4 ms·
If beauty standards differ somewhat from culture to culture, doesn't that break the "we're just evolved animals" evo-psych idea that physical strength is the mo
by mattgreenrocks 5y ago
If beauty standards differ somewhat from culture to culture, doesn't that break the "we're just evolved animals" evo-psych idea that physical strength is the most important thing?
- goodpoint 5y agoMost "evolutionary psychology" that you find online is broscience if not worse.
- mattgreenrocks 5y agoAbsolutely, I'm just instilling some doubt in readers. :)
- at_a_remove 5y agoI have never seen anything in evolutionary psychology to suggest that strength was the most important thing.
- mattgreenrocks 5y agoThat doesn't answer the question: do cultural norms of beauty conflict with the evo-psych view of the primacy of men's physical strength in attractiveness?
- sparker72678 5y agoAs noted by another commenter, we're "social" animals. So consider "strength" in the context of the social dynamics of the mating group. That is, in some groups, literal physical strength is going to have benefits, and be sought after because of how it can be physically applied. In other groups, the aesthetic of being physically strong brings along social standing, which is attractive for its own reasons. Etc. The point being, cultural norms of beauty, whatever they are, correlate to the other desirable traits and outcomes (money, power, safety, stability, etc) that humans want, in that context.
- at_a_remove 5y agoOkay, I guess I need to reframe this in multiple ways: Evo-psych (actually called "evolutionary psychology") does NOT view men's physical strength as primary in attractiveness. Lifting big things is not number one hotness. Other things matter more to mate selection than muscles. People who call evolutionary psychology "evo-psych," well, that's a dog whistle of its own.
- frostwarrior 5y agoWe're evolved social* animals. Strength may matter, but a team of average hunters is far more successful than a strong but lone one.