
Survival of the Prettiest - Hooke
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/books/review/evolution-of-beauty-richard-prum-charles-darwin.html
======
pdog
What's most incredible about Darwin is how readable and essential (and
fundamentally correct) his two major treatises, _Origin_ and _Descent_ , have
remained.

It's like Newton not only discovering calculus but also inventing its modern
syntax and writing the best textbook on the subject.

~~~
Ngunyan
> What's most incredible about Darwin is how readable and essential (and
> fundamentally correct) his two major treatises, Origin and Descent, have
> remained.

Fundamentally correct? Evolution is neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, so
it's not scientific.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.

~~~
ufo
I think you are making evolution sound less scientific than it is.

One thing that is a certifiable fact is that species are not fixed. As shown
by the fossil record, new species can show up and old species go extinct. And
in a smaller time scale, the artificial selection that happens with
domesticated plants and animals shows that there can be significant changes in
species.

Once we realize that some sort of evolution must be happening the question
becomes to explain what mechanism is behind it. One of the initial hypothesis
was the Lamarckian theory that animals can pass on to their offspring traits
that they acquired via their lifestyle. This was eventually proven false when
we found no evidence that this is not how genetics actually works. Darwin's
theory of natural selection is still with us because it withstood the test of
time, not because it is unfalsifiable.

This is very clear if you read Darwin's books. He was aware that there are
many things that would contradict his theory if they were true and he spends
lots of chapters refuting them.

A more modern source I like to point to is Talkorigin's list of 29 evidences
for macroevolution. It covers many of the things known to Darwin and more
recent developments such as genetics, molecular biology and new fossil finds.
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

~~~
busyant
> Lamarckian theory that animals can pass on to their offspring traits that
> they acquired via their lifestyle. This was eventually proven false when we
> found no evidence that this is not how genetics actually works.

Lamarckian theory might not be _completely_ false. There is definitely
epigenetic inheritance, in which traits (reflecting the state of a parent) can
be passed on without being explicitly encoded by nucleic acid. Whether
epigenetic inheritance is a _stable-multi-generational_ way of transferring
traits is a little up in the air. But I wonder if Lamarck will get a modicum
of vindication from the biology textbooks in the long run.

That being said, epigenetic inheritance does not falsify evolution by
mutation.

~~~
ufo
I tried to keep the comment short but yes, Lamarck does get too much off a bad
rep nowadays. His theory wasn't on the mark but he played a big role in making
evolution be an accepted theory in the first place.

------
subroutine
It seems like Prum is taking many interpretational liberties and often engages
in anthropomorphization.

" _The other evolutionary answer is the aesthetic route — the resolution of
differences between male and female needs and desires by behaviors and rituals
that respect the other sex’s priorities and their decisions about how to
pursue them._ "

The thing about beauty is that it is in the eye of the beholder. It is still
subject to the fundamentals of natural selection. Those animals that have an
eye for asthetic (phenotyipic) traits that signal something about the
environmental and sexual fitness of their mate will have hearty offspring. For
example it is possible that Bower birds who make the 'prettiest' nests are
great scavengers in general, a trait that can also be used to collect food for
their children.

Further, I doubt it has much to do with the male Bower "respecting the
female's priorities and decisions about how to pursue them". The male that
fails an attempt to court a potential mate is not thinking "well dang, if i
dont respect her for not appriciating my nest. After all it was a half-ass
attempt and dont i know it".

It is probably thinking at most, when she flys away - 'do not follow; waste of
energy; reengage collecting red bobbles and find worm'

Lastly I think 'oddity' is being interpreted as 'beauty'; an animal might have
something unique going on - maybe some allele that codes for a protein variant
resulting in some funky red spots on its feathers; more importantly that same
protein variant confers some pathogenic immunity. Now, a female bird that
chooses this mate might also have a genetic predisposition that makes her more
attracted to that red spotty hairdo. Two important things happen here. First
these two will have offspring that probably will, if female, like those red
spots, or if male, have those red spots (and the immunity); and secondly there
is a phenotype - 'an odd visual asthetic' \- that can be used to indicate what
this birds genes are (specifically that it has this good immunity allele).
Simply having the immunity allele would make it more fit, but the females
would have no way of knowing. Having a phenotype that indicates something to
the female will in my estimation likely increase the rate at which this allele
proliferate since these beautiful red spots confer a nice environmental
adaptation

~~~
icebraining
Right, but that's "the adaptationist view that beauty is an “honest signaling”
of evolutionary fitness," and which he explicitly rejects.

~~~
tiggybear
I don't think his basis for rejecting that premise is fair.

That's like rejecting the premise that certain vegetables taste good to us
because they are good for us! Our senses evolved to pick out things that are
good for us.

~~~
icebraining
But according to the article, Darwin himself said it "constituted an
evolutionary mechanism separate, independent, and sometimes contrary to
natural selection," not merely a signal for it.

~~~
subroutine
I feel like that quote might be out of context. If not, well then Darwin is
wrong. After reading this article more carefully, one thing I'm certain is
that Richard Prum lacks a fundamental understanding of evolution and natural
selection.

To me it seems clear that females' aesthetic preferences are subject to
selection bias, no different than the male aesthetic, or any other
physiological or behavioral quality that makes two conspecific animals
slightly different.

Also did anyone else notice the reviewer seems like Prum's book is literally
getting them off..

" _Prum seeks to prevail less through brute force of attack than by making his
case with clarity, grace and charm. His attention never strays far from
nature, and his writing in these bird passages is minutely detailed,
exquisitely observant, deeply informed, and often tenderly sensual. When
describing, say, the “throbbing” display of the lavishly decorated argus bird,
he delivers a feathery brush of the erotic._ "

The fuck.

------
jmull
Hm...

I guess there's no particular reason a species has to _optimize_ its fitness
beyond a certain level. It just needs to find a niche and occupy it.

At that point, the mechanisms, cycles, and patterns of life for the species
continue, but no longer need to select for improved fitness. So I guess it
makes some sense that selection would then go down an arbitrary path, of a
complexity commensurate with the life form.

Let's say humans (or our ancestors) achieved our base level of fitness (a
stable and thriving species with a well-established niche) as social, tool-
using primates. Our achievements of language, abstract thinking, civilization,
culture, art, complex tools, religion, science, etc. might be the result of
pursuing that arbitrary, aesthetic path. The species would have done just fine
without any of that, but we did it all anyway.

Interesting. I don't know how much I buy it, but it is an interesting
direction I haven't thought about before.

~~~
kilotaras
Evolution doesn't work on species level, but on individual level. There's
still an in-species competition.

Probability of gene A to fixate is roughly equal to 2s, where s is increased
relative fitness. (e.g. 10% for gene that gives 5% increase). Such genes will
spread even if species as a whole has a niche to populate.

I would recommend reading [1] - a series of essays on evolution and math
behind it.

[1]
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Evolution#Blog_posts_.28sequ...](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Evolution#Blog_posts_.28sequence.29)

~~~
CuriouslyC
That's not entirely true. Evolution acts at the level of populations as well
as individuals. A trait that neutral or even slightly negative for the
individual having it but highly positive for the population will tend to
increase because the population as a whole will select for its continued
existence, since populations having it will out-compete other populations
without it.

------
creaghpatr
Evolution of Beauty was a great book, but it was a little depressing how the
author had to face a ton of entrenched academic prejudice to get his theory
out.

That aspect alone is more interesting than the actual book, which focuses on
Darwin's The Descent of Man arguments that have been marginalized due to their
implications rather than their accuracy. Lots of interesting bird trivia, too,
if you're into that.

~~~
metalliqaz
Even in 2017, mankind is still trying to move from eminence-based science to
evidence-based science.

~~~
infogulch
Eminence helped slow down science down enough to be digested throughout the
community in the pre-internet era. Eminence was a proxy for a level-0 filter
on good science.

As the world moves to become more connected than ever, eminence is too slow
and inefficient. Hopefully we can come out of this with evidence as the new
king and not some other proxy. We're gonna have to make some changes to get
there. (Publication bias, replication prejudice, preregistration, better
statistics, reporting accuracy...)

~~~
FractalNerve
I really like your thinking and believe that there is an eminent truth behind
it. Such that loose social connectedness naturally procreates the development
of such proxies as a form of stabilization mechanism.

What I'd really like to understand and see visualized are the non-linear
social dynamics presented in manifold theory.

------
osteele
I clicked on this expecting a review of Nancy Etcoff's _Survival of the
Prettiest_ (2000), another work in this area.

The New York Times review of Etcoff's book is _called_ "The Beautiful People"
<[http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/03/21/reviews/990321.21lehrm...](http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/03/21/reviews/990321.21lehrmat.html>),
but the review is _about_ _Survival of the Prettiest_. Lewis Carroll would be
happy with this. I wasn't able to find an NYT review of the Marilyn Manson
album.

------
jtraffic
What explains why the females like what they like? Perhaps I'm just lost, but
could it be that natural selection explains sexual preferences, which has a
subsequent impact on evolution?

> this “aesthetic” courtship, says Prum, creates an environment, temperaments
> and rituals — a sort of culture — that give the female sexual choice,
> autonomy and safety

Maybe natural selection at a species level (notice the word 'safety') selects
for individual-level sexual preferences? If that is true, the theories aren't
substitutes, but complements.

Again, maybe I'm just lost.

------
laughinghan
Without passing judgment on the book itself, which I have not read, I find key
elements of the argument as presented in this review to be unconvincing.

> Consider, for instance, this handful of well-known distinguishing human
> traits: [...human mating behaviors...] none of these traits evolved in our
> fellow ape species. Prum argues that they evolved in humans because they
> help women evaluate men’s prosocial-pleasure potential.

Wait but, if they're so helpful, why didn't they evolve in our fellow ape
species too? Our mating behaviors aren't any more evolved than apes, the apes
of today have had exactly the same amount of time to evolve as we have.
Shouldn't this case be made based on archeological species that we've since
outcompeted?

An a separate note, this review makes it sound like no one else has done
significant work on sexual selection. Isn't Fisherian runaway, for example, a
well-known instance of sexual selection? And Ronald Fisher was a key figure in
the modern synthesis.

~~~
hwillis
> Wait but, if they're so helpful, why didn't they evolve in our fellow ape
> species too?

Apes have vastly different social structures than humans. Those structures do
not encourage those traits. Apes have strict ranking and group around
families.

In chimps, females emigrate after puberty and permanently relocate to other
groups. Fertility is used as a passport to join a new group. Constant
fertility would be disruptive.

Humans want to have sex constantly because it helps form large communities.
The possibility of mating bonds together many nonfamily groups. Humans do
better in large groups, so attractive features are selected for much more
strongly. In ape groups it doesn't matter, because they simply accept or
reject new apes based on the size of the group and availability of resources.

------
randyrand
Ultimately natural selection dominates, of course.

But sexual selection is a real evolutionary force and has the ability to
either greatly increase the evolution rate (which is why gender evolved in the
first place) or at times regress it.

I wonder how often sexual selection back-fires and why, but I imagine thats
the exception not the rule.

~~~
vanderZwan
> which is why gender evolved in the first place

You mean as a social construct? Because if you mean that in the biological
sense, then sex has probably more to do with sharing beneficial mutations, and
error correction against the bad ones:

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/missing-mutations-suggest-
a-r...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/missing-mutations-suggest-a-reason-for-
sex-20170713/)

~~~
randyrand
That's the same thing as what I said. It augments the evolution rate. Gender
allows us to evolve faster/better because it allows the brain/choice to
influence evolution at a higher level.

------
nether
And this is why sperm banks require donors be at least 5'9" tall.

~~~
ArlenBales
I thought you were joking, but that's actually true. Wow.

[http://www.spermbank.com/sperm-donor-faqs](http://www.spermbank.com/sperm-
donor-faqs)

~~~
olleromam91
Read that link as "sperm-donor-fags" and was expecting troll post.

------
codeisawesome
Haha, what a mischeviously written article. The author appears to have learned
a lesson or two :-)

------
gaius
The best book sort-of about Darwin is _This Thing Of Darkness_ by Harry
Thompson.

------
notgood
.

~~~
metalliqaz
Being good looking also helps coders, though to a lesser degree than Instagram
models. Better looking job candidates tend to get hired more and get more
promotions.

Personally, it doesn't amaze me at all how important good looks are for a
model. I know I'd prefer to look at a lithe college coed bounce around in
Ibiza rather than a frumpy mother of three work in a textile factory. It's
programmed into my animal brain.

It helps to keep in mind that "influencers" are a product of a lot more than
good genes. It takes a large investment into beauty products, hair stylists,
clothes, camera equipment, travel, etc. These people are constructed using
their fit bodies as a foundation to build upon. Taylor Swift is a product, not
merely a person. Her development costs surely tally into the millions.

------
omarforgotpwd
Nobody chooses who to reproduce with for purely sexual reasons. We choose who
to have kids with based on a very complicated array of factors like who the
person is, what they do, how much they earn, is there good chemistry and of
course also physical appearances.

Human evolution seems to no longer be driven by nature, but I don’t think it’s
true to say selection is purely sexual in the modern world. The term “agency”
from the article best describes it I think. In essence humans are now self-
selecting the path of their evolution through conscious agency. Pretty trippy
to think about actually

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Nobody chooses who to reproduce with for purely sexual reasons.

People are most definitely making mate selections (at least on Tinder) on
physical attractiveness, primarily. We won't even scratch the surface of the
argument that prettier people have it easier in life for this thread's
purposes.

"This study was conducted to quantify the Tinder socio-economic prospects for
males based on the percentage of females that will “like” them. Female Tinder
usage data was collected and statistically analyzed to determine the
inequality in the Tinder economy. _It was determined that the bottom 80% of
men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and
the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men._ The Gini
coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated
to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1%
of all the world’s national economies. In addition, it was determined that a
man of average attractiveness would be “liked” by approximately 0.87% (1 in
115) of women on Tinder."

[https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-
ii-g...](https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-
unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-
your-2ddf370a6e9a#.u9kjjrno3)

(emphasis above sourced from Medium highlights)

EDIT: HN throttling kicked in, can't reply to replies to this:

My personal opinion (insert enormous disclaimer here) is that Tinder is
providing the illusion of choice (hundreds, thousands of profiles you can
swipe through in an hour) and higher "quality" (top percentiles of both sexes
shown to everyone) that is not within the grasp of most users.

I don't want the Whole Foods/Amazon of dating apps, I want the Aldi: average
looking people who are decent human beings who share an interest or two with
me.

~~~
paul7986
I agree and all dating apps(though Match.com isn't as superficial i've found)
and life in general your going to have it a lot easier purely based on your
looks. From dating being a feast for you where you sign onto an app for
example and filter each day through dozens of suitors to people wanting to get
to know you/give you things (better job, invest in your startup, etc) based on
looks.

How many of the highest paid actors or actresses are deemed unattractive?

~~~
klipt
This is why plastic surgery is so big in Hollywood. It's literally a career
investment.

In countries like South Korea plastic surgery is extremely routine, especially
for girls - their parents will give them plastic surgery as a birthday gift.
You can read that as shallowness in society, or simply a greater willingness
to accept, pragmatically, that people in every society are shallow.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-is-the-plastic-
su...](http://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-is-the-plastic-surgery-
capital-of-the-world-2015-9)

The problem is, once everyone gets plastic surgery, if you're one of the few
who don't your natural looks will stick out like a sore thumb.

~~~
ams6110
Plastic surgery also doesn't confer anything to one's offspring, other than by
perhaps improving one's chances to get a better-looking mate (who might also
be surgically altered, so maybe not).

~~~
klipt
Exactly, if everyone's plastic surgeried, then it's a complete lottery who in
the next generation gets attractive genes.

Without plastic surgery, there's more assortive mating which preserves
attractiveness from parents to children.

~~~
downrightmike
Either way, people are just trying best their chances. Naturally or otherwise,
they (we) know what is attractive, and some are more willing to go to extremes
to get there and be more like what they want.
[https://www.britannica.com/science/positive-assortative-
mati...](https://www.britannica.com/science/positive-assortative-mating)

