Comments on: Our Ancestral Mind in the Modern World: An Interview with Satoshi Kanazawa http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html The best free cultural & educational media on the web Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:44:53 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: MArk KEmmitt http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2710 MArk KEmmitt Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:40:37 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2710 There are better explanations for why people have more girls than boys or vis a versa. I read somewhere that there was a strong correlation between the sex of a child and that of previous generations, something to do with balancing the generations and explaining the pretty constant sex ratios. Sorry for not having a link or explaining it very well. 36% chance isn't really much at all, and isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder so how exactly is it satisfactorily defined for this sample? There are better explanations for why people have more girls than boys or vis a versa. I read somewhere that there was a strong correlation between the sex of a child and that of previous generations, something to do with balancing the generations and explaining the pretty constant sex ratios. Sorry for not having a link or explaining it very well.

36% chance isn’t really much at all, and isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder so how exactly is it satisfactorily defined for this sample?

]]> By: Bolg - The Chris Blanc Weblog :: Are we stuck in evolution? http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2709 Bolg - The Chris Blanc Weblog :: Are we stuck in evolution? Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:50:59 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2709 [...] One example of this is that when we watch a scary movie, we get scared, and when we watch porn we get turned on. We cry when someone dies in a movie. Our brain cannot tell the difference between what’s simulated and what’s real, because this distinction didn’t exist in the Stone Age. ^ [...] [...] One example of this is that when we watch a scary movie, we get scared, and when we watch porn we get turned on. We cry when someone dies in a movie. Our brain cannot tell the difference between what’s simulated and what’s real, because this distinction didn’t exist in the Stone Age. ^ [...]

]]> By: This is your ancestral mind on media at Mediacology http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2708 This is your ancestral mind on media at Mediacology Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:11:57 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2708 [...] Our Ancestral Mind in the Modern World: An Interview with Satoshi Kanazawa | Open Culture: DC: Evolutionary psychology portrays us as having impulses that took form long ago, in a very pre-modern context (say, 10,000 years ago), and now these impulses are sometimes rather ill-adapted to our contemporary world. For example, in a food-scarce environment, we became programmed to eat whenever we can; now, with food abounding in many parts of the world, this impulse creates the conditions for an obesity epidemic. Given that our world will likely continue changing at a rapid pace, are we doomed to have our impulses constantly playing catch up with our environment, and does that potentially doom us as a species? [...] [...] Our Ancestral Mind in the Modern World: An Interview with Satoshi Kanazawa | Open Culture: DC: Evolutionary psychology portrays us as having impulses that took form long ago, in a very pre-modern context (say, 10,000 years ago), and now these impulses are sometimes rather ill-adapted to our contemporary world. For example, in a food-scarce environment, we became programmed to eat whenever we can; now, with food abounding in many parts of the world, this impulse creates the conditions for an obesity epidemic. Given that our world will likely continue changing at a rapid pace, are we doomed to have our impulses constantly playing catch up with our environment, and does that potentially doom us as a species? [...]

]]> By: Nancy http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2707 Nancy Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:02:22 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2707 Evolutionary psychology is a cobbled together collection of just-so stories that are nothing but a sinking life raft desperately clung to by those those who long for the glory days of patriarchy. We will one day soon look back at books like this and laugh and laugh. And the premise that "beautiful" people have more daughters has been debunked. More and more women are dating younger men. Within the past 50 years. Less than an evolutionary time span. Only an evolutionary psychologist could believe that it's just a coincidence this has happened at exactly the same time as women have become more financially independent. As our last good president said - it's the economy, stupid! Evolutionary psychology is a cobbled together collection of just-so stories that are nothing but a sinking life raft desperately clung to by those those who long for the glory days of patriarchy. We will one day soon look back at books like this and laugh and laugh.

And the premise that “beautiful” people have more daughters has been debunked.

More and more women are dating younger men. Within the past 50 years. Less than an evolutionary time span. Only an evolutionary psychologist could believe that it’s just a coincidence this has happened at exactly the same time as women have become more financially independent.

As our last good president said – it’s the economy, stupid!

]]> By: i have seven arms » why beautiful people have more daughters http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2706 i have seven arms » why beautiful people have more daughters Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:36:09 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2706 [...] read a great interview with Satoshi Kanazawa, one of the authors of Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, a new book [...] [...] read a great interview with Satoshi Kanazawa, one of the authors of Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, a new book [...]

]]> By: J. Goodrich http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2705 J. Goodrich Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:30:18 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2705 You should note that Mr. Kanazawa has never actually shown that beautiful people have more daughters. The original piece was shown to be faulty by professor Mark Gelman. Links to Gelman's work: a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/kanazawa.pdf a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/power.pdf Also check out his blog post on the same topic: www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/08/the_most_beauti.html I have a series of posts on Mr. Kanazawa's arguments. This link takes you to the last post which gives the links to earlier ones: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html#2846602295158944466 A final post on the question is here: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#2386730832932158479 You should note that Mr. Kanazawa has never actually shown that beautiful people have more daughters. The original piece was shown to be faulty by professor Mark Gelman. Links to Gelman’s work:

a href=”http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/kanazawa.pdf

a href=”http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/power.pdf

Also check out his blog post on the same topic:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/08/the_most_beauti.html

I have a series of posts on Mr. Kanazawa’s arguments. This link takes you to the last post which gives the links to earlier ones:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html#2846602295158944466

A final post on the question is here:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#2386730832932158479

]]> By: CPR http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2697 CPR Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:18:35 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2697 This is another example of extremely shoddy thinking being passed off as cutting edge science. They don't even know the basics of when EP originated: they say it began in 1992, which is totally wrong. E.O. Wilson published SOCIOBIOLOGY in 1975. This was the origins of applying evolutionary theory to human behavior. The authors' apparent ignorance of the fact that evolutionary psychology is simply another name for sociobiology is shameful. As previous comments have noted, the premise that evolutionary processes are "stuck" and that significant change cannot have happened in 10,000 years is simply false. Not just false, but embarrassingly so. EP could be a useful, important discipline, but it is dominated by people like these (and Pinker) who are peddling sloppy thinking in lieu of serious science. This is another example of extremely shoddy thinking being passed off as cutting edge science. They don’t even know the basics of when EP originated: they say it began in 1992, which is totally wrong. E.O. Wilson published SOCIOBIOLOGY in 1975. This was the origins of applying evolutionary theory to human behavior. The authors’ apparent ignorance of the fact that evolutionary psychology is simply another name for sociobiology is shameful.

As previous comments have noted, the premise that evolutionary processes are “stuck” and that significant change cannot have happened in 10,000 years is simply false. Not just false, but embarrassingly so.

EP could be a useful, important discipline, but it is dominated by people like these (and Pinker) who are peddling sloppy thinking in lieu of serious science.

]]> By: JLM http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2702 JLM Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:47:14 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2702 Alright, it's finally sunk in; it was what I said in the first post; they aren't explaining it very well. It took me this long to realize that they were talking implicitly about a gender-having genes but explicitly about the beautiful-having genes. That is, genes that increase the tendency to have a particular gender will become tied to the genes that benefit a particular gender: This link would happen when the two genes "met in the wild": there was a bigger advantage for the beautiful+girl-having combo than any of the other combos (beautiful+boy-having, ugly+boy-having, ugly+girl-having), and so that combo proliferated more effectively. In fact, it proliferated more effectively than the other beautiful+? combos, and thus, created the correlation between being beautiful and having girl-having genes. Alright, it’s finally sunk in; it was what I said in the first post; they aren’t explaining it very well. It took me this long to realize that they were talking implicitly about a gender-having genes but explicitly about the beautiful-having genes.

That is, genes that increase the tendency to have a particular gender will become tied to the genes that benefit a particular gender:

This link would happen when the two genes “met in the wild”: there was a bigger advantage for the beautiful+girl-having combo than any of the other combos (beautiful+boy-having, ugly+boy-having, ugly+girl-having), and so that combo proliferated more effectively. In fact, it proliferated more effectively than the other beautiful+? combos, and thus, created the correlation between being beautiful and having girl-having genes.

]]> By: Roberto Gonzalez-Plaza http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2703 Roberto Gonzalez-Plaza Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:08:42 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2703 There is no science-substance-behind this book: pure fantasy. Read Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2007. "Beautiful Parents Have More Daughters: A Further Implication of the Generalized Trivers-Willard Hypothesis (gTWH)", Journal of Theoretical Biology. 244: 133-140. Nada, zilch. We should select for better editors.... There is no science-substance-behind this book: pure fantasy. Read Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2007. “Beautiful Parents Have More Daughters: A Further Implication of the Generalized Trivers-Willard Hypothesis (gTWH)”, Journal of Theoretical Biology. 244: 133-140. Nada, zilch. We should select for better editors….

]]> By: JLM http://www.openculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html/comment-page-1#comment-2699 JLM Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:31:13 +0000 http://www.oculture.com/2007/10/our_ancestral_mind_in_the_modern_world_an_interview_with_satoshi_kanazawa.html#comment-2699 "For example, why do most middle-class people in western industrial nations have so few children? Most middle-class Americans can easily raise five or six children, and feed, clothe, and shelter them all very well. Yet most couples only want (and have) two children. This is a mystery for evolutionary psychology." It's not a mystery. Well, it's true in the same sense that it's a mystery why some people like chocolate and some people don't... It has far more to do with the fact that unlike previous generations/societies, we don't need to have many children to help us provide for ourselves. Thus, the negatives associated by some with having many children VASTLY outweigh the positives, and so we don't have as many children. This is also very much a cultural issue, but I don't think it has a god damn thing to do with evolutionary psychology; or rather, it has no more to do with it than it does with a myriad of other issues. Obviously evolutionary psychology is important, very important in particular issues, but I think these guys are out to lunch with what they've said in this interview. “For example, why do most middle-class people in western industrial nations have so few children? Most middle-class Americans can easily raise five or six children, and feed, clothe, and shelter them all very well. Yet most couples only want (and have) two children. This is a mystery for evolutionary psychology.”

It’s not a mystery. Well, it’s true in the same sense that it’s a mystery why some people like chocolate and some people don’t… It has far more to do with the fact that unlike previous generations/societies, we don’t need to have many children to help us provide for ourselves. Thus, the negatives associated by some with having many children VASTLY outweigh the positives, and so we don’t have as many children. This is also very much a cultural issue, but I don’t think it has a god damn thing to do with evolutionary psychology; or rather, it has no more to do with it than it does with a myriad of other issues. Obviously evolutionary psychology is important, very important in particular issues, but I think these guys are out to lunch with what they’ve said in this interview.

]]>