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!

A test of your stamina for nerdiness/BS tolerance

A very brief introduction to homeopathy for those who aren't familiar with it:

Homeopathy is a unique form of so-called 'alternative' (sadly in most cases, for this read: 'not evidence-based') medicine established by a German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, in the 1790s. It is based on the following principles:

• 'Like cures like' - substances that are similar to a disease- or other biological state-causing agents are most likely to provide a cure. So for example, insomnia might be treated with caffeine.
• The smaller the concentration of the active ingredient, usually in pill or liquid form, the more powerful its potency. Homeopathic convention states that the most powerful treatments are those that have been diluted to such an extent that they contain just one, or even no remaining molecules of the original substance.
• The above theory is based on the idea that water has a 'memory' - so therefore its the dilution process itself, rather than solely the inclusion of a substance, that is argued to have therapeutic effect.
  

Contrary to what many people think, homeopathy is therefore not a herbal or 'naturopathic' medicine, which contain active ingredients at a potency with physiological and potentially clinical effect.

Even without clinical trials, the theory supporting homeopathy is fatally and actually very obviously flawed. Any glass of water, or breath of air, or anything else that I ingest is likely to have once contained all manner of substances, including those that are toxic or thoroughly unpleasant at sufficient doses. Think of where your toilet water goes and where your tap water comes from...so its really implausible to suppose that water can somehow distinguish between the ingredient in question and all the other substances its molecules have ever come into contact with.

If this were true, all our basic scientific understanding of toxicity and principles of medicine, not to mention the laws of physics, would be critically challenged and face urgent re-examination. But the evidence just doesn't support that this is the case. If we accept this kind of reality-bending theory, then there is no distinction between medicine based on evidence and that based on magic, fraud or nonsense.

The weight of scientific evidence falls heavily against the clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. Although some trials might show a positive effect, generally speaking these are of poorer quality than those that show no effect of homeopathic medicines beyond the placebo effect. Homeopaths have a tendency to selectively cite studies that show support, without considering the evidence in its totality. One can only assume that this demonstrates either a very poor calibre of science, or intentional deception.

The problem is that many people, including intelligent, discerning types, cite personal experience of the benefit of homeopathic remedies, and nobody would wish to insult their testimonies, especially those from the desperately ill. However, to deny that their recovery is likely to be due to homeopathic remedies is not to call them stupid or deluded but to give appropriate acknowledgment to the power of placebo and the limits of anecdotal evidence. This has (like everything) been covered extensively by Ben Goldacre, so I won't go into it in any detail here. The placebo effect and the unreliability of personal experience affect us all, often at a level below what we can consciously access, and so it is not something that should be mocked.

Anyway, bearing all this in mind (you'll really need to look into homeopathy further to get a full picture, I haven't covered the purported and often flawed evidential support for it, or its bizarre, ritualistic processes in sufficient detail, but a little Googling should go a long way. Also see the NHS site for a comprehensive overview and introduction to evidence-based medicine), you'd imagine that it would be a fringe practice, generally ignored by and excluded from conventional medicinal authorities...but sadly this isn't the case...

Homeopathy is available on the NHS. There are several NHS homeopathic hospitals and some GP practices offer homeopathic remedies. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), an executive agency of the Department of Health, who according to their own site "enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe [...] Underpinning all our work lie robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits to patients and the public justify the risks", has allowed homeopathic pills to make medicinal claims.

This decision by the MHRA was recently reviewed by the parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee, in a pleasantly surprising example of real policy evaluation, attended by an impressive cast including the big BG himself. You can watch it online here. This needs no further comments and should really be watched by anybody interested in the relationship between medicine and policy.

(Highlights are available for those that can't tolerate this level of nerdery and shocking BS spewing by certain contributors here)

Sexy Sunday Science

What I love the most about scientific study of human sex is the decidedly non-sexy language researchers tend to use: 'coitus', 'copulatory vocalisations', 'female orgasmic capacity' and the like. Mmm.

Ok, I know that the alternative would perhaps be even sillier and that this is not relevant to the validity of such studies but juvenile that I am, I couldn't help mentioning it.

So anyway, here are a couple of nice...tit bits...from recent research, presented at the International Society for Human Ethology Conference, Maine in July 2009:

The ease of orgasm from heterosexual penetrative sex in women is positively correlated with the ratio of first finger to third finger length - that is, the more that your third finger is longer than your first, the greater your 'coital orgasmic ability' (Lara Eschler, Cambridge University. I can't seem to find this as a published study, but she's a PhD student so I assume the data comes from her ongoing work).

Female orgasm during heterosexual vaginal intercourse is not correlated with the intensity of orgasmic vocalisation. Though greatest reported frequency of orgasm occurred during non-intercourse sexual activity, the greatest intensity of vocalisation occurred immediately prior to or during male orgasm (Brewer, Morgan and Hendrie - 'On the adaptive significance of female copulatory vocalisations', from the University of Central Lancashire and the University of Leeds - again as yet unpublished as far as I can tell).