

Sexual selection

Hunkier than thou


See article

Readers' comments




Most of the posters are commenting upon a journalist's precis. I doubt a one of them has used the article as a spur to read the original research. It's a bit like going down to the pub with your Daily Mail reading father: lots of huffing and puffing, a bit funny, the odd insight but basically more amused at his prejudices than at the object of his derision.


Defining psychological traits out of the contours of one's skull was somewhat popular in XIX century. I've read some times that this try was dismissed as nonsense but reading this article I'm not so sure.
Frenology (Phrenology) it was named.

Anyway, prejudice, as an easy and fast form of having patterns is always attractive for humans.


Most guys when selecting a mate are young, have not had time to accumulate material wealth but do have the pyscial attributes necessary to make their way in the world.

Radhika Raman

The amount of rampant sexism in these comments is inevitable, but saddening nonetheless. Let me copy and paste the terms of use as a gentle reminder to all:
You may not -



You're mistaking the two. One is purely "mercenary", while the other is natural & hormonal. (And I think most of us know which is which!)


@ mill_house:

Spot on! Cogent & logical. You nailed it.

There are so many convoluted, albeit inter-related variables, rammifications & nuances which need to be factored in, before any study, on human relationships, can claim some modicom of credibility, authenticity or respect.

The rest of such superficial & perfunctory studies, barely scratch the surface & don't deserve more than an amused glance. No disrespect intended or implied, Economist..


I am glad to see that Dr. DeBruin is reading and responding to these comments. I have not fully read her work, but will now that I see that it is posted. Obviously anything that the Economist publishes will be a gloss, but because it has such a wide readership, the Economist should be very careful about what studies are published and how they are presented. Evolutionary biologists make arguments about how people act the way the due today based on assumptions of how we evolved in the past. The slippery slope comes when they ask questions about current behavior and come up with evolutionary explanations that justify and naturalize these current behaviors.

First: gender is both cultural and biological. What is masculine and what is feminine is neither cut and dry nor stable across time and culture. To make an argument about sexual selection based on cross-cultural preferences is VERY hard to defend.

Second: Furthermore, their argument is founded on assumptions about cultural and biological (phenotypic) stability over time. If the desire for "masculine" men is engrained in our genes, then these traits and their significance must be proven to have been consistent over time. Now, given the incredibly broad range f phenotypic variation across the world, this is difficult enough to prove today let alone over time. Just go back and read Franz Boas on the changes in facial features and stature among immigrants to the US at the turn of the century (based on improved nutrition) and you will see how flawed these assumptions are.

Third: As with most of these kinds of studies, there is an incredibly oversimplified ascription of physical attraction to actual mating and successfully producing offspring. For example, in less than the last 100 years human sexual behavior has changed significantly with the advent of consistent birth control. Shouldn't that affect who a man or woman finds attractive or chooses to have intercourse with? Having intercourse and raising a family are not the same thing. Furthermore, thinking back to past populations and limited choices (just how far away from your family and village you might have been able to move in order to find a mate) and you will see how off this argument is. What about arranged marriages? Does a young woman's attraction matter to her parents? Once again, we are ascribing modern sentiments about love, attraction, and choice onto a human past that remains open to debate.

Fourth: The study seems to have little concern for the other half of the equation -- what men look for in a potential mate. To leave that out (let alone all of the rest of culture that impinges on our beliefs, proclivities, opportunities, and choices) makes any study effectively meaningless.

OK. There could be a biological proclivity and over large enough populations you might see a slight inclination for something like symmetry. Back to the idea of responsible science and responsible reporting. If we want to understand human behavior, and perhaps improve it we should look at contemporary culture, politics, and economics first. To really understand contemporary patterns of mating, wealth, power, violence, etc... a more pragmatic, realistic, and parsimonious method would be to look at relations of power (money, prestige, lineage, etc...). Forget facial features. You are going back to phrenology and looking to prove that you can identify a criminal based on their face. Understand the family, the community, the society and how they fit together in order to understand the choices people make. Then get back to me about facial features.


women's tastes on males differ from everyone.But you can see that almost every woman wishes her boyfriend or husband care for her .you know,beauty is the eyes of the beholder.If real love lies between you,no matter what you look like,you must appreciate each ohter.
You can trust me,appearence is not so much impotant.


Good article and interesting research. I personally find it fascinating. Evolution has shaped our brains over the course of thousands of years, and I don't understand how anyone can be bored or critical of attempts to peel back the layers and find out what makes us tick.


Funny to read as a joke, but what a pointless research. If scientists are so bored as to write such vain conclusions, wonder what's the point in financing research!


Was it so abstruse for the researchers to comprehend the very relativity of the subject matter in question? Whoever Jen finds fetching is her judgment; and his allure might only be privy to Jen. To all who care, Jen's choice could be the most unsightly. Why then waste the vital resources on this discourse?


Gini coefficient indeed fits to my own personal observations. But that view on aggressive markers is a backward view on genetical development and its impact on current society. Researchers should take something into account, that I would call "competitive intelligence". In the whole world we see now a huge pressure on selection, as aggression is not a social advantage anymore. When you look at the most violent societies, the aggressive selection is dying out, as a whole young generation is getting lost due to aggressive drug abuse, caused by aggressive family environment (the aggressive father). A woman in a high-Gini country will definitely give preference to a competitive intelligent men, with highly stable mind in violent social and economical circumstances. The violent guy and the soft guy are both not able to secure good offspring. 2 question for researchers: what are the markers for a stable mind? How much is the world wide social change driving evolutionary selection of humans? And of course, this is The Economist, is the aggressive manager dying out, will companies search for competitive intelligence?


This is not interesting. I would be much more interested to hear about more elusive factors that women judge for attractiveness in a man.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage 2 hrs 51 mins ago
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43


Products & events