreigner... so they told her the wrong story, to influence her to listen to the story, but it was not a true story.


One of Mead's original informants, Fa'apua'a Fa'amu:

I remember her (Margaret Mead) very well... we were like sisters... she asked us what we did after dark. We girls would pinch each other and tell her we were out with the boys. We were only joking but she took it seriously. ...Samoan girls are terrific liars ...we just lied and lied.

Dr. Franaafi Le Tagoloa, Professor of Samoan Studies:

Margaret Mead took away our, perhaps not our humanity so much, as our oneness with other human beings. ...we are no different from you... or (people in) any other place in the world. ...Perhaps it's our cultures that make the semblence of difference.

 

BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOXBOX


As noted earlier, Mead's subsequent book, "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies," managed to neatly fill in the three remaining possible sex-role quadrants with three New Guinea tribes all located "conveniently within a hundred mile area." Like her Samoan work, Mead's methods and conclusions in New Guinea have been criticized as seriously flawed (see review in Daly & Wilson, 1988). Although Mead described both Arapesh males and females as "feminine," her own reports, as well as those of other ethnographers, detail exclusively male warfare and deadly battles over women. Ironically, Mead's own husband published an article titled "Arapesh Warfare" which contradicted Mead's claims about the "gentle" Arapesh (Fortune, 1939). Tuzin (1977, 1980) reported that a young Arapesh male kill an enemy before he was allowed initiation into manhood (females were under no such obligation). Mead described both Mundugumor males and females as "masculine." However, only the males engaged in polygamy and murderously raided other villages to acquire additional wives. The Mundugmor, like the Arapesh, believed that only by killing an enemy could a male achieve fully adult status. Mundugmor women, in contrast, did not raid other villages for husbands and managed to achieve adult status without murderous violence. Among the presumably "sex-role reversed" Tchambuli (now called the Chambri), the males wore make-up which Mead apparently found to be feminine. However, the make-up was more akin to war paint -- they wore it to celebrate the first time a young male had killed an enemy! The victim's heads were hung in the ceremonial house as a trophy. Ethnographers report that the Tchambuli have a long history of warfare, and have exterminated entire villages (Gewertz, 1983).

As suggested by Daly and Wilson (1988), Mead's conclusions in "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies" were a tad bit too tidy:


The dark forces of sexism and ethnocentrism would have us believe that aggressive-male/passive-female constituted the only possible combination. Suddenly, Mead had demolished that claim by filling in the other threecells of the matrix at a single stroke! What could be neater? (p. 150)



Although Mead suggested that in this presumably sex-role reversed society women were dominant over men, Mead wrote that "and yet the men are after all stronger, and a man can beat his wife, and this possibility serves to confuse the whole issue of female dominance (ref)." By 1973, Mead had apparently abandoned her claim about the sex-role reversed Tchambuli: "It is true... that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed..." (quote in Goldberg, 1993, p. 35). In 1974 - 75 the Tchambuli were studied by another anthropologist (Gewertz, 1981). She did not find a sex role reversal in aggressiveness; further, she noted that the political arena was virtually closed to women, and women were expected to hand over the proceeds of their fishing expeditions to their husbands or fathers, who used them to increase their own status.

One commentator remarked that it is the "professional malpractice anthropologists to exaggerate the exotic character of other cultures" (Bloch, 1977, p. 285), and by so doing, overlook the underlying commonalties. Like tourists visiting a distant country, what catches the eye of many cultural anthropologists are cultural differences. As we mentioned in Chapter 1, although languages can be very different in various cultures, all people share the universal human nature that predisposes young children to learn a language almost effortlessly. It can be easy to overlook the underlying commonalties, or the "human nature," beneath some superficial cultural differences.


Culture

Mead’s Characterization

Subsequent Evidence

Tchambuli

Sex role reversed

Only males are warriors, and are allowed to paint their faces (which Mead considered "make-up",
and thus feminine) only after having killed an enemy. Kinship was patrilineal, polygyny was practised, and wives were sometimes purchased by men (Brown, 1991).

Arapesh

Both males and females are
feminine.

A young Arapesh male must commit a homicide in order to be initiated into manhood.

Mundugmore

Both men and women are violent and aggressive.

Men, but not women, raided other villages for heads and wives. All males, but not females, were obliged to kill an enemy before achieving
fully adult status.

 



Although both Mead’s research methods, and her conclusions, are no longer considered valid by most anthropologists, in adjacent social sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology, gender studies, sexuality studies, feminist theory) Mead's reports are still cited uncritically to support cultural determinism. Minderhout (1986) found that in 61 psychology and 51 sociology textbooks, Mead was the most frequently cited anthropologist, and that Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies was her most frequently cited work. In several textbooks, Mead's works are still cited to support the conclusion that sex roles are arbitrary and socially constructed (see the box for some examples). Ironically, although it is largely ignored, in later life Mead herself questioned whether cultural determinism was sufficient to explain persistent, cross-cultural sex differences. Mead wrote in the introduction of the 1962 edition of Male and Female: “...I would, if I were writing it  today, lay more emphasis on man's specific biological inheritance from earlier human forms and also on parallels between Homo sapiens and other... species." To her credit, Mead apparently was willing to revise her views as more scientific evidence became available (Townsend, 1998). 

BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOXBOX



Margaret Mead's conclusion that sex roles are arbitrary and purely socially constructed is still presented uncritically in several recent psychology, human sexuality, and gender differences textbooks.


PASSAGES FROM HUMAN SEXUALITY TEXTBOOKS


From Sexuality in a World of Diversity (Nevid, Fichner-Rathus, & Rathus, 1995):

In Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Mead laid the ground-work for recent psychological and sociological research challenging gender-role stereotypes. ...Mead concluded that these stereotypes are not inherent in our genetic heritage. Rather, they are acquired through cultural expectations and socialization. That is, men and women learn to behave in ways that are expected of them in their particular culture. (p. 25)

From "Our Sexuality" (Crooks & Baur, 1990):

In several societies, the differences between males and females that we often assume to be innate are simply not evident. In fact, Margaret Mead's classic book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) reveals that other societies may have very different views about what is considered feminine or masculine. ...Because there is no evidence that people in these societies are biologically different from Americans, their often diametrically different interpretations of what is masculine and what is feminine seem to result from different processes of social learning. (p. 74)

From Human Sexuality Today (King, 1996):

...completely opposite gender roles can be found in cultures living in close proximity to one another. Margaret Mead (1935, 1975), for example, described a tribe in New Guinea... (p. 204)

PASSAGES FROM INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY TEXTBOOKS


From Foundations of Contemporary Psychology (Schlenker & Severy, 1979):

Margaret Mead (1949) in her classic work... describes various New Guinea cultures wherein it is the female who is responsible, makes all the decisions, and is aggressive -- with the males being docile, submissive, and homebodies. (ADD: p. )

From Essentials of Psychology (Rathus, 1997):

The experiences of anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935) on the South Pacific island of New Guinea showed how the sociocultural milieu influences motives such as aggressiveness and nurturance. Among the Mundugumor... (p. 410).

PASSAGES FROM SOME GENDER DIFFERENCES TEXTBOOKS


From Sex and Gender, An Introduction (Lips, 1997):

In the realm of sex and gender, the pioneer of cross-cultural research was anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935), who's research in New Guinea demonstrated that cultures could and did differ dramatically in their notions of masculinity and femininity. ...Her book contrasted the Arapesh.... (p. 88)

From Sex and Gender: The Human Experience (Doyle & Paludi, 1998):

During the early 1930s, Margaret Mead set off to explore the ways that gender roles were defined among several preliterate societies in northeastern New Guinea. There Mead found the material for what was to become the basis for the now classic study of gender roles entitled Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935/1963). Each of the three societies that Mead studied -- the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli -- had very different conceptions of what was expected of women and men. ...(Mead's results suggest that) culture is an important -- if not the sole -- factor in shaping one's gender presentation." (p. 97,98)

From A World Full of Women (Ward, 1996, p. 30, 38, 49):

Many of us who teach gender turn to this book (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies). It informs, provokes, and illustrates. ...these small, intact cultures seemed to play with elaborate permutations of being male or female.  ...These three groups showed Mead that a culture may impose personalities and patterns on one gender or both genders that are only a subset of the whole spectrum of possibilities available to human beings. ...We see that gender roles are not fixed, rigid, or defined for all time. Sex roles are not divinely assigned nor inherent in something we call "nature."

From Questions of Gender: Perspectives and Paradoxes (Anselmi & Law, 1998):

It is questionable whether the concept of human nature means anything... (based on the work of Margaret Mead) (Hubbard, 1998, p. 151).

BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX



“Biophobia” in the Social Sciences


Especially with respect to sex differences, most social scientists for the past century have been acutely "biophobic." Any biological and evolutionary analysis of behavioral sex differences have been labeled "biological determinism," "sexist" or "reductionistic." Daly and Wilson (1988) wrote that "It is our conviction that the biophobia that is rampant in the social sciences is founded more in ignorance than in a reasoned critique of evolutionary theory (ADD p. #)."

Intellectual disagreements in academia generally do not result in fisticuffs, however, when evolutionary analyses of behavior began to re-emerge after the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's book Sociobiology, the academic climate, at times, became more hotly political than coolly scientific. A letter highly critical of Wilson's book was published in the November, 1975 issue of the New York Review of Books. It had sixteen signatories, including two of Wilson's colleagues at Harvard, Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin. The letter claimed that sociobiological theories "provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or sex... (such groups) have drawn support from... these products of the scientific community... (and) provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws and restrictive immigration laws by the United States between 1910 and 1930, and also for the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany" (noted in Fisher, 1992, p. 74). A pitcher of water was dumped on Wilson at a scientific conference by members of a leftist group called "Science for the People."  In their book "Not in Our Genes" Lewontin, Rose and Kamin (1984) mis-quoted a passage from Richard Dawkins' (1976) book "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins had written that genes "...created us, body and mind"; these authors changed "created" to "control" in this passage. Their misquote attributed a vastly different meaning than the one intended by Dawkins. When the cultural anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (1988) reported that 25 percent of all Yanomamo Indian males are murdered or killed in tribal warfare,  his work was denounced by colleagues who found it was at odds with polyannish views of "primitive" people living in harmony with nature and each other.

When the respected journal Scientific American published an article critical of behavioral genetics, it was titled "Eugenics Revisited" (Horgan, 1993). Another article in Scientific American, critical of evolutionary psychology, was titled "The New Social Darwinists" (Horgan, 1995). Evolutionary researchers viewed such titles as slurs and mis-characterizations their discipline by associating them with old and discredited political movements that had nothing to do their own personal philosophies, or their work (Pinker, 1997).

After Freeman's (1983) refutation of Mead's Samoan work was published the American Anthropological Association voted to denounce his findings as unscientific at its annual meeting in 1983. Freeman (in Heimans, 1988) commented that:


This is a quite extraordinary event because the scientific truth is something that cannot be settled politically -- it's something that depends on the evidence. And I realized when this news reached me that in fact my refutation had been a great success because it had prompted these people into this quite extraordinary reaction.


Voting on the scientific truth was not limited to this one instance. There is a consistent sex difference in physical aggression -- males are far more likely the engage in these behaviors than are females -- and this is true in most species, including humans. This suggests that aggression is a sex-linked trait and thus biologically influenced. At a 1986 meeting titled "Brain and Aggression" twenty social scientists drafted "The Seville Statement on Violence." It was subsequently printed twice in the journal American Psychologist (Seville Statement, 1990; Scott & Ginsburg, 1994). The statement was designed to "challenge a number of alleged biological findings that have been used... to justify violence and war." The Seville Statement concluded that "it is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors... that other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature... that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior... " What are the causes of war, then?  The Seville Statement concluded that warfare is purely "a product of culture."
Several international scientific societies officially endorsed the Seville Statement's conclusions about what is "scientifically incorrect," including American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Orthopsychiatric Association, and the American Sociological Association. As noted by Freeman earlier, this is surprising, because, again, what is "scientifically correct" cannot be determined by vote or official proclamation -- it is dependent on the results of many independent empirical investigations. Fox (1988, p. 4) suggested that the Seville Statement was a "shop worn denunciation of ideas" that misrepresented the views of evolutionary biologists.

Of such biophobia Pinker (1997, p. 46) asked "What moral certainty could have incited these scholars to doctor quotations, censor ideas, attack the ideas' proponents ad hominem, smear them with unwarranted associations to repugnant political movements, and mobilize powerful institutions to legislate what is (scientifically) correct and incorrect?" He suggested that such over-reactions were due to several misunderstandings, including some of those noted in the following table.


Concerns about misunderstandings by laypersons and politicians about biological influences on behavior, and some potential solutions to these misunderstandings.

Potential Misunderstandings

Possible Solutions

Naive acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy.

Identify and dismantle the false idea that what is "natural" is necessarily "good."

Erroneous belief that natural selection always produces biological and social progress.

An understanding that evolution is blind to any future goals, and does not necessarily result in "progress."

Unrealistic belief that social attempts to modify negative behaviors will be futile if behavior is biologically influenced.

An appreciation that an understanding of  biological causality may be used to make social interventions more effective.

Unwarranted expectation that individuals may not be held accountable for their behavior if that behavior is determined to be biologically influenced.

If behavior is "caused," it is irrelevant if the causes are social or biological.  Understanding the causation of behavior may help develop interventions to prevent or change undesirable behaviors.

Concern that within-sex variability will be ignored or minimized when average sex differences are reported. Social policy might be based on average group sex differences.

Individuals should be assessed and appreciated as individuals – not conceptualized as a miniature model of of a group.  Virtually the entire range of temperaments and abilities is expressed in the variability between individuals within each sex.


 
Today, most evolutionary researchers believe that no moral or political philosophy can be derived from the operation of natural phenomena. We wouldn't expect geology, chemistry or astronomy to provide us with answers to moral questions; neither should we expect to find moral guidance in the operation of evolutionary processes. Eventually, evolutionary psychology may help us understand why we have evolved a sense of ethics and morality, but it cannot tell us what the content of moral systems should be (Barash, 1982). Because biologically based theories of behavior have been misunderstood and misused for political purposes, they have often been pigeonholed as potential tools for right-wing or "anti-progressive" politics (e.g., see Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Lips, 1997). But cultural determinism, too, has had its share of political misappropriations. It has served as the philosophical foundation for some nefarious left-wing political platforms (Pinker, 1997). The idea that humans are born an empty "tabula raza” and that, throughout life, behavior is easily pliable and purely socially constructed, was used as a justification for Marxism, communist dictatorships, the "re-education" camps in the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s, the Stalinist purges, the failed communes and group marriages of the 1960s flower children, the early attempts by Israeli kibbutzim to socially engineer relations between the sexes, (and between mothers and
their children), etc. Although Marxist and leftist ideas of behavioral equipotentiality have led to genocide and repession, the supporting SSSM theories were left largely untarnished by such distasteful associations (Turner, Mulder, Cosmides, Giesen, Hodgson, Maryanski, Shennan, Tooby and Velichkovsky, 1997) Margaret Mead (1935, p. 310) suggested that "The knowledge that the personalities of the two sexes are socially produced is congenial to every programme that looks forward towards a planned order of society. It makes possible a Communist programme in which the two sexes are treated as nearly alike as their different physiological functions permit."

An over-emphasis on purely cultural causality has led some to see medical complaints, including menstrual cramps, pregnancy sickness and childbirth pain, as manifestations of purely cultural factors. Cultural determinists tended to blame mothers for their children's' schizophrenia, autism, homosexuality, and anti-social behavior -- disorders for which there is now evidence are biologically predisposed (ref). Adults suffering from psychological dysfunctions, including depression, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, obesity, etc., were thought by cultural determinists to simply have been subject to inappropriate social conditioning. Behavior modification, psychotherapy, or psychoanalysis were often hyped as easy cures for such defective learning. However, the results of psychotherapy were not often robust, and with many "problems of living" these interventions were not much more effective than a placebo, talking to a friend or a para-professional, or the simple passage of time (for a review see Dawes, 1994).

In conclusion, the goal of the psychological and social sciences is to as objectively as possible investigate the causes of behavior. The scientific validity a behavioral theory should not hinge on whether it has been misused for political purposes (by either the political left or right). Pinker (1997, p. 48) appropriately suggested that we should "expose whatever ends are harmful and whatever ideas are false, and not confuse the two."

Sex differences and the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM)


With cultural determinism serving as its intellectual paradigm during the 20th century, the social sciences developed under a certain set of explicit and implicit assumptions. Tooby and Cosmides (1992) referred to this paradigm the "Standard Social Science Model" (SSSM), which was introduced in Chapter 1. More specifically, the assumptions and postulates of the SSSM include the following.

The SSSM assumes that at some point in human evolution human intelligence evolved to some critical level of complexity. Once it had reached that point the human mind had acquired the "capacity for culture" (rather like a computer that has the capacity to run any program). As infants, humans are all presumably endowed with the same content-free, domain-general learning mechanism. Domain-general brain/mind processes operate the same regardless of the information input or problem to be solved, and this allows the learning of virtually any behavior with equal ease. Human behavior may "evolve," but only in an ontogenetic (developmental) sense as the behavior of an individual is selected by social reinforcement and punishment. As individuals are socialized by their culture, they eventually come to resemble other members of that culture. Culture is the "programmer" of the general-purpose human brain/mind. Causality flows from culture to mold the individual, not vice versa.

In the SSSM, psychology and cultural anthropology work synergistically. Psychology (especially social learning theory) identifies and describes the general learning processes (e.g., reinforcement, punishment, extinction, habituation, observational learning), and cultural anthropology supplies a variety of examples of the unlimited varieties of behavior that different cultures can produce. Because the brain/mind is initially content free, the social sciences can be conceptualized as disciplines separate from, and independent of, biology. Culture is transmitted generation after generation via the process of socialization, as indicated in the following diagram.

A Simplified Representation of the Standard Social Science Model



In the SSSM, the two sexes are presumed to have identical general purpose learning mechanisms. Average group differences between the sexes are therefore due to differential socialization of each sex. Because socialization practices vary in different cultures, the variability in sex roles that Margaret Mead purportedly found in New Guinea and Samoa is exactly what one would expect to find. More generally, if we were to randomly sample the "sex roles" in cultures widely separated in time or place, the SSSM predicts we would find random variation in gender dimorphic behavior. The random variability between cultures might look something like the hypothetical situation presented in Diagram #, regardless of the sex difference diagrammed, e.g., physical aggression, desire for sexual partner variety, investment in offspring, risk taking behavior, sexual jealousy, etc.

 

Random Variability in Sex Role Behavior Predicted by
the SSSM in a Set of Hypothetical Cultures



The integrated model


The assumptions of the SSSM may initially appear reasonable. We have all "felt" praise and punishment, we know how it feels to be ignored, and we have all imitated the behavior of others. During our life, we have seen our own behavior "evolve" as a consequence of socialization in our own culture. However, despite the intuitive appeal of the SSSM, a convergence of theory and data in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, and evolutionary biology suggest that it has several serious shortcomings (Cosmides & Tooby, date). For example, research in artificial intelligence suggests that the a content-free, domain-general information processor  that the SSSM assumes to be characteristic of the human brain/mind is an impossibility.

Like the human brain/mind, at first impression a computer may also appear to be a domain general machine. It can do a variety of tasks, such as word processing, playing chess, producing music, surfing the web, and searching databases -- so it initially appears to be a domain general machine. On closer inspection, however, a computer can be seen to have extremely domain-specific physical components. But with only these mechanisms it can do nothing -- it still must be preprogrammed with many domain-specific software procedures before it can do anything useful.  It cannot produce useful output unless it is preprogrammed to "know" how to process certain types of input. Even computers programmed with software that can "learn" have a large number of preprogrammed rules that make learning itself possible.

The Integrated Model suggests that the human brain, too, is preprogrammed to solve a variety of problems. Far from being a content-free tabula raza, humans are born "pre-wired" (or are "wired up" during normal development) with a set of mental mechanisms designed by natural selection to solve the survival and reproductive problems that repeatedly confronted our ancestors. These domain-specific modules not only guide learning in certain directions, but also make learning itself possible.

One of the goals of the Integrated Model is to identify and understand the operation of domain-specific "mental organs." In total, mental mechanism can be conceptualized as human nature. All humans have a "physiological nature" (we all have livers, hearts, kidneys -- all designed to solve domain-specific problems). The Integrated Model suggests that all humans also share a psychic unity -- we all share the same "psychological nature" (consisting of a set of species-wide "mental organs" to solve domain-specific problems). These information-processing modules are triggered by specific types of input (certain environmental or social situations), and the information is analyzed using a particular set of procedures or decision rules. Most of these procedures are not simple, rigid "instincts," but flexible and facultative cognitive heuristics that tend to guide one toward historically adaptive solutions.  Such modules resulted in problem solving that, on average, increased the reproductive success of our ancestors.

These ideas about mental mechanisms may seem counter-intuitive to you. Most of this problem solving takes place without conscious awareness. Just as we are not conscious of the problem-solving activities of our body organs (e.g., we don't feel our liver extracting toxins from our blood), neither are we conscious the functioning of the great majority of our mental mechanisms. In addition, since evolution requires many generations to design mental modules, we've never observed, or "felt," one evolve, at least not in the same way that we have consciously felt the impact of socialization. We may, however, experience the output of these modules as emotions (desires, fears, aversions, etc.) or physical sensations (pain, "butterflys in the stomach," pleasure, etc.). But when we do, we don't know where these feelings come from. They just "are," they don't seem to demand an explanation. If asked why we wanted to eat an orange, we don't respond with answers about physiological mechanisms such as maintaining optimal levels of sugar and vitamin C in our blood. Instead we say "It tastes good." Since humans share a evolved psychic unity (the same set of mental mechanisms), we all understand what that means (although it is not much of an explanation).
ADD:
-- facultative (callouses example)
-- helps one think about what is an important observation, it "carves nature at its joints"

The Integrated Model suggests that behavior evolves on two levels simultaneously. The first level is phylogenetic, as mental mechanisms evolve over many generations to solve the survival and reproductive problems for a species in a particular ecological niche. The second level is accomplished as evolved mental mechanisms operate to "fine-tune" behavior throughout ontogenetic development -- to flexibly solve specific problems in the current environment -- particularly in light of previous personal experience with the situation and the problem. That is, the Integrated Model suggests that when we solve problems, we do so with the benefit of two integrated processes: our own personal experience integrated with the "wisdom" we have inherited (embodied in our mental mechanisms) from our ancestors. As shown in Diagram #, an evolutionary circuit is made with each generation to select those genes that create physiological and mental mechanisms that, on average, help to increase reproductive success. Genes that have the effect of decreasing reproductive success rapidly go extinct.

 

A Simple Representation of the Integrated Model

 




The Integrated Models presumes that the two sexes, as members of the same species adapting to a particular ecological niche, for the most part share same set of evolved mental mechanisms (Buss, 1994). For example, both sexes grieve at the loss of a relative and smile when happy. Reproductively, however, the two sexes are rather like two subspecies -- each adapting to a different reproductive niche (as we learned in Chapter 4). To the extent that each sex faces a different set of reproductive problems, the Integrated Model anticipates that sex each would have evolved a somewhat different set of mental mechanisms designed to help solve these unique problems. The Integrated Model predicts that these sexually dimorphic adaptations will be found across time and cultures, as noted in Diagram #.

 

Non-random Cultural Variation for Sexually Dimorphic
Adaptations as Predicted by the Integrated Model


 




 

 

A review of some important differences between the Integrated Model and the SSSM can be seen in the following table.  As noted by Cosmides and Tooby (1998, p. #), the SSSM "is no historical relic: it remains highly influential."  However, as additional evidence accumulates, we believe that the Integrated Model will eventually supersede outdated and false "nature vs. nurture" dichotomies. In the future, the study of sex differences will tend to focus on sexually
dimorphic adaptations.

ADD (from old text chapter): Table #

Summary of Some Differences Between the Integrated Model and the Standard Social Science Model

Evaluating competing theories

Imagine that you are in a debate. Say that you have taken the Integrated Model perspective and your task is to convince a proponent of the SSSM that, for example, the average height difference between the sexes is an evolved, biological adaptation due to sexual selection. Suppose your opponent takes extreme cultural determinist position. He might argue that males are taller than females solely because of cultural factors -- that biological factors have no, or very insignificant, influence in causing this sex difference. For example, he might argue that males are preferentially provided better nutrition throughout their youth. Or that females are not encouraged to exercise. Or that females are encouraged to diet to remain thin (to look like the models in magazines), and therefore malnourish themselves and stunt their growth. Anorexia and bulimia, he points out, are primarily female disorders. Boys, on the other hand, are encouraged to muscle up for games like football. It might be argued that if these social factors were changed, and females and males were treated equally with respect to nutrition and exercise, the average height difference between males and females would disappear. 

What arguments might you use to counter these points? You might take a proximate approach and try to identify the gene (or genes), or hormones (e.g., human growth hormone), responsible for the sex difference in height. Or, you might take an ultimate approach and present the evolutionary theory of sexual selection and male intrasexual competition for sexual access to females, as we examined earlier. You might present the data that suggests that this theory appears to be well corroborated in many different species. The more male-male direct fighting there is, the greater the sexual dimorphism. It is quite reasonable, you argue, to assume that the same evolutionary principles apply to humans as well. You might also attempt to make the other side shoulder the burden of proof. You point out that the sexual size dimorphism is true cross-culturally, there has never been a known culture in which females are taller, on average, than males. You pose the following question to the SSSM supporter: Why do cultures widely separated in time and place spontaneously produce similar cultural systems that cause such similar sexual dimorphism? Since cultural determinists assume that humans have no "nature", cultures should be free to vary in any direction on any trait. Cross-cultural similarities
thus tend to suggest biological causality.

Our hypothetical debate is actually quite similar to current debates between been proponents of the SSSM and the Integrated Model. How do scientists decide which side "wins?" What makes one theory better (more generally accepted by scientists) than another? Generally, a good theory must be parsimonious and explain observed data (particularly over a wide spectrum of phenomena) better than competing theories. As we discussed in Chapter 1, it is very impressive if, within its theoretical framework, a theory can explain observations that heretofore were particularly puzzling; especially those puzzling observations that other competing theories have great difficulty explaining.

Adaptationism and human sex differences

Predicted robust sex differences

As was noted at the outset of this book, males and females are far more similar than they are different. Our task here, however, is to identify the set of basic
evolved adaptations that are different in men and women. Since our focus is on sex differences, not similarities, our task is to sort through behavioral sex differences to see if we can find underlying biological sex difference "signals" among the "noise" of cultural (and within-sex) variations. Later in this chapter we will explore various research methods that are used to help identify sexually dimorphic adaptations.

The terms "sex" and "gender" are used differently by various investigators, as was noted in Chapter 2. Here, we will define "sex differences" as those average group differences that likely represent different evolved adaptations in women and men. An example of a sex difference would be the Coolidge Effect (male sexual re-arousal by a novel sexual partner), as was discussed in Chapter 6. We should expect to see cross-cultural consistency in sex differences, although the outward manifestation of the sex differences may be somewhat different in various cultures, or in certain situations.
ADD:  Stuff from my “sex” vs. “gender” paper

We will define "gender differences" as those average group differences between men and women for which there is little reason to believe are evolved adaptations. Or, they may be distant and highly variable side effects (or "spandrels") of adaptations. Bone is adaptation, but the white color of bone is not -- it white because calcium is white. The color of bone is then a side effect of an adaptation. With respect to sex differences, the tendency to wear trousers or dresses, cutting one's hair short or long, or wearing makeup are not likely to be evolved adaptations. Thus, using our terminology, these are gender differences, not sex differences. We would expect gender differences to be highly variable across time and cultures.

Using our terminology, we should note that currently there is a fairly large gray area between evolved sex differences (dimorphic adaptations) and gender differences (side effects, or spandrels, of adaptations). Future research is needed to sort out some of these phenomena, including "motherese" (the tendency of mothers to talk "baby talk" to their infants), childhood toy preferences, and occupational choice.  Again, if there is substantial cross-cultural consistency, it would be classified as a sex difference since it is likely a consequent of a sexually dimorphic adaptation.

As we reviewed in Chapter 4, evolutionary theory predicts a basic set of evolved sex differences. To review, gamete dimorphism results in two fundamental
differences between the sexes: (a) maximum reproductive rate (or maximum potential offspring -- males virtually unlimited/females limited) and (b) maternity/paternity differentials (females assured of maternity/males insecure about paternity). As a consequence, men and women, on average, will tend to pursue somewhat different, and to some extent conflicting, reproductive strategies. Collectively, these conflicts of reproductive interests may be termed the "battle of the sexes."

The resulting "battle of the sexes"

We can summarize the set of evolved sex differences, and the resulting conflict of interests between the sexes in the table below.

 

Conflict Area

Males

Females

A. Conflicts resulting from differences in maximum potential number of offspring (and resulting higher male reproductive variance):

1. Sexual discrimination

Less

More

2. Age of mate preferences

Tend to find females of high fertility (between about 17 - 28 most) sexually attractive

 

Tend to find somewhat older men more attractive (to the extent that somewhat older men have, on average, greater status and wealth)

3. Sexual partner variety

Tend to prefer sexual partner variety for its own sake

Less so.

4. Commitment to monogamy

More commitment avoidant

More commitment oriented

5. Physical Aggression and risk taking

More

Less

B. Conflicts resulting from differences in assurance of genetic parentage

6. Parental investment

Less

More

7. Jealousy

Primary focus: sexual infidelity

Primary focus: commitment infidelity

C. Long term mating conflicts

8. Marriage

Seeks sexual fidelity from partner and sexual access to partner

Sees long term commitment, resource provisioning, partner status, and protection

9. Divorce

Husband will tend to leave if he discovers his wife’s sexual infidelity

Wife will tend to leave if her husband consumes more resources than he provides, loses status, or diverts resources to other women



STOP HERE

Wilson, 1975, p. 155:
Sex is an antisocial force in evolution. Bonds are formed between individuals in spite of sex and not because of it. Perfect societies, if we can be so bold as to define them as societies that lack conflict and possess the highest degree of altruism and coordination, are most likely to evolve where all of the members are genetically identical. When sexual reproduction is introduced, members of the group become genetically dissimilar. Parents and offspring are separated by at least a one-half reduction of the genes shared through common descent and mates by even more. The inevitable result is a conflict of interest. The male will profit more if he can inseminate additional females, even at the risk of losing that portion of inclusive fitness invested in the offspring of his first mate. Conversely, the female will profit if she can retain the full-time aid of the male, regardless of the genetic cost imposed on him by denying him extra mates.
Because we tend to project our own desires, perceptions and beliefs onto the opposite sex (that is, we "construct other minds as our own"), the behavior of the opposite sex will at times seem very puzzling. To deal with this cognitive dissonance, and to explain the behavior of other people, we tend to ask the question "Why would I do that?" We then proceed to attribute our own motivations and perceptions to them to explain and judge puzzling behavior. Unfortunately, this is likely to lead to still further misperceptions and misinterpretations.
Based on the two fundamental differences between the sexes, in general, we should expect to find a tendency for males and females to express the following perceptions:
The "battle of the sexes" is predicted by evolutionary theory, but how can we determine if these differences do in fact exist? First, we would expect that these differences would be manifested in cultures widely separated in time and/or place. Ironically, we might expect to see these differences somewhat "exaggerated" in homosexuals, since they do not have to compromise their sexuality with the opposite sex. In addition, we would expect that these basic gender differences would have been observed by some of the most perceptive writers, artists and psychologists, regardless of their ignorance of evolutionary theory.
From: Diamond, p. 18 - 19 In particular, while natural selection favors both males and females that leave many offspring, the best strategy for doing so may be different for fathers and mothers. That generates a built-in conflict between the parents, a conclu- sion that all too many humans don't need scientists to re- veal to them. We make jokes about the battle of the sexes, but the battle is neither a joke nor an aberrant accident of
THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES 19
law individual father or mothers behave on particular oc- is in a ale's genetic interests may not necessarily be in the inter- ,ts of his female co-parent, and vice versa. That cruel fact one of the fundamental causes of human misery.
Consider again the case of the male and female that eve just copulated to produce a fertilized egg and now ace the "choice" of what to do next. If the egg has some Lance of surviving unassisted, and if both the mother and He father could produce many more fertilized eggs in the gg, then the interests of the mother and father coincide in Leserting the egg. But now suppose that the newly fertil- zed, laid, or hatched egg or newborn offspring has ab- olutely zero chance of surviving unless it is cared for by ne parent. Then there is indeed a conflict of interest. should one parent succeed in foisting the obligation of Parental care onto the other parent and then going off in search of a new sex partner, then the roister will have ad- vanced her or his genetic interests at the expense of the abandoned parent. The roister will really promote his or her selfish evolutionary goals by deserting his or her mate and offspring.
NEW From: Diamond, p. 18 - 19 In particular, while natural selection favors both males and females that leave many offspring, the best strategy for doing so may be different for fathers and mothers. That generates a built-in conflict between the parents, a conclu- sion that all too many humans don't need scientists to re- veal to them. We make jokes about the battle of the sexes, but the battle is neither a joke nor an aberrant accident of
THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES 19
law individual father or mothers behave on particular oc- is in a ale's genetic interests may not necessarily be in the inter- ,ts of his female co-parent, and vice versa. That cruel fact one of the fundamental causes of human misery.
Consider again the case of the male and female that eve just copulated to produce a fertilized egg and now ace the "choice" of what to do next. If the egg has some Lance of surviving unassisted, and if both the mother and He father could produce many more fertilized eggs in the gg, then the interests of the mother and father coincide in Leserting the egg. But now suppose that the newly fertil- zed, laid, or hatched egg or newborn offspring has ab- olutely zero chance of surviving unless it is cared for by ne parent. Then there is indeed a conflict of interest. should one parent succeed in foisting the obligation of Parental care onto the other parent and then going off in search of a new sex partner, then the roister will have ad- vanced her or his genetic interests at the expense of the abandoned parent. The roister will really promote his or her selfish evolutionary goals by deserting his or her mate and offspring.

.sh 2 Methods of testing predicted sex differences.

.sh 3 Sex difference consistencies across cultures.

----------- There are at least two ways to do this. First, one could attempt to discover which gender differences are consistent between cultures (despite some superficial differences in manifestation).
One might then suspect that this difference represents a hidden gender "signal" -- a robust gender difference that is somehow biologically mediated. This might be called the "deductive" approach to isolating robust gender differences.
We might also use another approach, in "inductive" approach. We might first see what robust gender differences are predicted by evolutionary theory, and then attempt to see if, in fact, these differences are indeed cross-culturally consistent.
------

.sh 2 "HOMOSEXUALS AS EXEMPLIFYING SEXUAL PREDISPOSITIONS WITHOUT COMPROMISE"

In that homosexuals do not have to compromise with the opposite sex, Symons (1979) argues that their behavior may exemplify
that sex's strategy in its pure form. In general, it tends to conform to the above set of predictions.
from Buss, 1994, page 60-63
The premium that men place on a mate's appearance is not limited to
heterosexuals. Homosexual relationships provide an acid test for the evo-
lutionary basis of sex differences in the desires for a mate.33 The issues
are whether homosexual men show preferences more or less like those
of other men, differing only in the sex of the person they desire, whether




they show preferences similar to those of women; or whether they have
uni~ue preferences unlike the typical preferences of either sex.
No one knows what the exact percentage of homosexuals is in any cul-
ture7 past or present. Part of the diffculty lies with definitions. The sex-
ologist Alfred Kinsey estimated that more than a third of all men
engaged at some point in life in some form of homosexual activity, typi-


M E N W A N T S O M E T H I N C E 1. S E
61

cally as part of adolescent experimentation. Far fewer people, however,express '~ stn)ng preference for the same sex as a mate. Conservative
estimates put the tigure at about 3 to 4 percent for men and 1 percent
for women.34 The discrepancy between the percentages of people who
have engaged in some kinds of homosexual acts and people who express
a core preference for partners of the same sex suggests an important dis-
tinction between the underlying psychology of preference and the out-
ward manifestation of behavior. Many men who prefer women as mates
may nonetheless sllbstitute a man as a sex partner, either because of an
inability to attract women or because of a temporary situational con-
straint that precludes access to women, such as being in prison.
No one knows why some people have a strong preference for mem-
bers of their own sex as mates, although this lack of knowledge has not
held back speculation. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection the-
ory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when
some people served better as an aide to their close genetic relatives
than as a reproducer.35 For example, an ancestral man who had diffi-
culty in attracting a woman might have been better off investing effort
in his sister's children than in trying to secure a mate himself. A related
theory is that some parents manipulate particular children7 perhaps

those who might have a lower value on the mating market, to become
homosexual in order to aid other family members, even if it would be in
the child's best reproductive interest to reproduce directly.36 No current
evidence exists to support either of these theories. The origins of homo-
sexuality remain a mystery.
Homosexual preferences in a mate, in contrast, are far less mysten-
ous. Studies document the great importance that homosexual men place
on the youth and physical appearance of their partners. William
Jankowiak and his colleagues asked homosexual and heterosexual indi-
viduals, both men and women, to rank sets of photographs of men and
women differing in age on physical attractiveness.37 Homosexual and
heterosexual men alike rank the younger partners as consistently more
attractive. Neither lesbian nor heterosexual women, on the contrary,
place any importance on youth in their ranking of attracti~eness. These
results suggest that lesbian women are very much like heterosexual
women in their mate preferences, except with respect to the sex of the
erson they desire. And homosexual men are similar to heterosexual
men in their mate preferences.
The psychologists Kay Deaux and Randel Hanna conducted the most
systematic study of homosexual mate preferences.35 They collected eight
hundred ads from several East Coast and West Coast newspapers,
equally sampling male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, male homo-


fi2 '1' 11 1~ ' v () 1. 11 '1 1 o N () 1~' I) 1~: 5 I 1~

sexuals, and female homosexuals. Using a coding scheme, they calcu-
lated the frequency with which each of these groups offers and seeks
particular characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, financial secu-
rity, and personality traits.
Lesbians tend to be similar to heterosexual women in placing little
emphasis on physical appearance, with only 19.5 percent of the hetero-
sexual women and 18 percent of the lesbians mentioning this quality. In
contrast, 48 percent of heterosexual men and 29 percent of homosexual
men state that they are seeking attractive partners. Among all groups,
lesbians list their own physical attractiveness less often than any other
group; mentions appear in only 30 percent of their ads. Heterosexual
women, in contrast, offer attractiveness in 69.5 percent of the ads, male
homosexuals.in 53.5 percent of the ads, and male heterosexuals in 42.5
percent of the ads. Only 16 percent of the lesbians request a photo-
graph of respondents to their ads, whereas 35 percent of heterosexual
women, 34.5 percent of homosexual men, and 37 percent of heterosex-
ual men make this request.
Lesbians are distinct from the other three groups in specifying fewer
physical characteristics, such as weight, height, eye color, or body build.
Whereas only 7 percent of lesbian women mention their desire for spe-
cific physical attributes, 20 percent of heterosexual women, 38 percent
of homosexual men, and 33.5 percent of heterosexual men request par-
ticular physical traits. And as with overall attractiveness, lesbians stand
out in that only 41.5 percent list physical attributes among their assets
offered, whereas 64 percent of heterosexual women, 74 percent of
homosexual men, and 71.5 percent of heterosexual men offer particular
physical assets. It is clear that homosexual men are similar to heterosex-
ual men in the premium they place on physical appearance. Lesbians are
more like heterosexual women in their desires, but where they differ,
they place even less value on physical qualities, both in their offerings
an~ in the qualities they seek.
Less formal studies confirm the centrality of youth and physical appear-
ance for male homosexuals. Surveys of the gay mating market consistently
find that physical attractiveness is the key determinant of the desirability
of a potential partner. Male homosexuals place great emphasis on dress,
grooming, and physical condition. And youth is a key ingredient in judg-
ing attractiveness: "Age is the monster figure of the gay world."39
The sociologists Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwart~ found that
the physical beauty of a partner is critical to the desires of homosexual
and heterosexual men more than to lesbian or heterosexual women
even among already coupled individuals.40 All members of their sample
were in relationships. They found that 57 percent of gay men and 59

M F. N ~ N '1- 5 () M l~. 'I' 11 I N ('. 1~' 1. S ~

percent of lleterosex~lal meIl feel thi-t it is important that thcir partller ;
be sexy looking. In contrast, only 31 percent of the heterosexual women
and 35 percent of the lesbians state that sexy looks are important in a 1 I
partner. Male homosexuals and male heterosexuals seem to have indis- l I
tinguishable mating preferences, except with respect to the sex of their
preferred partner. Both place a premium on appearance, and youth is a
central ingredient in their definition of beauty.

from Buss, 1994, page 70
Homosexual mate preferences, ironically, provide a testament to the
depth of these evolved psychological mechanisms. The fact that physical
appearance figures centrally in homosexual men's mate preferences, and
that youth is a key ingredient in their standards of beauty, suggests that not
even variations in sexual orientation alter these fundamental mechanisms.
from Buss, 1994, page 84
A further clue to the significant role of casual mating in men's sexual
repertoire comes from the sexual variation known as homosexuality.
Donald Symons notes that male homosexual sexuality is unconstrained
by women's dictates of romance, involvement, and commitment. Simi-
larly, lesbian sexuality is unconstrained by men's dictates and demands.
The actual behavior of homosexuals, therefore, provides a window for
viewing the nature of men's and women's sexual desires, unclouded by
the compromises imposed by the sexual strategies of the opposite sex.
w/o compromise
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 60-63
The premium that men place on a mate's appearance is not limited to
heterosexuals. Homosexual relationships provide an acid test for the evo-
lutionary basis of sex differences in the desires for a mate.33 The issues
are whether homosexual men show preferences more or less like those
of other men, differing only in the sex of the person they desire, whether
they show preferences similar to those of women; or whether they have
uni~ue preferences unlike the typical preferences of either sex.
No one knows what the exact percentage of homosexuals is in any cul-
ture7 past or present. Part of the diffculty lies with definitions. The sex-
ologist Alfred Kinsey estimated that more than a third of all men
engaged at some point in life in some form of homosexual activity, typi-
M E N W A N T S O M E T H I N C E 1. S E
61
cally as part of adolescent experimentation. Far fewer people, however,express '~ stn)ng preference for the same sex as a mate. Conservative
estimates put the tigure at about 3 to 4 percent for men and 1 percent
for women.34 The discrepancy between the percentages of people who
have engaged in some kinds of homosexual acts and people who express
a core preference for partners of the same sex suggests an important dis-
tinction between the underlying psychology of preference and the out-
ward manifestation of behavior. Many men who prefer women as mates
may nonetheless sllbstitute a man as a sex partner, either because of an
inability to attract women or because of a temporary situational con-
straint that precludes access to women, such as being in prison.
No one knows why some people have a strong preference for mem-
bers of their own sex as mates, although this lack of knowledge has not
held back speculation. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection the-
ory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when
some people served better as an aide to their close genetic relatives
than as a reproducer.35 For example, an ancestral man who had diffi-
culty in attracting a woman might have been better off investing effort
in his sister's children than in trying to secure a mate himself. A related
theory is that some parents manipulate particular children7 perhaps
those who might have a lower value on the mating market, to become
homosexual in order to aid other family members, even if it would be in
the child's best reproductive interest to reproduce directly.36 No current
evidence exists to support either of these theories. The origins of homo-
sexuality remain a mystery.
Homosexual preferences in a mate, in contrast, are far less mysten-
ous. Studies document the great importance that homosexual men place
on the youth and physical appearance of their partners. William
Jankowiak and his colleagues asked homosexual and heterosexual indi-
viduals, both men and women, to rank sets of photographs of men and
women differing in age on physical attractiveness.37 Homosexual and
heterosexual men alike rank the younger partners as consistently more
attractive. Neither lesbian nor heterosexual women, on the contrary,
place any importance on youth in their ranking of attracti~eness. These
results suggest that lesbian women are very much like heterosexual
women in their mate preferences, except with respect to the sex of the
erson they desire. And homosexual men are similar to heterosexual
men in their mate preferences.
The psychologists Kay Deaux and Randel Hanna conducted the most
systematic study of homosexual mate preferences.35 They collected eight
hundred ads from several East Coast and West Coast newspapers,
equally sampling male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, male homo-
fi2 '1' 11 1~ ' v () 1. 11 '1 1 o N () 1~' I) 1~: 5 I 1~
sexuals, and female homosexuals. Using a coding scheme, they calcu-
lated the frequency with which each of these groups offers and seeks
particular characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, financial secu-
rity, and personality traits.
Lesbians tend to be similar to heterosexual women in placing little
emphasis on physical appearance, with only 19.5 percent of the hetero-
sexual women and 18 percent of the lesbians mentioning this quality. In
contrast, 48 percent of heterosexual men and 29 percent of homosexual
men state that they are seeking attractive partners. Among all groups,
lesbians list their own physical attractiveness less often than any other
group; mentions appear in only 30 percent of their ads. Heterosexual
women, in contrast, offer attractiveness in 69.5 percent of the ads, male
homosexuals.in 53.5 percent of the ads, and male heterosexuals in 42.5
percent of the ads. Only 16 percent of the lesbians request a photo-
graph of respondents to their ads, whereas 35 percent of heterosexual
women, 34.5 percent of homosexual men, and 37 percent of heterosex-
ual men make this request.
Lesbians are distinct from the other three groups in specifying fewer
physical characteristics, such as weight, height, eye color, or body build.
Whereas only 7 percent of lesbian women mention their desire for spe-
cific physical attributes, 20 percent of heterosexual women, 38 percent
of homosexual men, and 33.5 percent of heterosexual men request par-
ticular physical traits. And as with overall attractiveness, lesbians stand
out in that only 41.5 percent list physical attributes among their assets
offered, whereas 64 percent of heterosexual women, 74 percent of
homosexual men, and 71.5 percent of heterosexual men offer particular
physical assets. It is clear that homosexual men are similar to heterosex-
ual men in the premium they place on physical appearance. Lesbians are
more like heterosexual women in their desires, but where they differ,
they place even less value on physical qualities, both in their offerings
an~ in the qualities they seek.
Less formal studies confirm the centrality of youth and physical appear-
ance for male homosexuals. Surveys of the gay mating market consistently
find that physical attractiveness is the key determinant of the desirability
of a potential partner. Male homosexuals place great emphasis on dress,
grooming, and physical condition. And youth is a key ingredient in judg-
ing attractiveness: "Age is the monster figure of the gay world."39
The sociologists Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwart~ found that
the physical beauty of a partner is critical to the desires of homosexual
and heterosexual men more than to lesbian or heterosexual women
even among already coupled individuals.40 All members of their sample
were in relationships. They found that 57 percent of gay men and 59
M F. N ~ N '1- 5 () M l~. 'I' 11 I N ('. 1~' 1. S ~
percent of lleterosex~lal meIl feel thi-t it is important that thcir partller ;
be sexy looking. In contrast, only 31 percent of the heterosexual women
and 35 percent of the lesbians state that sexy looks are important in a 1 I
partner. Male homosexuals and male heterosexuals seem to have indis- l I
tinguishable mating preferences, except with respect to the sex of their
preferred partner. Both place a premium on appearance, and youth is a
central ingredient in their definition of beauty.
w/o compromise
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 70
Homosexual mate preferences, ironically, provide a testament to the
depth of these evolved psychological mechanisms. The fact that physical
appearance figures centrally in homosexual men's mate preferences, and
that youth is a key ingredient in their standards of beauty, suggests that not
even variations in sexual orientation alter these fundamental mechanisms.
w/o compromise
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 84
A further clue to the significant role of casual mating in men's sexual
repertoire comes from the sexual variation known as homosexuality.
Donald Symons notes that male homosexual sexuality is unconstrained
by women's dictates of romance, involvement, and commitment. Simi-
larly, lesbian sexuality is unconstrained by men's dictates and demands.
The actual behavior of homosexuals, therefore, provides a window for
viewing the nature of men's and women's sexual desires, unclouded by
the compromises imposed by the sexual strategies of the opposite sex.
without Compromise From: Wilson, 1992, p. 86 - 88
What 'is seen is a strikingly different pattern of behaviour
between male and female homosexuals. For one thing, gay men
are a great deal more active sexually than lesbian women. Bell
t~l973) estimates that homosexual men have a partner turnover
~hat is between ten and a hundred times greater than that of
heterosexual men. About 25 per cent of homosexual males have
Sexual An~malie~ an~l Diff~ ies
~7
promiscuity, it seems, these men are able to indulge their
novelty-seeking instinct with greater abandon. Lesbians, by
contrast, show no such inclination towards exploratory sexuality;
their sexual relationships tend to grow out of deep friendships
and they are no more promiscuous in the course oftheir lifetime
than are heterosexual women. Their median number of
partners is only three (Loney, 1974). Of course, gay men have
become less promiscuous in recent years as a result of knowledge
about AIDS, but this is a fairly superficial restraint which tells
us little about basic sexual desire.
A second finding that emerges from surveys of gay men is their
emphasis on the visual characteristics of their partners (and
potential new partners). Just like heterosexual men, they seek
youth and beauty, some even to the extent of restricting
themselves to pre-pubertal targets (Wilson and Cox, 1983).
Lesbians, on the other hand, behave like heterosexual women in
this respect, seeking long-term relationships based on personality
qualities such as sympathy and loyalty more than physical
appearance .
Male bisexuals and female bisexuals are also very different in
their behaviour patterns (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1977~.
Bisexual men are frequently married and use other men (or
boys) for casual sex and variety, rather in the same way men use
prostitutes. Bisexual women seek long-term relationships with
members of either sex and are more likely to alternate their
partners than run them in parallel.
In men's prisons a great deal of homosexual behaviour occurs
that centres around the need for sexual release and dominance
within the power hierarchy. In women's prisons homosexual
relationships are less common; when they do occur they appear
to operate more as a quasi-kinship system, the women variously
adopting the roles of wives, husbands, aunts and so on
(Giallombardo, 1974).
~'hese comparisons of'free-running' sexual activity provide
potent evidence for the argument that the inclinations of men
and women are really quite dif'ferent in nature.



Freed from the
nPp~ tn hth~ ;n ~ rf~ h ~ht~rt~clt-~in~c :~n~l rx~ectations

-

88 rhe Great Sex Div~de

divergence is magnified, the males seeking a variety of young,
attractive partners and the females seeking stable, meaningful
relationships with partners they can rely on emotionally.

.sh 3 "LESBIANS"

Lesbians tend to focus on issues of communication and commitment. The relative financial and social status of a lesbian's partner determines her desire to stay in the relationship.
As reported in the book American Couples, lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to say that the income and status of their partner were irrelevant to them. However, their actions betrayed their words. The higher income/higher status woman in a lesbian relationship almost always was the one who initiated the breakup of a lesbian relationship. This effect is far stronger in lesbians than in gay men, and four times the rate in heterosexual women. This exemplifies the primary female desire for hypergamy (marrying up in social class).

.sh 3 "GAY MALES"

The male tendency toward sexual partner variety is well exemplified by gay males. Among white homosexual males, 28% have had 1000 or more sexual partners; 15% had more than 500, 17% had more than 250. Thus, 60% of homosexual men reported more than 250 partners. Lesbians, however, did not have more partners than heterosexual women. (Leif, 1978).
The above behaviors of lesbians and gay males tends to conform to the predictions of evolutionary theory with respect to male and female sexuality.

.sh 2 "BUSS'S CROSS CULTURAL EXAMINATION OF ROBUST GENDER DIFFERENCES"

In 1989 David Buss published a very ambitious study designed to determine whether the gender differences predicted by evolutionary theory are in fact manifested cross-culturally. He examined the mate selection preferences of males and females in 37 countries around the world. Overall, the results of this study corroborated the gender differences predicted above. The Buss article follows the end of this chapter.
From: LaCerra, p. 157 - 160 Strong evidence for evolved mate preferences in both men and women comes from an extensive cross-cultural study conducted by David Buss (1989). Buss surveyed the mate preferences of individuals in 37 different cultures and found them to be in ac- cord with predictions based on parental investment theory (for an in-depth discussion of the evolved psychology of human mating see Symons, 1979, and Buss, 1994). In a test of the prediction that women should have preferences for men with the ability to invest resources in them and their offspring, Buss found that, across cultures, women show a much greater preference than do men for mates with good economic status and potential (Buss,
158 Sexuality & Culture
1989). Preference differentials in the predicted direction were found for the degree to which individuals valued ambition, good earning capacity, professional degrees, and a number of other characteristics indicative of good future earning potential.
The results of two large-scale, cross-cultural ethnographic in- vestigations provide evidence for the joint hypotheses that women should have mate preferences for men with characteristics associ- ated with the ability to provision and protect others. Ford and Beach (1951) analyzed sexual information from the Human Relations Area Files that included data from more than 200 nonurban societies worldwide. They found that skills and prowessDcharacteristics that increase one's ability to protect oneself and others, and, at the same time, increase status and access to resources in most non-Western, rural societiesDwere the strongest determinants of male attractive- ness. Gregersen (1982) updated and extended this study to include over 300 societies, and his findings were similar: across cultures, male attractiveness is predominantly determined by social status, skills, strength, bravery, and prowess.
It has been argued that contemporary women demonstrate pref- erences for men with economic resources and the ability to ob- tain such resources simply because men control economic power worldwide; on this line of reasoning, one of the few ways a woman might gain economic power is by affiliation with a man. Accord- ing to this "structural powerlessness" explanation, the evolved mate preferences of men and women with regard to indicators of economic value are similar; what differs are the environmental circumstances each sex encounters. A prediction of this view is that sex differences in preferences for prospective mates would be smaller in cultures in which there is greater sexual equality in economic power than in cultures in which there is a marked dis- parity. Buss's data refute this prediction (Buss, 1989, 1992). In- dependent of the degree to which there was sexual equality in economic power in the cultures surveyed, women demonstrated a greater preference than did men for pro ~ 1
Gender-specific Differences in Evolved Mating "Strategies" 159
were highly likely to be earning good incomes in the near future. Structural powerlessness theory would predict that such women would care less about a man's economic potential than would women with lesser earning capacity. Yet, these medical students showed even stronger preferences for mates who were good fi- nancial prospects than did women with lower levels of economic potential.
In a direct test of the hypothesis that women should have pref- erences for men with the ability to protect them, Buss (1989) had male and female subjects rate the value they placed on character- istics indicative of physical strength in a prospective mate. Women of all cultures surveyed placed a much greater value on these char- acteristics than did men. Collectively, these findings provide a broad base of evidence for the contention that women have evolved mate preferences for men with the ability to both protect and pro- vide for them and their offspring.
Evidence that women have preferences for men who demon- strate a willingness to invest in offspring comes from a series of experiments in which women assessed the attractiveness of men photographed in various behavioral contexts, one of which was a demonstration of affection toward the child of a friend (La Cerra, 1994). Based on the hypotheses that: 1) women should find men showing affection toward a child relatively more attractive than men engaged in other activities, and that 2) the causal factor re- sponsible for such an effect should be the apparent willingness of these men to invest in offspring, other contexts were designed to experimentally isolate other possible context effects on ratings of attractiveness (e.g., a display of general compassion, a display of helpfulness with household duties, the mere presence of the child, etc.). An additional context was designed to assess the effects on attractiveness ratings of a demonstrated ability to ignore a child in distress. As predicted, From: LaCerra, p. 160 There is abundant evidence that women prefer men with personality characteristics that might be good indicators of a willingness to invest in a mate and their offspring. In Buss's worldwide study, the characteristics that women most valued in a potential mate were a loving nature, dependable character, emotional stability, and maturity (Buss, 1989). Buss suggests that these characteristics might be highly valued because they signal the likelihood that resources will be reliably forthcoming in the future. These are not well-defined, singular characteristics, however. They are composite behavioral patterns that emerge over time spent interacting with a prospective mate. It is likely that our subjective impression of someone as "dependable" or "loving" or "emotionally stable" arises from a mechanism that tallies individual relevant events. Not surprisingly, the human intelligence has evolved design features that allow for the systematic " from Buss, 1994, page 24-25
Nor are these female preferences restricted to America, or to West-
ern societies, or to capitalist countries. The international study on
choosing a mate conducted by my colleagues and me documented the
universality of women's preferences. For over five years from 1984 to
1989, in thirty-seven cultures on six continents and five islands, we
investigated populations that varied on many demographic and cul-
tural characteristics. The participants came from nations that practice
polygyny, such as Nigeria and Zambia, as well as nations that are more
monogamous, such as Spain and Canada. The countries inc]uded
those in which living together is as common as marriage, such as Swe-
den and Finland, as well as countries in which living together without
WHAT WOM EN WANT 25
marriage is frowned upon, such as Bulgaria and Greece. In all, the
study sampled 10,047 individuals.ll
Male and female participants in the study rated the importance of
eighteen characteristics in a potential mate or marriage partner, on a
scale from unimportant to indispensable. Women across all continents,
all political systems lincluding socialism and communism), all racial
groups, all religious groups, and all systems of mating ~from intense
polygyny to presumptive monogamy~ place more value than men on
good finarcial prospects. Overall, women value financial resources
about 100 percent more than men do, or roughly twice as much. There
are some cultural variations. Women from Nigeria, Zambia, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Colombia, and Venezuela value good
financial prospects a bit more than women from South Africa ~Zu]us),
the Netherlands, and Finland. In Japan, for example, women value
good financial prospects roughly 150 percent more than men do,
whereas women from the Netherlands deem financial prospects only 36
percent more important than their male counterparts do, or less than
women from any other country. Nonetheless, the sex difference
remained invariant--women worldwide desire financial resources in a
marriage partner more than men.
These findings provide the first extensive cross-cultural evidence
supporting the evolutionary basis for the psychology of human mating.
Because ancestral women faced the tremendous burdens of internal
fertilization, a nine-month gestation, and lactation~ they would have
beneflted tremendously by selecting mates who possessed resources.
These preferences helped our ancestral mothers solve the adaptive
problems of survival and reproduction.
from Buss, 1994, page 27
The importance that women grant to social status in mates is not lim-
ited to America or even to capitalist countries. In the vast majority of the
thirty-seven cultures included in the international study on choosing a
mate, women value social status more than men in a prospective mate--
in both communist and socialist countries, among blacks and orientals,
among Catholics and Jews, in the tropics and the northern climes.l6 For
example, in Taiwan, women value status 63 percent more than men; in
Zambia, women value it 30 percent more; in West Gerrnany, women
value it 38 percent more; and in Brazil, women value it 40 percent more.
Because hierarchies are universal features among human groups and
resources tend to accumulate to those who rise in the hierarchy,
women solve the adaptive problem of acquiring resources in part by
preferring men who are high in status. Social status gives a woman a
strong indicator of the ability of a man to invest in her and her chil-
dren. The contemporary evidence across many cultures supports the
evolutionary prediction that women key onto this cue to the acquisition
of resources. Women worldwide prefer to marry up. Those women in
our evolutionary past who failed to marry up tended to be less able to
provide for themselves and their children.
from Buss, 1994, page 28
In all thirty-seven cultures included in the international study on
choosing a mate, women prefer men who are older than they are." Aver-
aged over all cultures, women prefer men who are roughly three and a
half years older. The smallest preferred age difference is seen in French
Canadian women, who seek husbands who are not quite two years older,
and the largest is found among Iranian women, who seek husbands who
are more than five years older. The worldwide average age difference
between actual brides and grooms is three years, suggesting that
women s marriage decisions often match their mating preferences.
from Buss, 1994, page 60
These trends occur in different cultures. When my research collabo-
rators and I surveyed native residents of China, Poland, Guam, and Ger-
many in parallel studies of human prestige criteria, we found that in
each of these countries, acquiring a physically attractive mate enhances a
man's status more than a woman's. In each country, having an unattrac-
tive mate hurts a man's status more than a woman's. And in each country
dating an unattractive person hurts a man's status moderately but has
only a slight or inc~nsequential effect on a woman's status. Men across
cultures today value attractive women not only because attractiveness
signals a woman's reproductive capacity but also because it signals status.
differences
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 24-25
Nor are these female preferences restricted to America, or to West-
ern societies, or to capitalist countries. The international study on
choosing a mate conducted by my colleagues and me documented the
universality of women's preferences. For over five years from 1984 to
1989, in thirty-seven cultures on six continents and five islands, we
investigated populations that varied on many demographic and cul-
tural characteristics. The participants came from nations that practice
polygyny, such as Nigeria and Zambia, as well as nations that are more
monogamous, such as Spain and Canada. The countries inc]uded
those in which living together is as common as marriage, such as Swe-
den and Finland, as well as countries in which living together without
WHAT WOM EN WANT 25
marriage is frowned upon, such as Bulgaria and Greece. In all, the
study sampled 10,047 individuals.ll
Male and female participants in the study rated the importance of
eighteen characteristics in a potential mate or marriage partner, on a
scale from unimportant to indispensable. Women across all continents,
all political systems lincluding socialism and communism), all racial
groups, all religious groups, and all systems of mating ~from intense
polygyny to presumptive monogamy~ place more value than men on
good finarcial prospects. Overall, women value financial resources
about 100 percent more than men do, or roughly twice as much. There
are some cultural variations. Women from Nigeria, Zambia, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Colombia, and Venezuela value good
financial prospects a bit more than women from South Africa ~Zu]us),
the Netherlands, and Finland. In Japan, for example, women value
good financial prospects roughly 150 percent more than men do,
whereas women from the Netherlands deem financial prospects only 36
percent more important than their male counterparts do, or less than
women from any other country. Nonetheless, the sex difference
remained invariant--women worldwide desire financial resources in a
marriage partner more than men.
These findings provide the first extensive cross-cultural evidence
supporting the evolutionary basis for the psychology of human mating.
Because ancestral women faced the tremendous burdens of internal
fertilization, a nine-month gestation, and lactation~ they would have
beneflted tremendously by selecting mates who possessed resources.
These preferences helped our ancestral mothers solve the adaptive
problems of survival and reproduction.




differences
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 27
The importance that women grant to social status in mates is not lim-
ited to America or even to capitalist countries. In the vast majority of the
thirty-seven cultures included in the international study on choosing a
mate, women value social status more than men in a prospective mate--
in both communist and socialist countries, among blacks and orientals,
among Catholics and Jews, in the tropics and the northern climes.l6 For
example, in Taiwan, women value status 63 percent more than men; in
Zambia, women value it 30 percent more; in West Gerrnany, women
value it 38 percent more; and in Brazil, women value it 40 percent more.
Because hierarchies are universal features among human groups and
resources tend to accumulate to those who rise in the hierarchy,
women solve the adaptive problem of acquiring resources in part by
preferring men who are high in status. Social status gives a woman a
strong indicator of the ability of a man to invest in her and her chil-
dren. The contemporary evidence across many cultures supports the
evolutionary prediction that women key onto this cue to the acquisition
of resources. Women worldwide prefer to marry up. Those women in
our evolutionary past who failed to marry up tended to be less able to
provide for themselves and their children.
differences
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 28
In all thirty-seven cultures included in the international study on
choosing a mate, women prefer men who are older than they are." Aver-
aged over all cultures, women prefer men who are roughly three and a
half years older. The smallest preferred age difference is seen in French
Canadian women, who seek husbands who are not quite two years older,
and the largest is found among Iranian women, who seek husbands who
are more than five years older. The worldwide average age difference
between actual brides and grooms is three years, suggesting that
women s marriage decisions often match their mating preferences.
differences
NEW From Buss, 1994, page 60
These trends occur in different cultures. When my research collabo-
rators and I surveyed native residents of China, Poland, Guam, and Ger-
many in parallel studies of human prestige criteria, we found that in
each of these countries, acquiring a physically attractive mate enhances a
man's status more than a woman's. In each country, having an unattrac-
tive mate hurts a man's status more than a woman's. And in each country
dating an unattractive person hurts a man's status moderately but has
only a slight or inc~nsequential effect on a woman's status. Men across
cultures today value attractive women not only because attractiveness
signals a woman's reproductive capacity but also because it signals status.
Buss's Cross cultursal Examination of Robust gender Differences NEW From: LaCerra, p. 157 - 160 Strong evidence for evolved mate preferences in both men and women comes from an extensive cross-cultural study conducted by David Buss (1989). Buss surveyed the mate preferences of individuals in 37 different cultures and found them to be in ac- cord with predictions based on parental investment theory (for an in-depth discussion of the evolved psychology of human mating see Symons, 1979, and Buss, 1994). In a test of the prediction that women should have preferences for men with the ability to invest resources in them and their offspring, Buss found that, across cultures, women show a much greater preference than do men for mates with good economic status and potential (Buss,
158 Sexuality & Culture
1989). Preference differentials in the predicted direction were found for the degree to which individuals valued ambition, good earning capacity, professional degrees, and a number of other characteristics indicative of good future earning potential.
The results of two large-scale, cross-cultural ethnographic in- vestigations provide evidence for the joint hypotheses that women should have mate preferences for men with characteristics associ- ated with the ability to provision and protect others. Ford and Beach (1951) analyzed sexual information from the Human Relations Area Files that included data from more than 200 nonurban societies worldwide. They found that skills and prowessDcharacteristics that increase one's ability to protect oneself and others, and, at the same time, increase status and access to resources in most non-Western, rural societiesDwere the strongest determinants of male attractive- ness. Gregersen (1982) updated and extended this study to include over 300 societies, and his findings were similar: across cultures, male attractiveness is predominantly determined by social status, skills, strength, bravery, and prowess.
It has been argued that contemporary women demonstrate pref- erences for men with economic resources and the ability to ob- tain such resources simply because men control economic power worldwide; on this line of reasoning, one of the few ways a woman might gain economic power is by affiliation with a man. Accord- ing to this "structural powerlessness" explanation, the evolved mate preferences of men and women with regard to indicators of economic value are similar; what differs are the environmental circumstances each sex encounters. A prediction of this view is that sex differences in preferences for prospective mates would be smaller in cultures in which there is greater sexual equality in economic power than in cultures in which there is a marked dis- parity. Buss's data refute this prediction (Buss, 1989, 1992). In- dependent of the degree to which there was sexual equality in economic power in the cultures surveyed, women demonstrated a greater preference than did men for pro ~ 1
Gender-specific Differences in Evolved Mating "Strategies" 159
were highly likely to be earning good incomes in the near future. Structural powerlessness theory would predict that such women would care less about a man's economic potential than would women with lesser earning capacity. Yet, these medical students showed even stronger preferences for mates who were good fi- nancial prospects than did women with lower levels of economic potential.
In a direct test of the hypothesis that women should have pref- erences for men with the ability to protect them, Buss (1989) had male and female subjects rate the value they placed on character- istics indicative of physical strength in a prospective mate. Women of all cultures surveyed placed a much greater value on these char- acteristics than did men. Collectively, these findings provide a broad base of evidence for the contention that women have evolved mate preferences for men with the ability to both protect and pro- vide for them and their offspring.
Evidence that women have preferences for men who demon- strate a willingness to invest in offspring comes from a series of experiments in which women assessed the attractiveness of men photographed in various behavioral contexts, one of which was a demonstration of affection toward the child of a friend (La Cerra, 1994). Based on the hypotheses that: 1) women should find men showing affection toward a child relatively more attractive than men engaged in other activities, and that 2) the causal factor re- sponsible for such an effect should be the apparent willingness of these men to invest in offspring, other contexts were designed to experimentally isolate other possible context effects on ratings of attractiveness (e.g., a display of general compassion, a display of helpfulness with household duties, the mere presence of the child, etc.). An additional context was designed to assess the effects on attractiveness ratings of a demonstrated ability to ignore a child in distress. As predicted, gender differences NEW From: LaCerra, p. 160 There is abundant evidence that women prefer men with personality characteristics that might be good indicators of a willingness to invest in a mate and their offspring. In Buss's worldwide study, the characteristics that women most valued in a potential mate were a loving nature, dependable character, emotional stability, and maturity (Buss, 1989). Buss suggests that these characteristics might be highly valued because they signal the likelihood that resources will be reliably forthcoming in the future. These are not well-defined, singular characteristics, however. They are composite behavioral patterns that emerge over time spent interacting with a prospective mate. It is likely that our subjective impression of someone as "dependable" or "loving" or "emotionally stable" arises from a mechanism that tallies individual relevant events. Not surprisingly, the human intelligence has evolved design features that allow f gender Differences from; Wright, 1994, p. 44 - 46 One culture Symons discussed is about as far from Western in- fluence as possible: the indigenous culture of the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia. The prehistoric migration that populated these islands broke off from the migrations that peopled Europe at least tens of thousands of years ago, and possibly more than 100,000 years ago. The Trobrianders' ancestral culture was separated from Europe's an- cestral culture even earlier than was that of Native Americans.'B And indeed, when visited by the great anthropologist Bronislaw Mali- nowski in 1915, the islands proved startlingly remote from the cur- rents of Western thought. The natives, it seemed, hadn't even gotten the connection between sex and reproduction. When one seafaring Trobriander returned from a voyage of several years to find his wife with two children, Malinowski was tactful enough not to suggest that she had been unfaithful. And "when I discussed the matter with others, sugge MALE AND FEr~ALE
their liking. (This freedom is found in some other preindustrial so- cleties, though the experimentation typically ends, and marriage be- gins, before a girl reaches fertility.) But Malinowski left no doubt about which sex was choosier. "[T]here is nothing roundabout in a Trobriand wooing.... Simply and directly a meeting is asked for with the avowed intention of sexual gratification. If the invitatiom is accepted, the satisfaction of the boy's desire eliminates the romar~ltic frame of mind, the craving for the unattainable and mysterious. If he IS rejected, there is not much room for personal tragedy, for he is accustomed from childhood to having his sexual impulses thwarted by some girl, and he knows that another intrigue cures this type of ill surely and swiftly.... " And: "In the course of every love affair the man has constantly to give small presents to the woman. To the natives the need of one-sided payment is self-evident. This custom lmplies that sexual intercourse, e the same cultural destination, with no genetic encouragement~ Or is it the case that this universal cultural element was present half a million or more years ago, before the species began splitting up? That seems a long time for an essentially arbitrary value to endure, without being extinguished in a single culture. This exercise holds a couple of important lessons. First: one good reason to suspect an evolutionary explanation for something--some mental trait or mechanism of mental development--is that it's uni- versal, found everywhere, even in cultures that are as far apart as two cultures can be.2~ Second: the general difficulty of explaining such
T~iE MORAL ANIMAL
winian view, though not proved right in the sense that mathematical theorems are proved right, can still be the view that, by the rules of science, wins; its chain of explanation is shorter than the alternative chain and has fewer dubious links; it is a simpler and more potent theory. If we accept even the three meager assertions made so far-- (1) that the theory of natural selection straightforwardly implies the "fitness" of women who are choosy about sexual partners and of men who often aren't; (2) that this choosiness and unchoosiness, respectively, is observed worldwide; and (3) that this universality can't be explained with equal simplicity by a competing, purely cul- tural, theory--if we accept these things, and if we're playing by the rules of science, we have to endorse the Darwinian explanation: male license and (relative) female reserve are to some extent innate.

.sh 2 "FARRELL'S CONCEPTS OF MALE AND FEMALE PRIMARY

We might also expect that particularly perceptive observers of human behavior would have perceived the "fundamental" gender differences predicted by evolutionary theory, despite their ignorance of the theory. At various points in subsequent chapters, we will examine prose poetry, cartoons, and lyrics that seem to exemplify
the insights of such perceptive observers.
Perhaps a good example of this is William Farrell's analysis of magazines that are read almost exclusively by one sex. Based on this analysis, he identified what he termed the basic female and male "fantasies" and "needs" that certain magazines are geared to satisfy. His conclusions, as summarized in the table, are surprisingly similar to the predictions of evolutionary theory.
From Farrell (1986) p. 20-21:
The Male Primary Fantasy Versus the Female Primary Fantasy.
...After working with 106,000 women and men from all walks of life, I have found that any medium read or watched almost "exclusively" by one sex creates a remarkably accurate springboard to that sex's world view. I could examine any of the media, but magazines provide the easiest vehicle to study, given the limitations of the book format. An overview of the second-rank bestselling magazines for each sex gives us a view of the differences between the way women and men approach the achievement of their primary fantasy--or, put another way, their primary means to their primary fantasies.
Here are the number of 1985 paid subscriptions for magazines:
Women's "Primary Fantasy" Magazines:
Better Homes and Gardens: 8,041,951
Family Circle: 7,193,079
Women's "How to Acheive Primary Fantasy" Magazines:
Cosmopolitan: 3,038,400
Glamour: 2,275,743
Women's "Alternative Means to Primary Fantasy" Magazines:
Self: 1,091,112
New Woman: 1,055,589
Working Woman: 605,902
Ms.: 479,185
Men's "Primary Fantasy" Magazines:
Playboy: 4,209,324
Penthouse: 3,500,275
Men's "How to Acheive Primary Fantasy" Magazines:
American Legion: 2,507,338
Sports Illustrated: 2,448,486