HBD Books

I agree with your general idea that people are happier and live more fulfilling lives around those like themselves.  Have you read about J. Philippe Rushton’s genetic similarity theory?  He’s found that people tend to be friends with/date those genetically closer to themselves.  Could personality traits, like looks when we divide ourselves by ethnicity, be used by our subconscious to find those that are genetically closer to us?

I think using personality similarity as a proxy for genetic similarity may be important in mate choice.  But I can’t see it being that important in choice of friends, allies, or group members.  I’m familiar with Rushton’s genetic similarity theory, but I think much of the preference for like-minded individuals as social partners arises from the much greater ease of ‘coordinating’ one’s behavior with them.  Introverts understand other introverts.  The neurotic ‘get’ others with high neuroticism.  The assortative socializing that pervades human life seems to arise mainly through the practical, day-to-day benefits of getting along more easily with those who are psychologically similar to oneself.

Why do different strategies seem to work for males trying to attract females?  The appeal of the bad boy seems to be fundamental to human nature but if it was one would think that it would preclude the existence of hippie or Stuff White People Like culture.

The new research on ovulatory cycle effects on women’s mate preferences illuminates this issue. Women seem to like ‘bad boys’ more when they’re just about to ovulate — when they could pass on the bad boy’s potentially superior genes, including his dominance, health, risk-taking, etc.  In other phases of the cycle, when poaching good genes is less important than getting consistent social support, women prefer nicer guys.                                                                                                                          

In your book you present the idea that people who are more vulnerable to disease tend to be less tolerant and more xenophobic.  You site Thornhill who says that parasite reduction through the US and Europe in the last few generations is what led to a more open society.  Is there an example of this happening in any nation where the majority aren’t people of European descent?  Wealth and physical safety don’t seem to have led Japan or Saudi Arabia to open up.

This is a good question and needs further research.   I suspect that northern Asian cultures that have enjoyed a quick reduction in parasite load are also much more open than they were a century ago, but this deserves serious historical research using some quantitative proxies for openness or its converse, xenophobia (e.g. incidence of deadly ethnic riots per million people per year, or rates of cross-ethnic marriage, or foreign trade as proportion of GNP).      

How do you answer the claim that evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of post-hoc explanations that can be used to explain any human behavior?  For example, we’re told by you and Pinker among others that we avoid bodily fluids because of fear of infection/disease but then you say in your book that young men and women tattoo themselves to prove that they can be exposed to infection and survive.  Surly evolutionary psychology could just as easily be invoked to explain a world where young people played in vomit and avoided marking themselves!

The most direct answer to the charge that evolutionary psychology is a bunch of ‘just-so stories’ is that, in practice, it’s a hell of a lot harder to do good evolutionary psychology now than it was 20 years ago, because there’s a much, much larger body of knowledge to master, much more competition to get papers into the good journals and conferences, and much more stringent peer review and criticism within the field.  Just-so stories could sometimes slip by at the earliest meetings of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society in the early 1990s, but they don’t any more.  Now, researchers are expected to do serious empirical research that helps resolve ongoing theoretical debates, and that draws upon the state of the art in animal behavior, primate research, social psychology, behavior genetics, neuroscience, etc.  

With regard to costly signaling predictions in particular, we expect most people most of the time to avoid cost, risk, and infection — but we expect that this risk-aversion is reduced when mating effort is higher — especially for young vs. old people, males vs. females, single vs. married people, promiscuous vs. committed people, ovulating vs. non-ovulating females, etc.  Many of these predictions have been tested and confirmed.  So it’s not a case of explaining anything post hoc; it’s a matter of making finely nuanced and often counter-intuitive predictions that turn out to be right.          

The funniest thing in your book was the list of the kinds of goods that appeal to people of low intelligence and high openness… “fantasy novels, self-help books, nutraceuticals, facial piercings, music by Enya, degrees in nonevolutionary psyochology, and every product labeled ‘homeopathic.’”  Considering the intelligence of a large segment of the population do you support laws to protect people from their own gullibility?

No, I don’t want people to rely on the government to reign in runaway consumerism by trying to ban stupid products.  I just want consumers to become more knowledgeable about their own foibles.  And I want people to develop social norms that favor more natural ways of displaying their traits, other than workaholism and shopaholism.  In other words, I trust that we can rely on individual choices and civil society to make our lives better, without needing a government ‘War against Bling’.

Once again.  I’d like to thank Professor Miller for taking time out of his busy schedule and for his thoughtful answers.