5 ms·

> The entire idea that losing your hair is bad is socially constructed Is there any evidence for this claim? I don't doubt there's a component of that at work

> The entire idea that losing your hair is bad is socially constructed Is there any evidence for this claim? I don't doubt there's a component of that at work, but I suspect there's also innate factors. Hair could be a, statistically speaking, signal of youth, and could influence the innate components of attractiveness judgements.

Overtonwindow 7y ago
Just look at how many politicians are bald. When was the last time we had a bald president?
- stordoff 7y ago
  Looking this up, I stumbled on an interesting observation: > Bald–hairy (Russian: лысый–волосатый) is a common joke in Russian political discourse, referring to the empirical rule of the state leaders' succession defined as a change of a bald/balding leader to a hairy one and vice versa. This consistent pattern can be traced back until as early as 1825 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy
- ralusek 7y ago
  But where is the proof that the reason we're averse to baldness is because of social construction? Your statement is equivalent to saying that women prefer taller men due to social construction...because women on dating sites prefer taller men. It's circular logic and fails to address the reason why they prefer taller men.
  - rofo1 7y ago
    It's absolutely due to evolution, not social construction. Same thing for women - they prefer physically strong, tall men. It's also due to evolution. It boils down to survival of the fittest - the fittest had the most resources, and a mother needs resources to reproduce (mother's can't hunt while breastfeeding, so that's out of the question). Yes, it's that simple. Same thing for men - they prefer young, sexually attractive, fertile females. Those are our instincts anyway. We can and we do influence them consciously.
    - asimpletune 7y ago
      > absolutely due to evolution No it’s not, there are some things we absolutely know and this is not one of them. This kind of stuff is extremely complex, and there aren’t good ways to test hypotheses.
      - jamesrcole 7y ago
        Here's some questions we can ask to help answer the question: - is this preference common to all known cultures? - is this preference found in other mammals, including our closest relatives? - if taller partners were selected for because they 'can offer greater protection to their partners and children from other men, and were likely to have been better providers of food and other resources throughout our evolutionary history' then are women with a higher fear of crime more likely to prefer physically formidable and dominant males? And do women who score lower on dominance show a stronger preference for taller men? https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-women-sexual-tall-dominant-men.html https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-women-sexual-tall-dominant-m...
    - equalunique 7y ago
      Simply being tall requires a higher caloric intake, and thus puts tall people at a disadvantage. The genes for tall stature do not express themselves when that higher food intake is not present during developmental stages. Tall people are more a phenomena of advanced agriculture than natural selection. They are not necessarily more formitable, but are rather a larger target, or a clumsier hunter. Evolutionarily, being tall means a lifetime of above-average access to food, and while that's desireable in a mate, it's just as much about the environment one lives in as it is the genes one's born with.
      - jamesrcole 7y ago
        > Simply being tall requires a higher caloric intake, and thus puts tall people at a disadvantage This is assuming that food intake is the only factor contributing to fitness. There are other possibilities. E.g. taller (larger) males may have advantages in competing with other males for mates, and thus be better at spreading their genes. Females who preferred such males would thus be better at spreading their genes down the generations. > Evolutionarily, being tall means a lifetime of above-average access to food, and while that's desireable in a mate, it's just as much about the environment one lives in as it is the genes one's born with. Evolution doesn't only concern the genes, as if environmental factors were distinct from evolution. Fitness is always a function of both genes and the environment.
- ido 7y ago
  In the US maybe. Where I'm from (Israel) the majority of prime ministers were bald or balding. It seems a lot of Russian/Soviet leaders were bald as well (and this seem to apply to many European countries).
  - agent008t 7y ago
    I would argue US culture is a lot more focused on vanity than perhaps any other culture in the world - at least when it comes to men.
    - sometdog 7y ago
      What would your argument be based on?
      - agent008t 7y ago
        Anecdotal observations.
    - skohan 7y ago
      Not by a long shot! I would say Italy's had the US beat there for centuries. Probably South Korea also. I'd wager men under 30 in London probably also invest more time and money in their appearance than almost any group of men in the US.
- elcomet 7y ago
  In france, I'd say about half politicians are bald. And in our current republic, about half were bald too.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Or unmarried? Or very short? Or without a perfect set of teeth? Vanity is extreme in US politics, and US public life in general. You’ll find an extreme skew for high level US managers being taller and having more hair than the population on average .
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  You're from USA? Your current president is partially bald, surely, he has some sort of intricate weaved toupee. That aside, I'm not sure what your point is?
- wsc981 7y ago
  In The Netherlands I believe we were really close to having a gay bald president [0]. But sadly he got killed by some left-wing extremist. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn
tarsinge 7y ago
Depends of your culture. By the comments here and my experience hair as a symbol seems relatively important in the US, but maybe that’s due to heavy marketing from pharma companies. Some other countries have preferences for short or very short hair[1]. Also regarding attractiveness don’t be fooled, it’s marginal compared to being in good shape and how you behave. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-men-in-Eastern-Europe-Serbia-Hungary-etc-prefer-to-have-a-hairstyle-like-an-army-soldier-which-is-short-and-clean-cut-There-are-many-young-men-who-have-kind-of-have-a-Neo-Nazi-aggressive-look https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-men-in-Eastern-Europe-Serb... (not a very scientific analysis but it illustrates the point)
steele 7y ago
just let him cope

Overtonwindow 7y ago

Just look at how many politicians are bald. When was the last time we had a bald president?

stordoff 7y ago
Looking this up, I stumbled on an interesting observation: > Bald–hairy (Russian: лысый–волосатый) is a common joke in Russian political discourse, referring to the empirical rule of the state leaders' succession defined as a change of a bald/balding leader to a hairy one and vice versa. This consistent pattern can be traced back until as early as 1825 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy
ralusek 7y ago
But where is the proof that the reason we're averse to baldness is because of social construction? Your statement is equivalent to saying that women prefer taller men due to social construction...because women on dating sites prefer taller men. It's circular logic and fails to address the reason why they prefer taller men.
- rofo1 7y ago
  It's absolutely due to evolution, not social construction. Same thing for women - they prefer physically strong, tall men. It's also due to evolution. It boils down to survival of the fittest - the fittest had the most resources, and a mother needs resources to reproduce (mother's can't hunt while breastfeeding, so that's out of the question). Yes, it's that simple. Same thing for men - they prefer young, sexually attractive, fertile females. Those are our instincts anyway. We can and we do influence them consciously.
  - asimpletune 7y ago
    > absolutely due to evolution No it’s not, there are some things we absolutely know and this is not one of them. This kind of stuff is extremely complex, and there aren’t good ways to test hypotheses.
    - jamesrcole 7y ago
      Here's some questions we can ask to help answer the question: - is this preference common to all known cultures? - is this preference found in other mammals, including our closest relatives? - if taller partners were selected for because they 'can offer greater protection to their partners and children from other men, and were likely to have been better providers of food and other resources throughout our evolutionary history' then are women with a higher fear of crime more likely to prefer physically formidable and dominant males? And do women who score lower on dominance show a stronger preference for taller men? https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-women-sexual-tall-dominant-men.html https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-women-sexual-tall-dominant-m...
  - equalunique 7y ago
    Simply being tall requires a higher caloric intake, and thus puts tall people at a disadvantage. The genes for tall stature do not express themselves when that higher food intake is not present during developmental stages. Tall people are more a phenomena of advanced agriculture than natural selection. They are not necessarily more formitable, but are rather a larger target, or a clumsier hunter. Evolutionarily, being tall means a lifetime of above-average access to food, and while that's desireable in a mate, it's just as much about the environment one lives in as it is the genes one's born with.
    - jamesrcole 7y ago
      > Simply being tall requires a higher caloric intake, and thus puts tall people at a disadvantage This is assuming that food intake is the only factor contributing to fitness. There are other possibilities. E.g. taller (larger) males may have advantages in competing with other males for mates, and thus be better at spreading their genes. Females who preferred such males would thus be better at spreading their genes down the generations. > Evolutionarily, being tall means a lifetime of above-average access to food, and while that's desireable in a mate, it's just as much about the environment one lives in as it is the genes one's born with. Evolution doesn't only concern the genes, as if environmental factors were distinct from evolution. Fitness is always a function of both genes and the environment.
ido 7y ago
In the US maybe. Where I'm from (Israel) the majority of prime ministers were bald or balding. It seems a lot of Russian/Soviet leaders were bald as well (and this seem to apply to many European countries).
- agent008t 7y ago
  I would argue US culture is a lot more focused on vanity than perhaps any other culture in the world - at least when it comes to men.
  - sometdog 7y ago
    What would your argument be based on?
    - agent008t 7y ago
      Anecdotal observations.
  - skohan 7y ago
    Not by a long shot! I would say Italy's had the US beat there for centuries. Probably South Korea also. I'd wager men under 30 in London probably also invest more time and money in their appearance than almost any group of men in the US.
elcomet 7y ago
In france, I'd say about half politicians are bald. And in our current republic, about half were bald too.
alkonaut 7y ago
Or unmarried? Or very short? Or without a perfect set of teeth? Vanity is extreme in US politics, and US public life in general. You’ll find an extreme skew for high level US managers being taller and having more hair than the population on average .
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
You're from USA? Your current president is partially bald, surely, he has some sort of intricate weaved toupee. That aside, I'm not sure what your point is?
wsc981 7y ago
In The Netherlands I believe we were really close to having a gay bald president [0]. But sadly he got killed by some left-wing extremist. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn

tarsinge 7y ago

Depends of your culture. By the comments here and my experience hair as a symbol seems relatively important in the US, but maybe that’s due to heavy marketing from pharma companies. Some other countries have preferences for short or very short hair[1]. Also regarding attractiveness don’t be fooled, it’s marginal compared to being in good shape and how you behave. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-men-in-Eastern-Europe-Serbia-Hungary-etc-prefer-to-have-a-hairstyle-like-an-army-soldier-which-is-short-and-clean-cut-There-are-many-young-men-who-have-kind-of-have-a-Neo-Nazi-aggressive-look https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-men-in-Eastern-Europe-Serb... (not a very scientific analysis but it illustrates the point)

steele 7y ago

just let him cope