lamoran{at}bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
news:bumqcu$1n65$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:39:36 +0000 (UTC), 
> William Morse  wrote:
>> kbc32{at}yahoo.com (kbc) wrote in news:buc90d$9ub$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org:
>> 
>>> I am curious whether there is any scientific explanation for the
>>> role  facial appearance plays in mate-selection in humans.
>>  
>>> Are beautiful people genetically better ( such that their survival
>>> chances are more ) ? ( i am not hinting anything.  just explaining
>>> my question. )
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> If you are really interested, I suggest you take a break from
>> watching TV and read Geoffrey Miller's "The Mating Mind", which
>> discusses the whole question of mate selection in humans in
>> considerable detail. 
 
>> Very briefly, yes a number of studies show beauty to be a measure of 
>> facial symmetry. Symmetry is an indicator of lack of genetic or 
>> developmental abnormalities, and so is a good fitness indicator. So 
>> beautiful people are likely to be genetically "better". You should
>> note that they are only "better" in terms of the conditions that
>> humans evolved under, which are not necessarily the conditions we
>> experience today.
 
>> There is also evidence that indicates that humans to a certain extent
>> prefer faces with younger looking features (especially in females),
>> which probably relates to  the interest in having a mate who is still
>> young enough to bear and raise a number of children.  
 
> This is all very interesting but it doesn't answer the question. Are
> there any studies to indicate that beauty is correlated with ability
> to reproduce and are there any studies that describe the genetic 
> components of beauty? In order for there to be selection for
> particular facial features there have to be genes that have a direct
> effect on facial appearance and there have to alleles for genes that
> modify the response to that appearance. All of these are possible, but
> they seem to be implicitly assumed rather than seriously examined.
 
> Another assuption seems to be that facial beauty correlates with
> reproductive success. Most of the people who post here seem to assume 
> that men only marry beautiful women and all the ugly ones die  
> childless. This does not correspond to my experience. As far as I
> know the vast majority of women in any society contribute their genes
> to the next generation. I doubt very much that there's a detectable
> difference between the facial beauty of successful vs. non-successful
> mothers. Such a difference is absolutely essential for any adaptionist
> just-so story. Does anyone have any data to suggest that facial beauty
> correlates with evolutionary fitness either now or in the past?
 
 
> Larry (who now prefers older-looking women) Moran


I also now prefer older looking women, and Miller also describes this 
behavior - he charitably attributes it to their greater worldliness, but 
it might be simply desperation on my part :-)

But more seriously. Symmetrical faces are found more beautiful (and I 
can't cite references, but I have seen this numerous times, so I assume 
it is true). If symmetry is an indication of health and lack of genetic 
abnormalities (as Miller states and I can only hope it is on good 
authority), then there can be selection for "beauty" without any genes 
having a direct effect on facial appearance (although there would have to 
be alleles for genes that modify the response to that appearance).

And no there is no assumption that facial beauty correlates with 
reproductive success in the short term, rather that it correlates with 
long term fitness. Let me try to explain (but note that I am only 
parroting Miller - you might be better served by arguing with him). 
Since humans in most societies are monogamous or polygynous rather than 
polyandrous, and since the sex ratio is approximately 50:50, and since 
almost all males seek mates, and since until recently almost all couples 
(or multiples) had children, it is  impossible for ugly women to die 
childless unless they die before reaching child-bearing age. And since  
children (again until recently) inherit one half of their genes from 
their mother, we can guarantee that there will be very little difference 
between the facial beauty of successful vs. non-successful mothers _in 
the first generation_. But now we get to long term fitness. Since almost 
all humans will mate, any difference in preference will be reflected in 
assortation. Healthy females will get to mate with the fittest males. 
while the ugly ones have to settle for the rejects. So their kids will 
(on average) be a little slower, a little more prone to disease, etc. In 
other words their long term fitness will be impaired.


And finally, if beauty is based on symmetry and related to health, people 
will not (in fact _can_ not) become more beautiful _as individuals_ 
through time (the overall beauty of the population can still fluctuate). 
What they will do is keep pace with parasites. If people paid no 
attention to health in their mating, it seems to me they would be 
susceptible to parasites.

So we are left with two questions. One is whether there is any data that 
links facial beauty with health. Miller believes there is. A major 
reference he cites is Etcoff(1999) "Survival of the Prettiest". I haven't 
read it. The second is whether there are genes that modify the response 
to facial appearance. While I don't know of any research on this, it is 
known that facial recognition is a particular skill unrelated to general 
visual acuity (see "Mapping the Mind"), so I don't see this as unlikely.


Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/24/04 6:39:12 AM