The Experts on Blondes

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:18 pm

See. I think that's fairly typical.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:26 pm

Ishtar, I don't particularly think the article is valid from the standpoint of central tendency. The author makes the supposition that men were removed from the gene pool in significant numbers due to the hazards of hunting game, and to such an extent that women needed to compete drastically for a male. I don't see that on two accounts:

1. Men are typically trying to spread their seed to the maximum amount of females possible in order to ensure their legacy. If the situation happened as the author said, men would have many mates (even in a monogamous society). Conversely, where women are scarce, the reverse is true and they pick and choose whoever they want, whenever they want.

2. An imbalance in the male/female ratio in a population is invariably and historically returned to a near equal ratio within a few generations. Nature does not like imbalance.

Central tendency is the great leveler of IQ and a variety of outlying attributes. The author's conclusion is based on a shaky premise. If food was so damn scarce, then move south where it is more plentiful. Sheesh.

Don't get me wrong: I love blondes. However, if given a choice between a so-so looking blonde and a well-built brunette -- I'm going with the superior equipment every time.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:30 pm

If hunting casualties were all that common the group would not have lived long enough to worry about reproduction in the first place. I'm sure it happened but if every hunt cost them a dead hunter I imagine they would have started hunting something a little less dangerous in short order.

They may have been horny cavemen but I doubt they were stupid.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:13 pm

Yes, that makes sense Cogs. And I doubt they practised monogamy then ... or at least not as strictly as we do today.

If there were 10 women all vying for the same one rare man, I can't imagine him picking one and turning the other nine away.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:09 pm

Min's being logical again! Nobody's going wrestle alligators when he can net a fish. If that were the case then that would probably result in all the dummies going extinct.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:17 pm

Min's being logical again!

It's a character flaw.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:01 pm

Pity more aren't so afflicted then Min.

Barracuda · Post by **Barracuda** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:43 pm

Actually I remember recently reading a study about this.

Blue eyed men preferred blue eyed women. It makes it easier to identify one's own offspring. The preference was not nearly so strong among brown eyed men.

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:54 pm

Ishtar wrote:Why do gentlemen prefer blondes?

Signed

A Blonde Butnotsodumb

Ishtar -

Recent American cultural history.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Loos

I read the book about a zillion years ago - its a great

example of what I call "trash reading", superficial and mildly entertaining.

Obviously, it became iconic.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:10 pm

Ishtar wrote:Interesting! I think we should do a survey. Anyone else prefer redheads?

Yep! 16 year old, petite (5'), super slim redheads are at the top of my list! So teenage Ukrainian gymnast girls, really. But I wouldn't throw Anna Nicole Smith or Salma Hayek out of my bed either. The other end of the spectrum, afaic.

I.o.w. it doesn't matter in practice.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:52 pm

yeah that's a wide spectrum, especially since Anna Nicole Smith is dead. So apparemtly "a hole and a heartbeat" doesn't quite cover your standards.

(Also, we'd get introuble here for 16 year olds.)

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:08 pm

You haven't moved this?