Chicks Dig Jerks?

Is there a measurable tendency for women to be sexually permissive with antisocial and delinquent males? or just are they hard-wired to respond more favorably to attractive guys?. Not only does convicted felon and jailbird Jeremy Meeks (left picture), have hundreds of thousands of women swooning at his mugshot offering to pay his bail and declaring he can hide out at their house.

Male criminality and its correlation with sexual success has spawned a little discussion with a good evolutionary biologyst and regular  commentator on the Manosphere, so-called Paragon (aka Martin Cruz). I debated with him on “No con artist wants a solution” (The black Pill blog) and on “Is it you or is it men” (Evan Marc Katz blog), about the role of the criminal behavior on mating opportunities. See the whole discussion over here:

The strategic optima of genetic benefits(indicated in physical attractiveness) is short-term mating, and thus anything that expedites short-term mating traffic(netting males higher fitness gains, and thus an evolutionary advantage) is likewise advantageous.

It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study:

“Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” (Martin L. Lalumièrea and Vernon L. Quinseyb a Forensic Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1R8;b Department of Psychology, Queen’s University at Kingston, Humphrey Hall, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6.)

Thus, evolutionary success will tend to correlate male physical attractiveness with abusive, delinquent, and promiscuous tendencies(and will limit deviations accordingly).

So, when we observe that females privilege such males, it is not that females find these traits attractive per se, but rather that they are selecting for certain desirable traits that have become correlated with negative ones – this is their dilemma.

In fact, females will be under evolutionary pressure to accomodate such males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers(and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage).

Females who tend to reject such males will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.

To summarize, there are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘nice guys'(females who privilege ‘nice guys’ – by the conventional meaning of the term – incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly).

I replied to Paragon:

Other research suggests the opposite. Criminal behavior is correlated with low physical attractiveness and if we assume as true the good genes hypothesis, delinquency would be associated with bad genes. Some of the earliest criminological researchers shared this thinking. Physiognomy persisted throughout the 18th century, most notably in the work of Swiss scholar Johan Casper Lavater, whose influential Physiognomical Fragments appeared in 1775. One hundred years later, Italian prison physician Cesare Lombroso published Criminal Man (1876), a famous study that attributed criminal behavior to what he termed “atavism,” an inherited condition that made offenders evolutionary throwbacks to more primitive humans. By conducting autopsies on 66 deceased criminals, and comparing 832 living prison inmates with 390 soldiers, Lombroso created a list of physical features that he believed were associated with criminal behavior. These “stigmata” included sloping foreheads, asymmetrical faces, large jaws, receding chins, abundant wrinkles, extra fingers, toes, and nipples, long arms, short legs, and excessive body hair-hardly the image of handsome men.
Harvard anthropologist Earnest A. Hooton conducted an ambitious 12-year study that compared 13,873 male prisoners in 10 states with a haphazard sample of 3,023 men drawn from the general population, searching once more for physical differences. Hooton published his findings in The American Criminal and Crime and the Man, both books appearing in 1939. The books attributed criminal behavior to biological inferiority and “degeneration,” ascribing a variety of unattractive physical characteristics to criminals (including sloping foreheads, compressed facial features, drooping eyelids, small, protruding ears, projecting cheekbones, narrow jaws, pointy chins, and rounded shoulders).
By the 1930s, however, biological research was rapidly losing favor, as criminologists increasingly argued that social factors alone cause criminal behavior. Hooton’s research was ridiculed in particular, one sociologist dismissing his findings as comically inept in historic proportions (or “the funniest academic performance… since the invention of movable type” [Reuter 1939]). Hooton was condemned for his circular reasoning: offenders were assumed to be biologically inferior, so whatever features differentiated criminals from noncriminals were interpreted as indications of biological inferiority.
Despite the skepticism of many sociologists regarding these attempts to link physical unattractiveness to criminal conduct, self-derogation and general strain theories can explain this relationship. Self-derogation theory asserts that youth who are ridiculed by peers lose self-esteem and the motivation to conform (Kaplan 1980). General strain theory claims that repeated “noxious,” unwanted interactions produce disappointment, depression, frustration, and anger (Agnew 1992). Both theories see delinquency and crime as means of retaliation that boosts one’s self-worth or vents one’s anger. Certainly, unattractive youths are prime candidates for noxious ridicule that results in low self-esteem and emotional strain.
Only a handful of modern studies have tested the relationships among attractiveness, criminal behavior, and perceptions about crime. Saladin, Saper, and Breen (1988), for example, asked 28 students in one undergraduate psychology class to judge the physical attractiveness of a group of photographs of young men. Forty students in another psychology class were asked to examine the same photographs and then assess the probability that those pictured would commit either robbery or murder. The researchers found that men rated as less attractive also were perceived to be prone to commit future violent crimes, suggesting that unattractive people are more likely to be branded as criminals.
Another study randomly scrambled 159 photographs of young men incarcerated in juvenile reformatories with 134 photographs of male high school seniors (Cavior and Howard 1973). College sophomores in psychology courses were asked to rate the facial attractiveness of these youth. Significantly more high school seniors were judged attractive than males from the reformatories.
In the fascinating policy-oriented research that became the basis for the movie Johnny Handsome, surgeons performed plastic surgery to correct deformities and disfigurements (e.g., protruding ears, broken noses, unsightly tattoos, and needle track marks from intravenous drug use) on the faces, hands, and arms of 100 physically unattractive men at the time of their release from Rikers Island jail in New York City (Kurtzberg et al. 1978). These ex-convicts were matched against a control group of equally unattractive inmates released from the jail who received no reconstructive surgery. When the researchers compared recidivism rates one-year later, those who received the surgery had significantly fewer rearrests. Apparently, improved appearance resulted in improved behavior.
These research findings are preliminary and suggestive; more definitive studies using better measurements are needed. In particular, future research should relate ratings of physical attractiveness to the self-reported criminal behavior of persons taken from the general population. Such studies would rule out the possibility that unattractive offenders are more likely to appear in jails and reformatories simply due to the prejudices of the police and prosecutors.
Nevertheless, existing research hints that the folk wisdom dating back to the ancient Greeks may have some basis in reality. Physical appearance is related to self-worth and behavior; as the adage goes, “pretty is as pretty does.” When it comes to criminal behavior, the opposite may be true as well.

A commentator named Yasmine said:

“Not at all, as characteristic delinquency would lend itself better to any strategy working to maximize the number of potential offspring, given null costs in paternal investment”

Nope. It depends of social environments. Non-State societies usually have rewarded such behaviors with success, including reproductive success. But State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission.
“Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” is the only one that speaks to ‘actual’ mating frequencies”
You are wrong. Anthropologists have documented a consistent historical pattern and if we have:
1-strong skew in mating frequency in which a few males obtain most of the matings, while the rest have little or no succes,  the extent to which particular individuals monopolize breeding, or
2- male based sex ratio in the direction of a smaller proportion of females,

Then, excluded men (lower mate value) become increasingly competitive, becoming more likely to engage in risky, short-term oriented behavior including gambling, drug abuse, and crime. This sort of pattern fits well with the rest of the biological world. Decades of work in behavioral ecology has shown that in species in which there is substantial variation in mating success among males, males compete especially fiercely.

The precise details of the route from a biased sex ratio to anti-social behavior in humans is not thoroughly understood, but one possible physiological link is that remaining unmarried increases levels of testosterone—often simply referred to as “T”—which in turn influences decision making and behavior.

The differences between societies that allow polygyny and those that don’t are potentially illustrative. In societies with polygamy, there are, for obvious reasons, larger numbers of unmarried men than in societies that prohibit polygyny. These unmarried men compete for the remaining unmarried women, which includes a greater propensity to violence and engaging in more criminal behavior than their married counterparts. Indeed, cross-national research shows a consistent relationship between imbalanced sex ratios and rates of violent crime. The higher the fraction of unmarried men in a population, the greater the frequency of theft, fraud, rape, and murder. The size of these effects are non-trivial: Some estimates suggest marriage reduces the likelihood of criminal behavior by as much as one half.

Further, relatively poor unmarried men, historically, have formed associations with other unmarried men, using force to secure resources they otherwise would be unable to obtain.

A good example would be sub-Saharan Africa. Since the incidence of polygyny is high (over 20% of all marriages), there is typically a surplus of young single males. These societies often resolve the destabilizing influence of these males by stationing them on the periphery of their territory in warrior camps. This set-up, in turn, is conducive to endemic warfare, since war is usually the only way these men can get access to women.

Here’s the Paragon’s reply:

“Other research suggests the opposite.”

It appears, then, that there are conflicting studies. However, “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” is the only one that speaks to ‘actual’ mating frequencies (rather than just things like surveys purporting to measure perceived attractiveness, etc) , and is thus the more compelling.

“Criminal behavior is correlated with low physical attractiveness and if we assume as true the good genes hypothesis, delinquency would be associated with bad genes.”

Not at all, as characteristic delinquency would lend itself better to any strategy working to maximize the number of potential offspring, given null costs in paternal investment. You appear well read, but I would suggest that you either have more reading to do, or your comprehension of the material is lacking.

“First, Lalumièrea et al. work with a measure of “self-perceived” mating success. I guess you know that a self-report study is a type of SURVEY”

Yes, but only the survey I cited speaks anything to mating frequencies.

“Lombroso observed the physical characteristics of Italian prisoners”

Prisoners are an unrepresentative sample – the implication is that highly attractive males escape serious reprimand by virtue of their evident genetic quality(inspite of their equally evident delinquency), and consequent *preference* as mates.
I will agree that criminality is clearly associated with unattractive traits in some significant population of males. This population may, in fact, have once been the dominant population amongst male delinquents(and may *still* be). But, clearly, there is another population which I am speaking to – and it is this population which I argue is riding the coat-tails of evolutionary success!

“But it is not necessary to perform sexually coercive tactics /antisocial behaviour if you are physically attractive.”

It is not a question of necessity, but *advantage*. Again, I reiterate: characteristic delinquency would lend itself better to any strategy working to maximize the number of potential offspring, given null costs in paternal investment. Males less invested in the accumulation of resources are likewise less beholden to the time/energy costs of those investments – which makes them *ideally* positioned to exploit a lifestyle of strategic delinquency, with optimal fitness gains(assuming they are of evidently high genetic quality). And seeing as this ‘delinquent’ strategy represents a fitness optima (in the relevant populations where bi-parental advantage is no longer strongly selected for), it is equally trivial to see how frequencies should follow from evolutionary success – since there is no significant selection pressure for males of high genetic quality to additionally pursue investment strategies, we should expect that (unlike with the case of strategic delinquency) investment strategies should remain uncorrelated with genetic quality over time given their relative high costs and inefficiencies.

“Moreover Figueredo et al. (2000) applied this framework to address the ultimate causes of adolescent sex offending behavior by proposing a brunswikian bvolutionary developmental (BED) theory, wherein an inability to use mainstream sexual strategies lead an individual to develop deviant sexual strategies. Because some adolescents suffer psychosocial problems and consequent competitive disadvantages in the sexual marketplace, sex offending behavior may represent the culmination of a tragic series of failing sexual and social strategies, leading from psychosocial deficiencies to sexual deviance, thence to antisocial deviance, and finally to sexual criminality.”

Exactly – and given that deviant sexual strategies are most costly for *unattractive* males, we should, if anything, expect this frequency is relatively low (and kept relatively low by selection pressures). But, when is a sexual deviant not a deviant? When females *condone* it.

@ Yasmine
“Nope. It depends of social environments. Non-State societies usually have rewarded such behaviours with success, including reproductive success. But State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative.”
Only if they are held ‘accountable’ – consider the nexus/justification of the popular meme where women are seen to enable their ‘abuse’ at the hands of their preferred mates (bad-boys, et al), and you will better understand the unification of this synthesis. “Then, excluded men (lower mate value) become increasingly competitive, becoming more likely to engage in risky, short-term oriented behaviour including gambling, drug abuse, and crime. This sort of pattern fits well with the rest of the biological world. Decades of work in behavioural ecology have shown that in species in which there is substantial variation in mating success among males, males compete especially fiercely.”

Exactly, because such exacting efforts can be taken as evidence of competitive ‘handicapping’ in terms of honest signalling(indicators of high genetic quality, which must resist falsification by proving prohibitively costly to unfit males, so as to selectively cull male frequencies every generation).
But, of course, I am talking about the *winners* and not the *losers* in this competition, and thus your arguments are making bad assumptions with respect to the male populations under scrutiny (largely addressed in my preceding reply).

Mi final speech on this talk:

”Yes, but only the survey I cited speaks anything to mating frequencies.”

I repeat, these “mating frequencies” come from self-reported data, and they are not reliable/verifiable. Furthermore only are reporting their number of partners, not mate value (or physical attractiveness of each female partner, if you prefer).

“I will agree that criminality is clearly associated with unattractive traits in some significant population of males…]. [ …………But, when is a sexual deviant not a deviant?”When females *condone* it.”

At least, I appreciate that you start to accept some of the evidence. Well if you wish we address this item from an evolutionary perspective, let me to say that you ar confusing two categories of gene-based evolutionary theories: One is the crime-specific category and another is the cheater-theory (cad vs. dad), also called r/K theory. Crime-specific category explains why people vary in their genetic dispositions toward criminality, pertaining to the offenses of rape, spousal assault/murder, and child abuse neglect. Switching from a long to a short term strategy only requires opportunity. It depends on frequencies of an individual’s pursuing longterm tactics and short-term tactics, and this has nothing to do with delinquency/violence/criminality. So far the scientific evidence tells us that these are two separate phenomena. It is just that less attractive males’ possibilities are constrained to make more long-term mating optimal. Most research postulates that delinquency can be the result of a life style adopted due to consistent failures caused by deficits (e.g. males lacking of physical appeal) or in adaptive abilities (e.g. males lacking of social skills) which are basic to success in our environment.

“Prisoners are an unrepresentative sample – the implication is that highly attractive males escape serious reprimand by virtue of their evident genetic quality(inspite of their equally evident delinquency), and consequent *preference* as mates.”

Ok, but although this particular study may be excluded, we have the rest of anthropometric research and attractiveness assessment indicating that the average ratings of the criminal population are lower than the control groups.

“Only if they are held ‘accountable’ – consider the nexus/justification of the popular meme where women are seen to enable their ‘abuse’ at the hands of their preferred mates(bad-boys, et al), and you will better understand the unification of this synthesis.”

Crime is an independent phenomenon of aesthetic morphology, as I explained above. You should read some writings about the Peter Frost and Gregory Clark models, where they suggest a natural selection against violence occurred in the several centuries before the fall of the Roman Empire. See:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.es/2009/07/genetic-pacification.html
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/genetics-and-the-historical-decline-of-violence/
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.es/2010/07/roman-state-and-genetic-pacification.html
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/clarkfrost-domestication/
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/genetics-and-the-historical-decline-of-violence/

“Exactly, because such exacting efforts can be taken as evidence of competitive ‘handicapping’ in terms of honest signaling(indicators of high genetic quality, which must resist falsification by proving prohibitively costly to unfit males, so as to selectively cull male frequencies every generation). But, of course, I am talking about the *winners* and not the *losers* in this competition, and thus your arguments are making bad assumptions with respect to the male populations under scrutiny(largely addressed in my preceding reply).”

Mating effort is not an honest sign of anything. As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans. This hypothesis suggests that secondary sexual characteristics are reliable indicators of mate quality because the reproductive hormones required for their development, including testosterone, suppress the immune system (e.g., Peters, 2000; Rantala, Vainikka, & Kortet, 2003). The expression of testosterone-linked traits reveals that men are in good enough condition to withstand the deleterious effects of immunosuppression, and women who selected these men as mates would have transmitted features associated with good condition to their offspring. But you got stuck in your mind the spurious linkage between beauty and criminal behaviour, and on that basis all your notional reasoning is incorrect, and is neither theoretically coherent nor empirically supported.

Let me explain. Men adopting a short-term strategy tend to be more physically attractive and sexy. Given a short-term strategy is less likely to work for unattractive males; Sexy cads adopt a long-term strategy that is more likely to produce successful results. It’s not well known the ontogeny of male strategic differences. But the more plausible alternative is that males continuously and unconsciously monitor their ability to succeed in a high mating effort strategy. If so, then we would expect men’s psychology and behavior to track relevant changes. The likelihood of strategic heritable variation is controversial; however, because recombination prevents fortuitous combinations of genes from persisting long enough for polygenic morphs to evolve.A two-strategy system with a binary genetic switch can evolve more easily.

According to this theory it is believed that a subpopulation of top ranked males (good genes) were evolved with genes that leaned them more toward sexual reproduction with little involvement in the offspring’s care. Their sole purpose was to be sexually active with as many females as possible to spread their genes into as many offspring to ensure their survival.

But as optimal strategy of women is a long term mating, sexy cads have specialized to exploit different niches, using deception and manipulation, and promising parental investment. Thus this way they are able to gain sexual access in casual sexual interactions, without extra-costs of parental investment; and allowing them to begin a new sexual courtship with other women quickly.
So these “sexy cads” adopt a “love them-and-leave them” attitude toward mating, and they also possess traits associated with machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical narcissism (which you’re confusing with criminality, but they are different things). As a result, men who pursue a short-term mating strategy tend to display lower levels of stability, agreeableness, and warmth.

It’s apparent that no amount of evidence will convince you of the reality here, so it seems you will continue to grasp at ever more distant straws to confirm your beliefs. That, and ignore most of facts & studies altogether, except the only one (lalumiere et al) that fits with your guesswork. Pretty much hit the nail on the head trying to develop a phylogenetic theory based on that one single paper (and with a wrong methodology). Evidence tells us that morphology & criminal behaviour are two independent phenomena and are not inter-related.

First, the morphometric studies does not prove an association between physical attractiveness and crimianl behaviour, rather it’s the opposite.What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology. A wealth of twin and adoption studies confirms that individual differences in violent/antisocial behavior are heritable, moreover it is unlikely that genes directly code for violence; rather, allelic variation is responsible for individual differences in neurocognitive functioning that, in turn, may determine differential predisposition to violent behavior. By example, genes regulating serotonergic neurotransmission, in particular monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), have been highlighted in the search for a genetic predisposition to violence. And we know the association between delinquency and the TaqI polymorphism in the DRD2 gene and the 40-bp VNTR in the DAT1 gene. This much-vaunted example of nature–nurture interaction leads one to expect that genetic predisposition alone may be of little consequence for behavior in favorable conditions. And the data obtained for phenotyping of facial shape features have identified five independent genetic loci associated with different facial phenotypes:PRDM16, PAX3, TP63, C5orf50, and COL17A1—in the determination of the human face. So this would be our real framework:

genotype 1(physical attractiveness) + genotype A ( criminal behaviour tendency) X environment interaction favorable = attractive male without criminal behaviour.

genotype 1(physical attractiveness) + genotype A ( criminal behaviour tendency) X environment interaction unfavorable = attractive male with criminal behaviour.
genotype 1 (attractiveness) + genotype B (non-criminal behaviour)= attractive male without criminal behaviour.
genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype A (criminal behaviour) X environment interaction favorable= unattractive male with non-criminal behaviour.

genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype A (criminal behaviour) X environment interaction unfavorable= unattractive male with criminal behaviour.

genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype B (non-criminal behaviour)= unattractive male with non-criminal behaviour.

I do not see any reason to revoke a speculative hypothesis, which should be found some underlying mechanism of pleiotropy with the effect of some gene on pathways that contribute to these two different phenotypes.

 

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

8 Responses to Chicks Dig Jerks?

  1. The Cockroach says:

    Good discussion, just trying to follow along as best I can.

    Another video on looks:

  2. Paragon says:

    Sorry, for taking so long to get back to you – I was in a third world country without internet access(I left in the midst of our discussion).

    I appreciate the dialogue, and I would like to make concessions where I now feel I was in obvious error.

    @ Tyrion Lannister,

    “Regarding Self-seeking like Hypothesis (Liliana Alvarez):

    Firt, I do not understand how you try to support this hypothesis when yourself argued time ago against it on this site:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121028045744/http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/

    Second, why allow speculation to reign when we can just look at the evidence? Of course, one has to always keep in mind the totality of the evidence, not just one poor example like that. Always be wary of small samples. That’s why I try to use/look meta-analyses or studies with very large samples whenever possible. Indeed, always check your confidence intervals! And let’s not forget about our friend Occam’s Razor. Keep in mind that if really could be found a wide population correlation, that doesn’t necessarily mean causation (preference for similar opposite-sex faces). And a valid research should look at the effect of resemble preferences in mating by looking at the phenotypic correlation between spouses of twins and their co-twins, for example. That study works with a small sample size (36 randomly selected couples): is not a valid representation of the population. And Incorrect methods: Lack of validation of subjective assessments: the test subjects (over 100 volunteers) had to assign each of the photographs of female target subjects to one of the males.

    Furthermore, the appropriate methodology would be to run a morphometric study of a wide sample size of real couples for the purpose of developing a more scientific and aesthetic guide that helps facial evaluation. At least basic facial landmarks (Mainly Sn: subnasale Al: alaree Gn: gnathion and Go: gonion, so on) . A multivariate analysis of covariance should be undertaken to detect significant differences in facial morphometry between mates.”

    I would like to concede my error.

    I now regard the study I cited as an anomaly.

    If I were to venture an explanation for any non- random effects in this study, it would be to propose some subset of males where Self-seeking strategies are learned behaviors following from spurious notions in conflating symmetry between sexes.

    But, better to discount it, without a compelling body of corroborating evidence.

    “A low mate value. Inter-individual variability with regard to the question of which traits are perceived as attractive/beautiful to what degree and which are in demand while choosing a mate, are easily explained basing on market value theory as a sexual partner. Women of above-average attractiveness need to make fewer compromises with regard to mate selection than women who are less attractive, by waiving the sexual attractiveness of their partners in favor of parental
    invesment – or viceversa. Women of above-average beauty in the market for mates can afford to raise their personal standards with regard to both aspects, and therefore, their aesthetic cognitions are more critical concerning masculine sex appeal
    (Buss and Shackelford [2008]).”

    Yes, it sounds like a compromise of low mate value(which I had tried to express).

    @ Tyrion Lannister,

    “Yes you are right if we we rely on “sexually dimorphic” traits, (leaving aside “averageness / prototypicality” and bilateral symmetry). True, intralocus sexual conflictoccurs when sex-specific selection favors genes that increase fitness in one sex and decrease fitness in the other sex. On the other hand, the positive genetic correlation between male and female
    attractiveness and the negative genetic correlation between male facial attractiveness and female facial masculinity–femininity suggest that alleles influencing variation in these traits are consistently beneficial—or maladaptive—regardless of sex. One mechanism for maintaining genetic variation in the face of such directional selection is mutation-selection
    balance: although some of the alleles affecting these traits are conducive to both sexes’ reproductive success, a constant influx of deleterious mutations is introduced each generation that maintains a degree of maladaptive variation in the population.

    See for example: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/2/476

    Yes, you are correct – clearly, sexual conflict is not the relevant consideration, given that the basis of similarity does not lie with quantitative traits.

    It is hard to evaluate my reasoning from that time(over a year past), only to say that I was clearly in error.

    “I’d dare to say that if it is linked. I’d suggest check out some of the Greg Cochran’s essays:

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=paternal+age

    Thank you for the informative link.

    I see that where populations are tending to higher paternal ages(presumably trading off higher mutation loading for greater paternal resources), there can be notable consequences.

    “Do you mean again to women from underdeveloped countries? Anyway, frankly, I do not think you were referring to such women on “evanmarckatz”, since that the conceptual framework in such forums/blogs are mainly our local women”

    Actually, I believe I was, since prospective 3rd world wives were actually the context of the discussion at that time, if I remember correctly.

    @ Tyrion Lannister

    “Mating effort is not an honest sign of anything. As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans.”

    I was not speaking to mating effort, per se.

    I would argue that sexual aggression is a male secondary sexual characteristic(but as a phenotype operating on the behavioral axis).

    The costs of display are too high to be borne in success by all but males of sufficient genetic quality.

    I will concede to you – at this point, anti-social tendencies cannot be taken as speaking to genetic quality, in the general case.

    But, there is clearly some subset of genetically attractive males from whom sexually coercive behavior is advantageous, in terms of netting high mating success(and thus, in evidence of their high genetic quality).

    I had only delineated how strategic tendencies in sexual coercion can gain traction in the fitness landscape, given favorable conditions where females enable such behaviors in genetically favored males(passively selecting for them) – a notion which is, increasingly, non controversial, especially in the manosphere.

    If frequencies follow from evolutionary success, and tendencies in sexual coercion correlate strongly with other anti-social behaviors which predispose criminality, I think the implications are clear.

    Admittedly, a highly speculative tangent.

    “What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology.”

    How about a relationship between testosterone, body-composition, bone structure, and sexual aggression?

    There is clearly a link between testosterone and male secondary sexual characteristics regarded as honest signals of genetic quality(and as sexually attractive traits).

    And there is evidence linking testosterone to sexually aggressive behaviors.

    -@ Tyrion Lannister

    “Anyway if the real huge inequality in male mating success was a reliable correlate of offspring in the modern frame, (that is not)”

    I don’t know what you mean by ‘reliable’.

    There may be no ‘reliable’ data on any correlation, but I think it is safe to assume there is a correlation(females may be more focused on physical attraction for casual sex, but I would still venture to say that mutual physical attraction is as strong a determinant as other factors for reproductive success – at least as far as developed world populations are concerned).

    “tending to a small breeding male population, recessive deleterious mutations are typically rare. The potential adverse health consequences of notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures outweigh the possible phenotypes mixing benefits related to decreasing the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of recessive deleterious mutations from parents belonging to different phenotypes.”

    The human fitness landscape is rugged, so any dynamic that has a strong likelihood to preturb the stability of epistatic ‘neighbourhoods'(‘notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures’, as you put it) can likewise be seen as dysgenic.

    But, the point is, that any rapid trend to smaller male breeding populations is likely to be a dysgenic one.

  3. Paragon says:

    “What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology.”

    To be clear, I am not suggesting such a link exists in lieu of evidence.

    I am merely supposing the study I cited may be evidence of some trend towards these linkages, and expositing on an evolutionary justification.

    If sexual coercion is an advantageous strategy for some subset of genetically attractive males to pursue, then frequencies should follow from that success.

  4. sirtyrionlannister says:

    @ Paragon,

    I’m honored to have your comment on my blog!

    I am currently researching about mate choice in humans, and trying to approach all kind of issues on my next posts: stochastic environmental events, optimal/minimal mate threshold for males/females, distribution of the quality of prospective mates, sexual selection, mating skew for males/males, density-dependent and OSR effects, Bateman gradients, variability in mating success and frequencies for males/ females, etc.

    Most mating research is based in zoological studies, and most biologists whom I have consulted are unfamiliar with many of the human modeling issues that I describe. Moreover, most of the existing human studies (both the empirical studies and the modeling studies) have some substantial limitations.

    Unfortunately scholars with your skills are just getting into the area, so it would be a great if I could count on your cooperation as mathematical biologist through your comments or even posting your own essays on this humble blog.

    “I now regard the study I cited as an anomaly.

    If I were to venture an explanation for any non- random effects in this study, it would be to propose some subset of males where Self-seeking strategies are learned behaviors following from spurious notions in conflating symmetry between sexes.

    But, better to discount it, without a compelling body of corroborating evidence.”

    I am delighted that we have been able to reach a common thinking on this issue. I am a man of open mind, and I’m willing to accept all kinds of hypotheses when we have more and better studies about facial perceptual process and information-processing mechanisms operating within mate choice complex.

    But if methodological details are not appropriate, studies conducted are too scarce, with a small size sample and failed in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes, I would say that this potentially false research should not be considered as acceptable. See for example:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    “To be clear, I am not suggesting such a link exists in lieu of evidence.

    I am merely supposing the study I cited may be evidence of some trend towards these linkages, and expositing on an evolutionary justification.

    If sexual coercion is an advantageous strategy for some subset of genetically attractive males to pursue, then frequencies should follow from that success.”

    At this point it is difficult to reach agreement. According to distribution on mate choice decisions observed, female mating preferences tend to a narrow subset of highly attractive males, skewing the distribution on mate choice decisions.

    Once females prefer particular male qualities, the preferences exert selection pressures on the preferred traits. Men who possessed preferred traits, by virtue of their enhanced ability to exercise choice in a mating system, had greater reproductive success.

    Maybe you’re trying to say that, as long as they are within a highly monogamous system, the most attractive males would be paired up with only one female (as the rest of males), and therefore they would be below their optimum potential fitness.

    So that adopting coercive tactics they could increase reproductive fitness and reducing their levels of male parental investment. But that deductive reasoning does not hold, since the remaining males could adopt the same strategy for increasing their mating rate. Since no mate acceptance (meet a certain attractiveness threshold) is required prior to an forced intercourse.

    I find more plausibles other tactics (as cuckoldry allowed for some females) when high quality males were willing to increase their fitness optima in a closed pair-bonded system. I don’t think that coercitive involuntary copulation can be a required alternative reproductive strategy for those most sexually-appealing males.

    It seems to me more feasible some type of frequency-dependent selection mechanism for coercitive behavioral for less quality males (especially in polygynous settings or with male-biased sex ratios).

    But forced copulation performed by less quality males lead to an antagonistic co-evolution, and it would be offset by a countering trait in females.(while his hypothesis would have to explain that female offspring would be more likely to possess the preference for these coercitive males)

    “You are referring to epistasis.

    The human fitness landscape is rugged, so any dynamic that has a strong likelihood to preturb the stability of epistatic ‘neighbourhoods'(‘notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures’, as you put it) can likewise be seen as dysgenic.

    Inbreeding depression, however, is something that even the layman can grasp.

    But, the point is, that any rapid trend to smaller male breeding populations is likely to be a dysgenic trend.”

    I mostly agree. Anyway whether sexual selection increases or decreases extinction risks when populations face variable or unforeseen conditions is likewise unknown.

    Inbreeding may be caused by a high mating skew, but it could also be reduced if females adaptively choose mates to avoid inbred offspring. Mate choice may evolve by indirect selection when attractive males bestow genes for increased fitness on offspring.

    These fitness benefits may be in increased survival or fecundity, but they may equally be for increased male attractiveness at the expense of survival and fecundity.

    “How about a relationship between testosterone, body-composition, bone structure, and sexual aggression?”

    True, on some body parameters. For now there is no proven relationship to facial attractiveness.

    “I am not speaking to mating effort, per se.

    I would argue that sexual aggression is a male secondary sexual characteristic(phenotypes operate on the behavioral axis as well).

    The costs of display are too high to be borne in success by all but males of sufficient genetic quality.

    I will concede to you – at this point, anti-social tendencies cannot be taken as speaking to genetic quality, in the general case.

    But, there is clearly some subset of genetically attractive males from whom sexually coercive behavior is advantageous, in terms of netting higher mating success(and thus, in evidence of their high genetic quality).

    I have only delineated how strategic tendencies in sexual coercion can gain traction in the fitness landscape, given favorable conditions where females enable such behaviors in genetically favored males(passively selecting for them) – a notion which is, increasingly, non controversial, especially in the manosphere.

    If frequencies follow from evolutionary success, and tendencies in sexual coercion correlate strongly with other anti-social behaviors which predispose criminality, I think the implications are clear.

    Admittedly, a highly speculative tangent.”

    But I said above, I would rather avoid purposely misrepresent or misunderstand the process of science, taking isolated studies and stitching them together to support novel and counter-intuitive theses. So an interpretation of this hypothesis remains controversial for me, and a lack of empirical evidence prevents a consensus.

    I might be more lenient with the assertion that women could be passively more permissive toward sexual coercion coming from men displaying best quality genetically traits. But is still a fairly speculative theoretical model, far from being corroborated by any empirical evidence across studies.

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘reliable’.

    There may be no ‘reliable’ data on any correlation, but I think it is safe to assume there is a correlation(females may be more focused on physical attraction for casual sex, but I would still venture to say that mutual physical attraction is as strong a determinant as other factors for reproductive success – at least as far as developed world populations are concerned). “

    Totally true since sexual selection is associated with higher mating opportunities and subsequent reproductive success across our evolutionary history. I meant simply that the prevalence of modern birth control methods likely to disconnect mating opportunities from reproductive success. Neglect of the topic in mate choice literature limits the ability to formulate empirically grounded models of sexual selection.

  5. It’s hard to seek out knowledgeable folks on this matter, but you sound like you understand what you’re talking about! Thanks

  6. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s