Science Made Easy
by MikeGeneDarwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been a little too fruitful lately. A couple years back, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argued that rape is an adaptation. When evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne criticized their thesis, Thornhill labeled him as an "anti-evolution critic."
Well, there is a new discovery on the block. This time, evolutionary psychologist David Buss, from the University of Texas, argues that murder is also an adaptation.
Murder could be traced back to the "ruthless evolutionary drive to reproduce", he said.
Thousands of years ago killing an enemy would boost a man's social status and improve his chances of attracting a mate, the book argued.
Murderers' genes won the evolutionary battle over those of their victims and the instinct to kill now lies dormant in all of us, Prof Buss argued.
I don't want to comment on Buss's argument as I have not read the book. Nevertheless, since it is so easy to create a new field of scientific exploration about human behavior using Darwin's theory, I am inspired to try my hand at it.
Let me propose the shoe fetish as an evolutionary adaptation. We'll define a shoe fetish as follows: a person, usually male, can only become sexually aroused when shoes are involved in the sexual act. Mind you, I'm not an expert on the shoe fetish, so my definition may be inaccurate. But that need not stop me from doing a little evolutionary psychology here.
Okay, here's the hypothesis I pulled out of my rear. Long ago, some females began to wear primordial shoes. The newly evolved shoe-wearing gene was selected for, as females with leather booties were less likely to cut their feet and acquire a deadly infection. This prolonged lifespan set up a selective pressure to develop a shoe fetish among males. Males who became attracted to the booties would be at an advantage, as they would more likely impregnate the bootie women who in turn would be more likely to survive to take care of their sperm products.
Can we test the hypothesis? Absolutely.
First, let's conduct some scientific interviews with men who have a shoe fetish. Did they just wake up one day and decide to have this fetish? Or has it always been part of their sexual identity? My evolutionary psychology hypothesis predicts the latter.
Next, let's look for genetic markers. Are men with a shoe fetish more likely to have a particular marker? If so, perhaps we can begin looking for the shoe-fetish gene(s).
What about females? My personal anecdotal experience has allowed me to cross paths with females who have far more shoes than I do. Is this a fairly widespread phenomenon? Is this an adaptation? Is there a shoe-collecting gene that is the descendent of the original primordial shoe-wearing gene?
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:03 am
Yeah! ITWSBT! I'll send you £5 towards the cost of the research programme!
Comment by Exile From Groggs — May 23, 2005 @ 7:03 am
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:40 am
Hi Mike,
I think you're on to something here. We can even add some linguistic evidence to your hypothesis, as "booty" is also slang for "butt" in a sexual context. Obviously, the connection between sex and shoes has become layered in our cultural memory.
Comment by Krauze — May 23, 2005 @ 9:40 am
May 23rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I think this also explains how women got finagled into wearing high heels. Booties that raised the bridges of women's feet off the ground gave the best protection against stepping on nasty things to the most tender part of the foot. As a result, the desire to see women's feet raised off the ground lies dormant in all of us (men), a desire that has found expression through the invention of the high heel.
In the East, the same gene may be responsible for the tradition of binding the feet of girls to stop their growth. The smaller the surface area of the foot, the less likely you are to step on sharp objects!
Comment by Deuce — May 23, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Deuce:
An intriguing hypothesis. The raised feet would be a way for the female to advertise, "I'll be around to raise you sperm products."
In such cases, perhaps there is a significant deletion in the shoe-wearing gene.
Comment by MikeGene — May 23, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Hey, my younger brother (now a software engineer in a Detroit suburb), when he was a freshman or sophomore in college, somehow earned himself the name, "Shoe-Bootie". Seriously. Something about his trying to explain to his friends just what his new footwear was - apparently, his answer was something like this: "It's a shoe. And a boot. It's a 'shoe/boot'."
I don't know if that is an indication of his being evolutionarily more advanced, or not. I guess it depends on one's particular theory.
However, I think the following observation completely undermines Mike Gene's theory (such as it is): lots of men have foot fetishes. Is this a vestigial evolutionary feature? Would a random walk be a good model for this hypothesis? Maybe a step-wise function? Does the saying, "barefoot and pregnant", reflect our early hominid ancestors' evolutionarily selected prejudices? These and other questions remain unanswered, despite minds like mine asking them.
After addressing this shoe/foot controversy, perhaps the more courageous amongst us could investigate the issue of socks and nylons. For that matter, any type of attire is now clearly open to evolutionary hypothesizing. Viva, Mike Gene!
Comment by Douglas — May 23, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
May 24th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Douglas:
I knew it. Sooner or later an anti-evolutionist would show up to spout his anti-science nonsense. Look, the bootie-as-adaptatation theory may not have all the answers. But it's science.
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2005 @ 12:30 am
May 24th, 2005 at 1:24 am
Douglas said:
That's like saying that rape isn't an evolutionary adaptation because most men aren't rapists. It is clear that you don't understand evolutionary psychology or science, and are attacking a straw man that you constructed instead. Perhaps the sight of a healthy, unblemished foot signals to a mate that a woman has done a good job at not stepping on harmful things, indicating that she generally wears protective shoes. That some men have a foot fetish does not mean that the shoe fetish came about by magic. It just means that there is room for us to gather more data. Like most anti-evolutionists, you look to inject religion wherever there is a gap in your knowledge.
Comment by Deuce — May 24, 2005 @ 1:24 am
May 24th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Hi Deuce,
"Perhaps the sight of a healthy, unblemished foot signals to a mate that a woman has done a good job at not stepping on harmful things, indicating that she generally wears protective shoes."
Yes, that occured to me as well. However, I think Douglas' failed anti-science attack adds to the credibility of the shoe-booties theory. This was a fork in the road, where the theory could have been disproved, but wasn't. This success should be held in mind and held forth, the next time someone tries to discredit science.
Comment by Krauze — May 24, 2005 @ 8:14 am
May 24th, 2005 at 8:59 am
So?
Comment by Douglas — May 24, 2005 @ 8:59 am
May 24th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
You guys are cracking me up
Comment by Guts — May 24, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
May 24th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Well, if the shoe-bootie theory had any basis in reality, the majority of men with shoe fetishes would be attracted to women who wear big, thick boots - like army boots. Better protection, you know. I think it is obvious that this is not the case (I mean, how many men without shoe fetishes find the wearing of big, clunky boots by women to be a particularly attractive feature?), so the theory is clearly in error. You highly educated, highly intelligent types are so gullible, and wordy.
Comment by Douglas — May 24, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
May 24th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
From a citation search I was doing at "citeseer" for "Neural Networks":
Coincidence? Or proof of how volatile this issue really is?
Comment by Douglas — May 24, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
May 25th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Ok I'm putting my "foot" down. I think this says a lot about the failure of evolutionary psychologists to communicate with the public, and of telicthought evolutionary psychologists to present an honest case, that this is the point of view of rational and thoughtful people about evolutionary psychology. After all, we know that women who wear big, thick boots are not incompatible with evolutionary psychology for those of us with a deeper understanding of evolutionary psychology.
There are those of us here who do research in evolutionary psychology, such as Deuce, Mike Gene, Krauze, or myself , and realize that evolutionary psychology is more and more supported by scientific evidence today than ever before (and no, I am not here to discuss this, I'm simply talking to the people here who agree with me).
So, although people like Douglas are complete and utter morons, lets nonetheless lend an ear to the criticisms of this theory, and while trying to ignore ciriticism from extremists like Douglas, lets try not to be insulting or disrespectful. After all, thats the only way we will convince the moderates.
Oh, and by the way, anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
Comment by Guts — May 25, 2005 @ 5:05 am
May 25th, 2005 at 6:49 am
Douglas is obviously rejecting the bootie theory because of his literal interpretation of Genesis (3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them"). This religious motivation is evident in the way he constructs straw men of the bootie theory, claiming that it requires women to wear big, chunky boots.
A call to any biologist would tell Douglas that the use of heavy footwear facilitates the anaerobic generation of butyric acid - in layman's terms, "smelly feet". Now, I know the creationist mind cringes at the mere thought of sex, but can he really not imagine how smelly feet might turn off a prehistoric man?
Comment by Krauze — May 25, 2005 @ 6:49 am
May 25th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Obviously, Douglas, Mike's hypothesis predicts that if the boots were too big, it would hamper the woman's ability to flee from danger. In fact, an astute observer (such as myself) might note, men with the shoe fetish prefer women with shoes big enough to protect their feet, but small enough to let them flee from danger. Coincidence? Maybe to a troglodyte such as yourself!
But frankly, Douglas, I have explained myself more than well enough at this point. Mike's hypothesis is part of evolution, and evolution is part of science, and hence you are attacking both evolution and science. I simply don't have any more time to spend arguing with a willfully ignorant, anti-science mindset such as yours. If you wish to continue wallowing in the Dark Ages, that is your prerogative, but you'd best stay the hell away from science.
Comment by Deuce — May 25, 2005 @ 8:27 am
May 25th, 2005 at 9:07 am
"Smelly feet" That's the best the evolutionists can offer? I never heard of "smelly feet" being a hindrance to survival. In fact, I would expect they'd aid a woman's chance of survival - a lion faced with the scent of a woman with smelly feet would be more willing to pass, and wait for one less odiferous. So, if evolution were true, men should be attracted to women with smelly feet, as this would signify a survival advantage. (Although, come to think of it, "smelly feet" might also signify a decaying foot.) Besides, it need not be pointed out that a woman wearing heavy-duty work boots in the jungles of Africa has a much greater chance of avoiding serious foot injury than one wearing high heels.
Comment by Douglas — May 25, 2005 @ 9:07 am
May 25th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Hi Douglas,
"I never heard of "smelly feet" being a hindrance to survival."
You're ignoring the vast richness of evolutionary biology. Evolution is more than survival - it's also reproduction. Things like personal hygiene are used to assess the quality of potential mates. When birds grow long and hindering tails, when gazelles leap high into the air in front of a predator, and when large grazers fight long and exhausting battles with each other, they're all signalling the fitness of their genes: "Look at me, I'm doing so well that I can spend my energy doing useless things."
This is what the Israeli scientist Amotz Zahavi called the "handicap principle". It also explains why it's high heels, rather than comfortable shoes, that turns on a guy: Keeping your balance in a pair of six-inches is much harder, and thus signals higher health.
Comment by Krauze — May 25, 2005 @ 11:43 am
May 25th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Well, that would explain tanning salons and muscle magazines. But it still doesn't explain high heels, I'm afraid. "Me, Tarzan, you…Look out, Jane!! Run, Jane, Run!! Ooooo, Jane fall down. Me will miss Jane's feet."
Comment by Douglas — May 25, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
May 27th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I wager that a check of the real science journals would turn up evidence that fetishes are nurture issues, not nature.
But when have the facts ever been a consideration for advocates of ID?
Comment by edarrell — May 27, 2005 @ 6:11 pm
May 27th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
[...] houghts pokes fun at evolutionary psychologists in his recent blog entry that can be found here [...]
Pingback by Veritas-Vincit » Hilarious post at Telic Thoughts — May 27, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
May 28th, 2005 at 12:17 am
Sorry Ed, but this is ground breaking science in action. I just did a PubMed search with "˜shoe fetish' and only one scientific, peer-reviewed article addresses its, er, "evolution":
Of course, this raises a new twist to the story. The adaptive significance of sharing the bed with the sister is obvious "“ the mother would be better able to defend her children against predators if they were bundled together. And the absent father makes sense, as he was out hunting to increase the nutritional intake of the offspring. But what is the adaptive significance of the frequent enemas? Might this be a modern expression of grooming behavior, such that offspring lacking anal lice would be more likely to grow up and produce offspring of their own?
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2005 @ 12:17 am
May 28th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Interesting. There might be a tie-in here with evolutionary psychology. What would the relation be between the driving evolutionary force behind frequent enemas, and the descriptive psychological personality type, "anal retentive"
Comment by Douglas — May 28, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
(HNS) The Internet. The well-heeled WEDGE CONSPIRACY gets in a few kicks in Telic Thoughts by punting the whole did-shoe-wearing-evolve-via-natural-selection through the goal posts. Mike Gene, no loafer he!, ambles nicely through the whole evolutionary psychology minefield and comes out cleanly on the other side, sans cleets.
Those who continue to toe the ev-pych line will find themselves increasingly trodden upon by the aforementioned well-heeled adherents. These are the times which try men's soles……
Comment by len — April 30, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
"Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then judge him, and his shoes."
Comment by Douglas — April 30, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
And if the shoe fits… the other one's probably around here somewhere.
Comment by Joy — April 30, 2006 @ 7:00 pm