My previous post about Dr. Kanazawa’s explanation of the correlation between intelligence and attractiveness has drawn some very interesting comments. Bindhu’s comment about the stereotype of the geek (smart, ugly) and of the dumb blonde (attractive, dumb) was particularly interesting because evolutionary psychology tells us that stereotypes are always grounded in reality. Unsure of how to answer, I decided to email Dr. Kanazawa himself with my concern. I posted his response in the comment section, but decided to post it here as well so that more people might see it. Anyways, here is Dr. Kanazawa’s explanation of why the aforementioned stereotypes have endured:
“The stereotype, just like all stereotypes, is true. At least in the ancestral environment, where there were no hair dyes and other means of artificially changing hair colors, blondes were on average dumber. It does not mean that they were less intelligent, but it means they were more naive and inexperienced. Blonde hair is a sign of youth, so on average blondes are younger than brunettes, and younger people are usually naive and less experienced. Think about it. The average age of light blondes in the ancestral environment would have been 13. The average age of brunettes would have been 30. 13-year-olds (of any hair color) are bound to be more naive and inexperienced than 30-year-olds (of any hair color).
Geeks don’t just mean intelligent people. They are usually intelligent people who are socially inept. I think it is the socially inept part that makes them unattractive, not their facial symmetry (or lack thereof). Part of their social ineptitude includes not dressing well or fashionably, and that adds to their unattractiveness as well.”
Make sure to check out Dr. Kanazawas blog here if you are interested in more.
He is right about the geek thing. You know, the young geeks end up being the most “on demand” when they are older and have grown out of their awkward turtle phase. ..this reminds me of my “intelligent gold-digger” concept. Here are a few geeks that didn’t transition so well in college:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-geeks15-2009may15,0,1530171.story
Now back to the attractiveness. I had this big debate with my brother a couple of weeks ago in NY about girls wearing makeup. He said he didn’t find it attractive and I thought …”Seriously this time. Are we related??” I’m not a fan of makeup masks either but I think a certain level of grooming separates those who want to present themselves well and those who don’t take themselves seriously at all.
I’d like to think I ended up winning that one but anyway, it makes me wonder if makeup on the people being scored for attractiveness in Dr.Kanazawa’s study was accounted for in developing his explanations. Intelligence might be genetic but there is nothing genetic about how a person looks wearing makeup (which sometimes can be REALLY different. Just go look at celebrity with/without makeup pictures on youtube. It’s scary). What I’m saying is the broad spectrum of available cosmetic products clouds one’s ability to judge genetic health from physical attractiveness.
You’re absolutely right! From the evolutionary psychology perspective, makeup’s purpose is to create the image of genetic health (healthy, glowing skin, etc…). While it is harmless enough when young women put on a little makeup here and there, it is certainly pretty deceptive (and creepy) when 40+ year old women use makeup to make themselves look 25.
However, it is also important to realize that factors such as facial symmetry universally affect an individual’s attractiveness, regardless of whether he/she artificially enhances his/her appearance. In fact, Dr. Kanazawa in another one of his blog posts, points out that “two studies conducted in the mid-1980s independently demonstrate that infants as young as two and three months old gaze longer at a face that adults judge to be more attractive than at a face that adults judge to be less attractive.”
quote source: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-ii-beauty-is-in-the-eye-th
Fair. I had a feeling you’d say that. I didn’t expect you to know this but having been around a lot of theater/entertainment people, makeup can also be used to feign symmetry.
Maybe I’m not getting the context, but
“The stereotype, just like all stereotypes, is true. At least in the ancestral environment…”
seems like the craziest thing I’ve heard in a long time. ALL stereotypes are to some extent true and they ALL relate back to the ancestral environment? Talk about being a wild-eyed armchair historian.
There are plenty of (almost all?) stereotypes that have nothing to do with evolutionary roots. I’d wager a hundred bucks (for real) that the dumb blonde idea is one of them, probably pretty peculiarly American. The wikipedia article on dumb blondes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_blonde) says that little bit of culture appeared as a counterpart to Nazi nordicism in WWII (where are the evolutionary roots for that one?).
It wouldn’t make any sense in northern Europe because so many people stay blonde, and it wouldn’t make sense anywhere outside of Europe because they typically don’t have any blondes.
Matt, you’re right… to an extent. Dr. Kanazawa does not claim that stereotypes are universally held, just that they are true. This is not to say that individuals from cultures without blondes will not come to hold the same stereotypes if they live in a society where that stereotype has been held, though. In regards to your argument about its origin, I checked the wikipedia article and there was no source for the claim about WWII, so I will keep my faith in Dr. Kanazawa. Further, I can’t speak for the “dumb” stereotype that we have of blondes today, but I can say with certainty that the ancient Romans associated blonde hair with youth (innocence, naivete) and beauty in women. If you want specific sources, I could give them to you.
i have to agree with matt, and add that kanazawa’s reply is insufficient and unconvincing. kanazawa has also stated that He concluded that
“individuals in wealthier and more egalitarian societies live longer and stay healthier, not
because they are wealthier or more egalitarian but because they are more intelligent.”
this has been proven wrong by a medical doctor who argued the inverse:
http://www.nazret.com/docs/Kanazawa_byzewde.pdf
basically, he is looking at the issue of ancestry and evolution in the absence of what we know about evolution. more on this later
Pingback: The Uncanny Valley of Female Intelligence « Evan Lisull