Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio

Research summary: Karrenmans et al. (2010), 'Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio', Evolution and Human Behavior, 31 (May): 182-186

Previous studies suggest that heterosexual men in Western societies are attracted to low female waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), which may be a pattern replicated cross-culturally, although evidence is complex and suggests the interaction of multiple factors in determining this preference. Men's low WHR preference has often been explained non-evolutionarily, with reference to visual influence, particularly from media ideals of female beauty. Adaptive explanations however propose that low female WHR indicated health and fertility across our evolutionary history and thus selection favoured cognitive adaptations in males that facilitate this preference. Indeed, there is evidence that low WHRs may be associated with health and fertility in females from some populations (see Singh and Randall 2007). A possible mechanism for the connection between WHR and fertility could involve the negative effect of upper-body fat on the supply of long-chain polyunstaturated fatty acids crucial for neurological development (Lassek and Gaulin 2008). It has also been suggested that the male preference for low WHRs could be a by-prodict of other preferences, such as one for generally exaggerated features.

This study adds support to the adaptive theories by showing that the preference exists also in heterosexual men who have been blind since birth. A small sample of (19) blind men reported their preferences by assessing two identical mannequins by touch, adjusted only for WHR. 38 sighted men also participated and were divided into blindfolded and non-blindfolded groups. Statistical analysis showed that the low WHR was the only significant predictor of preference choice across the groups, although the preferences were strongest for the sighted, unblindfolded group, followed by the sighted, blindfolded group, and finally the blind group, suggesting that visual input is also important.

Further reading:

W.D. Lassek and S.J.C. Gaulin, Waist-to-hip and cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources?, Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2008), pp. 26–34.

Singh & Randall, 2007 D. Singh and P.K. Randall, Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness, Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007), pp. 329–340.

Gorilla play and theory of mind

The first observation of captive gorilla play incorporating an item and a partner - an ability previously observed only in humans and bonobos:



Richard Byrne and Joanne Tanner of the University of St Andrews report observations of this 'triadic' play involving complexities such as playful competition, solicitation of other playmates by gaze and gesture signalling and the self-handicapping by older gorillas when playing with a juvenile. The games were not influenced by human participation but rather were novelties naturally invented by the gorillas.

This is interesting because its another example of a phenomenon once thought to be uniquely human, and it helps us indirectly obtain knowledge about animal minds. In this case, its most likely, as argued by the researchers, a good demonstration of theory of mind, as its difficult to participate in a complex mutual interaction such as this without understanding what your partner intends.

This kind of research can hopefully also help facilitate better-informed ethical treatment of non-human animals in captive conditions.

Byrne, R.W. and Tanner, J.W. (2010), 'Triadic and collaborative play by gorillas in social games with objects', Animal Cognition 

How tabloid science reporting works

Researchers: disruption of circadian rhythms in mice affects cell division.

Daily Mail: der derpy derpy der, boffins say don't turn the light on at night when you have a wee or you'll GET CANCER, der der derpy der

Researchers:  we didn't say that.

Another debate and something to keep an eye on

Here's a recent one between Stephen Meyer (author of Signature in the Cell) and intelligent design proponent and Peter Atkins, Oxford University chemist. I haven't listened to it myself but according to Jeffrey Shallit of Recursivity (a professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo, Ontario) its part of a repeated, depressing theme: slick ID arguments not quite adequately countered by polite and sometimes humble opponents who find it hard to explain very complicated concepts in a quick fire debate format. Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic.

In other news, Ben Stein's thoroughly flawed ID documentary Expelled arrives in the UK this month. Joy. Its been more than adequately ripped apart by internet-savvy scientific commentators and so I'll just recommend a simple (and yet critical) visit to Google University...

Or if you can bear it, actually watch it.

Debating intelligent design/creationism

These can be painful viewing as IDers and creationists can often be much slicker debaters than those from the evolution side. Which to be honest, nobody should mind, I'd rather trust good science than good PR. However I think its a useful exercise to be familiar with ID/creo arguments for several reasons: 1) challenges to a working theory are healthy and remind us not to resort to intellectual laziness or groupthink, 2) some of their objections are not easily answered by the average evolution accepting layperson or even those familiar with the science, and 3) nobody wants to look stupid at social events, being stumped for a comeback when the token 'skeptic' pops up. Some arguments are of course hideously obvious in their shortcomings, like the old "why are there still monkeys?" or "there are no transitional fossils". But its more difficult if somebody confidently asserts something like "there are not enough beneficial genetic mutations for natural selection to be a creative rather than simply whittling force". It isn't immediately very easy to refute this without some technical knowledge.

To this end, I thought it would be helpful to post a list of some classic evolution versus ID/creationism debates and some further resources for your perusal...


Barry Lynn, Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse, and Kenneth Miller vs. William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski, December 1997


PZ Myers vs. Geoffrey Simmonds, January 2008 

Peter Ward vs. Stephen Meyer, May 2008

Michael Shermer vs. Jonathan Wells, December 2008

Michael Shermer and Don Prothero vs. Stephen Meyer and Rick Sternberg, December 2009  

The ID/creationist arguments are generally horribly flawed, though some more so than others, but importantly, they make you think, and some of the evolution rebuttals are not quite satisfying, so I think overall they are worth watching if you can bear it.

An extremely useful follow up resource can then be found at talkorigins.org's Index to Creationist Claims which comprises hundreds of useful bits of information all in one convenient location (if you'll excuse their 1995 web design). Its also available as an Iphone app I think!

Happy debating!