ThatDamnedPanda
Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I don't know. Physical appearance, which is a primary attractant, has a great deal to do with genetic background, and a good argument could be made that personality traits have a significant genetic component as well. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss this. I'd be interested in keeping tabs on where this research goes.
While some aspects of physical appearance are strictly based in genetics (eye/hair color, skin tone, basic bone structure, basic facial features) not all are. Dentinia, weight and skin condition (such as acne and/or rough/wrinkled easily vs smooth, that sort of thing) are more frequently a direct result of our lifestyle choices. Those choices are often heavily influenced (either possitively or negatively) by culture and social class - things which are by no means genetic. Standards of "beauty" are also strongly influenced by culture, social class, fashion trends, and even time within a given culture - it is a mutable thing, not fixed, and therefore not so reliant upon genetics as it might otherwise be.
Sure, but if you accept that this hypothetical selection mechanism is an evolutionary product, I think we need to consider it in the context of the human evolutionary process. As I understand the material, what the researchers are suggesting is that we are biologically programmed to select mates from a gene pool sufficiently different from our own to ensure that we are maximizing the genetic diversity of our potential offspring. In other words, if what they're suggesting is true, very early humans evolved to select mates that looked significantly different than the other humans in their own immediate group. Fashion choices, skin condition, and things of that nature probably didn't differ that radically from one band to the next, and I suspect were not as important in the primitive selection process as they are today anyway. Anything that walked on fewer than four legs and looked smart enough to tell the difference between a goat and a sabretooth tiger probably qualified as the Bachelor or Bachelorette of The Month.
We know physical appearance, the way a potential partner looks at first glance, is a very powerful element of the initial attraction process. I don't have any trouble believing that something as simple as "that one looks a little different than the others" is a perfectly plausible pre-programmed screening criteria somewhere in our selection software. And in fact that's exactly what the article says the researchers are suggesting - that something as simple as differences in the facial structure of a potential mate could be all it takes.
The problem I have with this is that it seems to contradict some other theories of anthropology that I've always felt were very persuasive - the school of thought that believes we're biologically programmed to form closer associations with people who do resemble us physically, so that we are more likely to band together to defend a line of DNA that may have originated in a common ancestor. Although it's been a few years, everything I've read around that line of reasoning has seemed pretty solid to me, and I'm not quite sure how these two schools of thought would reconcile with one another.
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
As far as Personality - that becomes the classic Psychology debate of Nature vs Nurture. It has yet to be conclusively Proven in either direction, but during the years that I was studying psych (I so need to go finish that degree, damnit) the vast majority of the evidence I saw weighed heavily in favor of Nurture. Parental standards, societal standards, peer pressure or lack thereof, exposure to various stimuli of both positive and negative variety, authority responce (positive or negative) towards various behavior patterns to either reinforce them or destroy them. Those play much more heavily on the formation of base personality than anything else I can think of or find. And those, again, are Cultural aspects rather than Genetic aspects of our beings. The standards for those things change from culture to culture, and across time within a given culture, and have an influence both on how we act and how "attractive" we percieve the actions of others to be.
Oh, I completely agree. I'm confident that there is a significant genetic component to base personality, but that this element is far outweighed by the formative processes of whatever culture in which you grew up. However, I don't think that negates the theory suggested by these researchers. If your personality is different than mine because it was shaped by a different tribe than the tribe I grew up in, then your DNA is probably considerably different than mine as well. I don't necessarily see that as being a flaw in this theory.
_____________________________
Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?
|
"Opposites attract in human search for mate" - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread