5 ms·

> Men generally have deeper voices, are taller, more muscular than women, so the more of that trait a man has, the more attractive it is. That's a nice non-exp

by hh3k0 5y ago

> Men generally have deeper voices, are taller, more muscular than women, so the more of that trait a man has, the more attractive it is. That's a nice non-explanation. Article states: > “There is so much attention in evolutionary literature on height, and selective pressures on height, and that’s only an 8 percent difference [between men and women]. In voice pitch, we are looking at more like 60 percent. That just doesn’t come about by accident,” Hodges-Simeon says. Instead, she believes, such differences are the result of sexual selection. Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender.

im3w1l 5y ago
I think his idea is that first there is an initial sex-difference in some trait which could have happened basically randomly. Then sexual selection starts amplifying the difference.
drekipus 5y ago
> Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. are you saying that the deep voices in males has developed due to other sexual selection, and only now shows up as a difference?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  I think the point is like this: initially, at some point, males and females of some hominid species had the same voice pitch. Then some individual males were born with a deeper voice by some accident. Now, the question becomes: why did the very first deep-voice males have any kind of positive selection pressure? At the time, this wasn't a male-specific trait, it was just some mutation that one individual who happened to be male had, so the initial explanation can't be sexual dimorphism. There must have been either some survival advantage, or some coincidence where this mutation happened to match a trait that was already sexually attractive for some deeper reason. Like, imagine if 10,000,000 years from now, human-descended males have a characteristic tale, while females do not. Today, no humans have a tail, so you have to wonder, why did women start looking for a tail in their men?
  - glouwbug 5y ago
    We’re already chasing tail
  - drekipus 5y ago
    > that one individual who happened to be male had I don't think it works like that. I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. I would probably think of it like this: (it's all speculation, we'll never know). Bigger mammals have bigger lungs and stomachs and deeper voice (because bigger) - thus females are the one who selects that, regardless of if they themselves are big or small (males don't care) - size trend downwards, but still selecting "upwards", so now humans are a bit smaller, male and female, size doesn't change outcome. But voice is still tied to aggression, intimidation, fighting, etc, which males are needed for to protect the females. So we keep the vocal traits while the species trends downwards in size. The "choose the voice" and "make the voice" strategy has worked for us, so keep doing that. IE: the mutation happens to both sexes, that we get smaller. It doesn't happen to one sex, "grow a deeper voice". Males would procreate with female deep voice or not. For us to develop a tail, we'd need to lose our ears (balance) and it would happen to both sexes, unfair for males to have balance and females not.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      But human (and probably earlier hominid?) males have a deeper voice not because they are larger, but because the thyroid gland and larynx take on different shapes under the effect of high levels of testosterone. Therefore, deepness of voice is mostly correlated with testosterone levels (assuming no other effects, like smoke inhalation), in both males and females. It is true though that this may have started out as a coincidence, and then selective pressures could have made it more prominent. > I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. My understanding is that a new gene is unlikely to become common (or even survive at all) unless it provides some measurable benefit to reproduction (which includes survival, since that is a prerequisite for reproduction, even in old age for social species), either directly or by being associated with another gene that does.
jiggawatts 5y ago
> and that’s only an 8 percent difference Ah... scientists, just looking at the numbers in a University setting. Look up for a minute, gaze out the window, and try to find a couple where the woman is taller than her boyfriend.
- treebog 5y ago
  Easy. If you want a real challenge, find me a hetero couple where the woman’s voice is deeper.
  - ungamed 5y ago
    Shohreh Aghdashloo and Aydin Aghdashloo. easy.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    Sonny and Cher?
estaseuropano 5y ago
There is always a tradeoff, we have sexual fitness but also survival fitness more general. There is a ceiling to each trait - in particular such as physical size there are significant tradeoff such as visbility calory need, skeleton strength and weight, etc. Presumably voice has less negative impact on survival so would be more affected by sexual selection, with the upper ceiling. So a totally expected difference in difference.

by hh3k0 5y ago

im3w1l 5y ago

I think his idea is that first there is an initial sex-difference in some trait which could have happened basically randomly. Then sexual selection starts amplifying the difference.

drekipus 5y ago

> Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. are you saying that the deep voices in males has developed due to other sexual selection, and only now shows up as a difference?

tsimionescu 5y ago
I think the point is like this: initially, at some point, males and females of some hominid species had the same voice pitch. Then some individual males were born with a deeper voice by some accident. Now, the question becomes: why did the very first deep-voice males have any kind of positive selection pressure? At the time, this wasn't a male-specific trait, it was just some mutation that one individual who happened to be male had, so the initial explanation can't be sexual dimorphism. There must have been either some survival advantage, or some coincidence where this mutation happened to match a trait that was already sexually attractive for some deeper reason. Like, imagine if 10,000,000 years from now, human-descended males have a characteristic tale, while females do not. Today, no humans have a tail, so you have to wonder, why did women start looking for a tail in their men?
- glouwbug 5y ago
  We’re already chasing tail
- drekipus 5y ago
  > that one individual who happened to be male had I don't think it works like that. I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. I would probably think of it like this: (it's all speculation, we'll never know). Bigger mammals have bigger lungs and stomachs and deeper voice (because bigger) - thus females are the one who selects that, regardless of if they themselves are big or small (males don't care) - size trend downwards, but still selecting "upwards", so now humans are a bit smaller, male and female, size doesn't change outcome. But voice is still tied to aggression, intimidation, fighting, etc, which males are needed for to protect the females. So we keep the vocal traits while the species trends downwards in size. The "choose the voice" and "make the voice" strategy has worked for us, so keep doing that. IE: the mutation happens to both sexes, that we get smaller. It doesn't happen to one sex, "grow a deeper voice". Males would procreate with female deep voice or not. For us to develop a tail, we'd need to lose our ears (balance) and it would happen to both sexes, unfair for males to have balance and females not.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    But human (and probably earlier hominid?) males have a deeper voice not because they are larger, but because the thyroid gland and larynx take on different shapes under the effect of high levels of testosterone. Therefore, deepness of voice is mostly correlated with testosterone levels (assuming no other effects, like smoke inhalation), in both males and females. It is true though that this may have started out as a coincidence, and then selective pressures could have made it more prominent. > I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. My understanding is that a new gene is unlikely to become common (or even survive at all) unless it provides some measurable benefit to reproduction (which includes survival, since that is a prerequisite for reproduction, even in old age for social species), either directly or by being associated with another gene that does.

jiggawatts 5y ago

> and that’s only an 8 percent difference Ah... scientists, just looking at the numbers in a University setting. Look up for a minute, gaze out the window, and try to find a couple where the woman is taller than her boyfriend.

treebog 5y ago
Easy. If you want a real challenge, find me a hetero couple where the woman’s voice is deeper.
- ungamed 5y ago
  Shohreh Aghdashloo and Aydin Aghdashloo. easy.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  Sonny and Cher?

estaseuropano 5y ago

There is always a tradeoff, we have sexual fitness but also survival fitness more general. There is a ceiling to each trait - in particular such as physical size there are significant tradeoff such as visbility calory need, skeleton strength and weight, etc. Presumably voice has less negative impact on survival so would be more affected by sexual selection, with the upper ceiling. So a totally expected difference in difference.