Get MOH Blog Posts by Email
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 |
Our Sister Sites
Site Map
Blog Categories
Advertising |
Animals |
April Fools Day |
Art |
Bad Excuses |
Birth/Babies |
Body Manipulation |
Books |
Business/Finance |
Celebrations |
Celebrities |
Con Artists |
Conspiracy Theories |
Crop Circles |
Cryptozoology |
Nessie |
Death |
eBay |
Education |
Email Hoaxes |
Entertainment |
Exploration/Travel |
Extraterrestrial Life |
Fashion |
Folklore/Tall Tales |
Food |
Free Energy |
Future/Time |
Gnomes |
Gross |
Hate Crimes/Terror |
Health/Medicine |
History |
Identity/Imposters |
Journalism |
Law/Police/Crime |
Literature/Language |
Magic |
Mass Delusion |
Military |
Miscellaneous |
Music |
Paranormal |
Pareidolia |
Photos/Videos |
Places |
Politics |
Pranks |
Products |
Pseudoscience |
Psychology |
Radio |
Religion |
Scams |
Science |
Sex/Romance |
Social Networking Sites |
Sports |
Technology |
Urban Legends |
Videos |
Websites
Blog Archives
May, 2013 |
April, 2013 |
March, 2013 |
February, 2013 |
January, 2013 |
October, 2012 |
September, 2012 |
August, 2012 |
July, 2012 |
June, 2012 |
May, 2012 |
April, 2012 |
March, 2012 |
February, 2012 |
January, 2012 |
December, 2011 |
November, 2011 |
October, 2011 |
September, 2011 |
August, 2011 |
November, 2010 |
April, 2010 |
January, 2010 |
December, 2009 |
November, 2009 |
October, 2009 |
September, 2009 |
August, 2009 |
July, 2009 |
June, 2009 |
May, 2009 |
April, 2009 |
March, 2009 |
February, 2009 |
January, 2009 |
December, 2008 |
November, 2008 |
October, 2008 |
September, 2008 |
August, 2008 |
July, 2008 |
June, 2008 |
May, 2008 |
April, 2008 |
March, 2008 |
February, 2008 |
January, 2008 |
December, 2007 |
November, 2007 |
October, 2007 |
September, 2007 |
August, 2007 |
July, 2007 |
June, 2007 |
May, 2007 |
April, 2007 |
March, 2007 |
February, 2007 |
January, 2007 |
December, 2006 |
November, 2006 |
October, 2006 |
September, 2006 |
August, 2006 |
July, 2006 |
June, 2006 |
May, 2006 |
April, 2006 |
March, 2006 |
February, 2006 |
January, 2006 |
December, 2005 |
November, 2005 |
October, 2005 |
September, 2005 |
August, 2005 |
July, 2005 |
June, 2005 |
May, 2005 |
April, 2005 |
March, 2005 |
February, 2005 |
January, 2005 |
December, 2004 |
November, 2004 |
October, 2004 |
September, 2004 |
August, 2004 |
July, 2004 |
June, 2004 |
May, 2004 |
April, 2004 |
March, 2004 |
February, 2004 |
January, 2004 |
December, 2003 |
November, 2003 |
October, 2003 |
September, 2003 |
August, 2003 |
July, 2003 |
June, 2003 |
May, 2003 |
January, 2003 |
November, 2002 |
October, 2002 |
September, 2002 |
August, 2002 |
July, 2002 |
Are women getting more beautiful?
Status: Unlikely
The Times Online reports on a recent study by University of Helsinki researcher Markus Jokela, who found that women are getting more beautiful:Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The article doesn't mention where Jokela published his study, so I'll have to go by the article's description of his work. But on the basis of that, his claim is absurd. Beauty isn't something like height that can be objectively tracked and measured over time. Standards of beauty change over time and across cultures. Which makes it meaningless to say that women are getting more beautiful.
The Gene Expression blog also criticizes Jokela's claim, pointing out that "males and females inherit half their genes from an opposite sex parent." Which means that if gorgeous women are mating with ugly cavemen, their children will be half ugly caveman, which contradicts Jokela's thesis.
| More from the Hoax Museum Archives: | |||
What time did the good doctor do his study? Would it happen to have been around 2:00 a.m.?Yes, women are getting more beautiful. And quicker. They run much faster from me than ever. And they punch harder, too. ow
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The good doctor Joke-la must have family photo albums that go WAY back.
Posted by Donna F. in Midwest U.S. on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Does this professor even really exist? I mean, JOKEla? Could this maybe be a deliberate joke on everyone?
Posted by Valkerie in IA on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Actually, this is a really good example of anachronistic thinking. Beauty changes over time so while we might rate the average beauty of 100 21st century women over 100 19th century women, 19th century people would rate the 19th C women more beautiful than the 21st C women (were they able to).
Posted by floormaster squeeze on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:34 PM
There really is a Markus Jokela, professor at the U of Helsinki:
List of staff:
http://www.helsinki.fi/psykologia/english/introduction/personnel.htm
Markus' frame:
http://elias.it.helsinki.fi/PSYKO/Psykolog.nsf/6002abba1de8a08bc225733e004973a5/0d73ac84d83edde4c225702f001fb5ed?OpenDocument
And he is in the psychology department. But that doesn't prove anything, since some hoaxster could easily have snagged a real name.
Alex is dead on in his comments.
Posted by Frosted Donut in Mercer Island on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:32 PM
List of staff:
http://www.helsinki.fi/psykologia/english/introduction/personnel.htm
Markus' frame:
http://elias.it.helsinki.fi/PSYKO/Psykolog.nsf/6002abba1de8a08bc225733e004973a5/0d73ac84d83edde4c225702f001fb5ed?OpenDocument
And he is in the psychology department. But that doesn't prove anything, since some hoaxster could easily have snagged a real name.
Alex is dead on in his comments.
Well, on average, women are heavier than in previous centuries, and I like fat girls, so yes.
Posted by Eric in Chicago on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:48 PM
I'd say that rather than women "getting more beautiful", instead natural selection may be constantly redirecting the female population towards whatever form is the most attractive in that place and time.
Posted by Accipiter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:10 AM
The study is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4W80GJ1-4&_user=1026342&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=968782178&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050565&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1026342&md5=026f241d25bcf5180b3fa332b88674b9
The Times report is (as so often) a misleading one, more concerned with a catchy headline than an accurate report.
Posted by Finn on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 07:14 AM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4W80GJ1-4&_user=1026342&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=968782178&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050565&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1026342&md5=026f241d25bcf5180b3fa332b88674b9
The Times report is (as so often) a misleading one, more concerned with a catchy headline than an accurate report.
Nice find, Finn!
Key phrase:
"These findings indicate that physical attractiveness may be associated with reproductive success in humans living in industrialized settings."
In other words: attractive women tend to have more children than unattractive women. (For men: if you're really ugly, you'll have fewer kids, otherwise, it doesn't much matter.)
But it's a relatively weak effect and is based on people born in the late 1930's (before effective birth control).
How The Times got from there to evolutionary pressure making women more beautiful is something to marvel at. But I'll bet lots of beer was involved....
Posted by Frosted Donut in Mercer Island on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Key phrase:
"These findings indicate that physical attractiveness may be associated with reproductive success in humans living in industrialized settings."
In other words: attractive women tend to have more children than unattractive women. (For men: if you're really ugly, you'll have fewer kids, otherwise, it doesn't much matter.)
But it's a relatively weak effect and is based on people born in the late 1930's (before effective birth control).
How The Times got from there to evolutionary pressure making women more beautiful is something to marvel at. But I'll bet lots of beer was involved....
It's not evolution that's making women more attractive it's the "Hottie and Nottie Effect"
(see that "movie" was good for something!!)
Essentially, with advances in dental, skincare etc women are better looking than they've ever been, regardless of how you like 'em.
Posted by Joel B1 in Hobart, Tasmania on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:14 PM
(see that "movie" was good for something!!)
Essentially, with advances in dental, skincare etc women are better looking than they've ever been, regardless of how you like 'em.
Jokela has responded to the media frenzy - and (unsurprisingly) he is unimpressed at the inaccuracy of the reporting of his findings on many levels.
His full response can be found here. Before dissing, read either the original paper (linked by Finn above) or the commentary. Most of the press reports have got it Not Even Wrong - as usual for science journalism.
Posted by outeast on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:01 AM
His full response can be found here. Before dissing, read either the original paper (linked by Finn above) or the commentary. Most of the press reports have got it Not Even Wrong - as usual for science journalism.
Yes, even Alex got it wrong. Beauty *can* be objectively tracked and measured over time. Point 4 of the rebuttal is devoted to showing that standards of beauty stay relatively constant over time and across cultures.
Posted by Eivind in Bergen on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 1 pages