Skip to main content

Intelligence and Human Sex Drive

The notion that humans' sex drive is based on the finding of so-called "ideal" mates is deeply flawed. All the articles written by evolutionary psychologists about subconscious desires to select those who fit the stereotype of what may seem like the best mate in the wilderness i.e. features of physical appearance, are based on the assumption that human sexual selection is identical to any other animal's sexual selection. This is false, not because sexual selection is different itself, because it is not.

As explained in previous posts, sexual selection is constant in all living things, and is defined as the drive to preserve qualities predicted to be advantageous in the face of future, unknown selection pressures. Although the obvious method of carrying out the selection is mating, as seen predominantly in species which go through complex courtship behaviour displays, in humans this has ceased to be the case.

Today I saw a guy at college wearing a black t-shirt with bold letters saying I MAKE GOOD BABIES. Is that to say he wants lots of kids and is advertising his availability? Probably not. Then what is the point of wearing that t-shirt? Well, he's advertising his sense of humour, and perhaps cynicism at the idea that humans are all looking for babies.

Two main reasons have led to the difference in sexual selection between humans and other animals. For the purpose of calling humans more intelligent than other species, we will define intelligence as the ability to modify the natural environment, and create an artificial environment. The two reasons are:

  1. the just mentioned increased intelligence
  2. the artificial environment which results from it.
If you're reading this, doubtless you are already in an artificial environment, surrounded by artificial things, all human-made. How do those two things affect sexual selection in humans? Firstly, they enable a more efficient use of energy; reproduction itself is an energy-demanding task, especially as human babies take longer to develop due to their bigger brains and the requirement to learn more things. Therefore, it is slow and risky for the development of humans as a species to only rely on reproduction as a means to advance survival techniques and build artificial environments.

Consider the amount of dedication and work needed to create works of art, build up cities, and find cures for diseases. The energy spent doing those things has been of better use in the long run than if it had been spent solely bringing up children into a less developed world. Compared to other species, humans now reproduce for the purpose of life itself, rather than as a method of applying sexual selection.

Human intelligence has shifted the drive of sexual selection towards the creation of artificial environments and the propagation of the resulting knowledge, by using the same principles as sexual selection in other species: the selection of properties thought to survive future selection pressures.

That is why, to the puzzle of evolutionary psychologists, humans do not exhibit the expected behaviour in sexual selection. If they truly did, then all of us would be indeed very attractive, and perhaps there would be increased sexual dimorphism (i.e. peacocks are a lot more physically different than peahens). The fact this isn't the case is a clue that indeed, sexual selection itself has been made artificial in humans in some instances. For example, the world of the Internet is not just an expression of intelligence, but a battleground for several sexual selection pressures: "like" buttons on facebook, "follow"s on Twitter, comment activity on forums, website competition, photo ratings, etc.

If you've ever wondered why facebook doesn't have a "dislike" button, find out in the next post on Positive, Negative and Neutral Sexual Selection.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.


Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?



The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?


CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…