The Scientific Fundamentalist

People often speak of culture in the plural (“cultures”) because they believe that there are many different cultures in the world. At one level, this is of course true; the American culture is different from the Chinese culture, both of which are different from the Egyptian culture, and so on. However, all the cultural differences are on the surface; deep down, at the most fundamental level, all human cultures are essentially the same.

Another common stereotype about physical appearance is that extremely handsome men are likely to be homosexual. In one experiment, women rate pictures of men as more attractive if they thought that the men were homosexual than if they thought that they were heterosexual, while men do not exhibit the same tendency in judging the attractiveness of women. Extremely handsome celebrities, such as Tom Cruise, have long been dogged with rumors of being gay all their careers. Are extremely handsome men really more likely to be gay?

Both Tom Hanks and Ray Liotta are handsome white Hollywood actors roughly the same age. But I am willing to bet that these two actors have never auditioned for the same part in their careers. (Imagine Ray Liotta sitting on a park bench, uttering the line “My name is Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump.”) Why is this? Why are actors typecast?

They say beauty is only skin deep, which means that beautiful people are no different from ugly people except for their appearance. This is the second stereotype or aphorism that evolutionary psychology has overturned. It turns out that beautiful people are genuinely different from ugly people, because they are genetically and developmentally healthier.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which means that different people possess different standards of beauty and that not everyone agrees on who is beautiful and who is not. This is the first stereotype or aphorism that evolutionary psychology has overturned. It turns out that the standards of beauty are not only the same across individuals and cultures, they are also innate. We are born with the notion of who’s beautiful and who’s not.

“Stereotypes” have a bad name, and everybody hates stereotypes. But what exactly is a stereotype?

When little boys and girls reach a certain age, they start accusing each other of having “cooties.” They regard each other as yucky and dirty because they have cooties, and avoid any contact with them for fear of contracting cooties themselves. That is, until they suddenly “discover” each other when they hit puberty, then they become crazy about each other and no longer fear cooties. Why does this predictable developmental trajectory happen? Why do little boys and girls believe in cooties?

Throughout the world, boys and girls prefer to play with different types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically choose to play with dolls. Why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences may have a biological origin.

Carlin Flora has in her earlier post written about the puzzle of domestic violence. Given the enormous health and somatic costs of spousal abuse, the question of why many battered women stay with their abusive husbands or boyfriends is a puzzling one. While most battered women eventually leave their abusers, a substantial minority (estimates range from a quarter to a third) remain in their abusive relationships. The problem is doubly puzzling from an evolutionary psychological perspective, because it emphasizes the importance of life, survival, and individual welfare. Why do so many battered women stay in their abusive relationships?

In the western civilization, freedom of the press is generally considered to be a good thing. And, of course, to a large extent, it is, especially when it means freedom from government control and interference. However, having lived in the United Kingdom for five years now, I can tell you that unconstrained and complete freedom of the press may not necessarily be a good thing.