I recently finished a book called Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?: Bodies, Behavior, and Brains – The Science Behind Sex, Love, and Attraction by Jena Pincott.
As the title implies, the book examines male-female relationships from a scientific perspective – actually, a “sociobiological” perspective. “Sociobiology,” in the words of Wikipedia, is a “neo-Darwinian synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the behaviors may have.”
I’ll let Ms. Pincott explain the impact of “sociobiology” on our understanding of human romantic relationships…
“Everyone has an unconscious preference for certain traits, and much of what we desire is rooted in deep evolutionary biases. We evolved this way. Studying ancestral conditions and the mating behaviors of other animals, evolutionary biologists have an interesting take: whether or not you actually want kids, you have ‘parental investment’ instincts that impact your sex life. It all boils down to the basic biological truth that in one year’s time, a woman could sleep with a googol of men but only have one full-term pregnancy, whereas a man could sleep with a googol of women and have googol of babies. To maximize their reproductive success, men are attracted to cues of fertility – youth and beauty – especially in short-term relationships. For women, it’s more complicated. Women have more at stake in the event of a pregnancy, so we’re choosier about our sex partners. Over the ages we developed biases for guys with good genes (masculinity and social dominance) and signs that they would be good dads (nurturers and providers), although we often make trade-offs depending upon our circumstances (p. xv).”
Let’s review this paragraph-long summary of the book’s thesis…
There are 3 major points…
First, that in the game of romance, people aspire to attract the best possible mate (and, especially as they grow older, they aspire to attract the best potential parent for their future children). There is nothing inherently controversial or demeaning or “Darwinian” about this fact. I accept it.
The second point is that women and men have slightly different understandings of what it means to “have a good mate,” and that the reason for this distinction is that women and men have different roles in reproduction. Specifically, because women are the ones who get pregnant, give birth, and have shorter periods of fertility, they are the “choosier” sex. Again, there is nothing inherently controversial or demeaning or “Darwinian” about this fact. I accept it.
But then we come to the third point: that a person’s romantic search is guided by “unconscious preferences” and “deep evolutionary biases. We evolved this way.” That is a flawed conclusion. First of all, there is no inherent reason that perfectly logical preferences (such as men who are “good providers” or women who are “good nurturers”) have anything to do with evolution, per se. Darwinists are always eager to link common sense and banal facts with “evolution,” and equate human beings with “other animals,” as Ms. Pincott does, even though it’s totally unnecessary.
Second of all, using evolution to explain human behavior is inherently silly. Why? Because the Darwinists insist that literally every behavior is a victory for evolution. Consider the following:
On P. 6-9, Ms. Pincott addresses the question, “Why do men prefer big pupils?” She answers: “Evolutionarily speaking, men prefer big, gaping pupils because they’re a sign of arousal and receptivity…Your pupils dilate widest around ovulation, the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle.” Ok…so…the blind forces of nature designed women’s pupils to dilate as a “sign of fertility?” Seems plausible.
But then we come to this…on p. 90-92, Ms. Pincott asks, “What does a ‘wiggle’ in your walk reveal?” Answer: “The more wiggle in your walk, the tinier your waist is in proportion to your hips – a telltale sign of youth and fertility.” OK, so “evolutionarily speaking,” we would expect a woman’s “wiggle” to be greatest during ovulation, right? Wrong! “To the contrary, it turns out that’s when a woman’s gait is most restrained.” Does this contradict sociobiology? Of course not. As Pincott says – without any hint of irony – “the reason women walk less provocatively when they’re most fertile is an unconscious attempt to avoid excessive male attention.”
Got that? During ovulation, women’s eyes dilate to gain men’s attention, and during the same period, their hips wiggle less to avoid men’s attention? Of course, that makes absolutely NO sense. But that’s exactly what happens when you use Darwinism to explain every facet of human behavior. For the atheist Darwinists, everything in life is Darwinist. In every debate, they play the same game: “heads I win; tails you lose.”
But you know what? That’s not my main criticism with Ms. Pincott’s book. Rather, it’s the assumption (once again, promoted by the Darwinists) that human beings – like “other animals” – are a product of their “instincts,” and that our behavior is mostly guided by “deep evolutionary biases,” rather than free will.
For example, one study tested “whether ovulating women are more attracted to very masculine men…The researchers recruited more than four hundred undergraduate women to watch video clips of the men and judge them on their personal qualities and their desirability as long- and short-term partners…The results confirmed…women who were in their fertile phase at the time of the study gave higher-than-usual ratings to swaggering, competitive, confrontational, dominant-looking guys…researchers speculated that the reason women are unconsciously drawn to strong-jawed, deep-voiced, domineering, healthy men when they’re most likely to conceive is that a child born of the union inherits the man’s ‘good genes.’”
While this is an interesting study, there are dangers in overinterpreting it. First of all, no woman makes the decision about who to have children with based on “video clips.” This is so basic and uncontroversial I almost feel embarrassed pointing it out (although I have to because the author doesn’t). Second of all, if the only way to measure “desirability” is through video clips, then the crudest physical aspects (such as “strong jaws”) are – by very definition – the only way women can measure “desirability” – and thus, it should be no surprise that men with traditionally “masculine” physical features are chosen as “more desirable” than men who lack them. If the only information you’re giving women is physical data, should it be surprising when the women judge men on…wait for it…physical data!
The author, however, conveniently doesn’t mention the flaws with the study. Instead, the reader is left with the impression that fertile women, like any animal you find in a zoo, are pawns of their ovaries. The idea that women are looking for other qualities in a partner (such as personality and character) and value these qualities for their own sake (and not just for the value it would bring to their children’s “genes”) is never explored.
There’s a reason it’s never explored: because the author is quite eager to push the “truth” of these so-called “evolutionary biases.” For example, Ms. Pincott asks, “Why do some men smell better to you than others?” She answers: “Women prefer the body odors of guys who have major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene variants that are mostly different than their own…if you have children with a man whose MHC variants are mostly unlike your own, your kids may inherit a more diverse MHC and stronger immune systems…a body odor that indicates a genetic mismatch may be a big red flag – your body telling you he’s wrong for you on a base biological level.”
While I don’t dispute the conclusion of the study (that body odor can be a helpful signal for MHC “compatibility”) I question how to interpret it. As I stated above, human beings don’t make judgments on who they’re going to marry and have children with based on smell. Let’s use the following example: if a woman has to choose between two guys, will she choose the guy who smells better, or the guy who is nicer, smarter, and a better provider? I think the answer is obvious. And with that answer comes a different conclusion: While these studies are objectively interesting, they don’t tell us a lot about human behavior – because human beings are NOT animals; we don’t just have olfactory cells; we have minds!!!
Or do we?
The author pushes the “truth” of these sexual instincts when she shares the following story: “I once dated a guy whose smell I hated, even though he showered, and it was a major reason why I couldn’t take the relationship further. Later on, I met a man whose smell I love – and I married him.”
I’m not sure how serious we should take her story; it’s likely she’s exaggerating somewhat to increase the effect on her readers. But even so, it’s a very revealing statement. By sharing this story, she is in a sense, validating the “truth” of sexual instincts (such as smell) over the mind. And that is dumb for two reasons. First, as I said above, for most people, physical “facts” are just that – facts – and do not predetermine behavior. But even worse, by presenting these “facts” as behavioral “truths” – the Darwinists are – once again – unnecessarily degrading human dignity. I often wonder: Why do they feel compelled to constantly drag human beings down to the levels of dogs, mice, and insects? I don’t know. But they do it. And it’s wrong.
I don’t mean to pick on Ms. Pincott. I honestly enjoyed her book, and I truly believe she has no agenda beyond sharing interesting information with her readers; but even so, her words and phrases expose an unhealthy ideological framework that she’s transmitting to her audience.
What does this have to do with my book, The Mustard Seed? Well, one of the running questions of the book is: “What does it mean to be human?”
For Troy Dawkins, one of the main characters, being human is equivalent to being an animal. As he says in Chapter 10:
“The newest science is very straightforward – we are, in a very real sense, ‘nothing but mammals.’ Specifically, we’re nothing but highly-evolved monkeys. We think like monkeys and, more often than not, we act like monkeys - just in a more sophisticated way. This is true in virtually every area of life – including sex.”
This so-called “science” reinforces Troy’s atheist philosophy:
“The science is irrefutable: God doesn’t exist, the universe is meaningless, life is a random accident, and morality is an illusion. None of it matters, man. When are you going to understand that? We’re born. We live for a while. We die… That’s all…. And when you come to realize that, my friend, you’re free. You’re liberated. You can do whatever you want.”
Even people who don’t fully embrace Troy’s militant atheism absorb the ideas behind it (specifically, Darwinism). As Chris, the frustrated high school biology student, explains in Chapter 6…
“If anyone thinks the rules of evolution don’t apply to us…well, they’re just living in a fantasy world. I’ve sat in this classroom for years, and I’ve absorbed the truth, even if other kids choose to ignore it.”
I’m not going to write about the pros and cons of Darwinism in this post (although Chapter 9 of The Mustard Seed is a fair introduction), but I would like to highlight 1) the power of the Darwinist idea in our society, and 2) the fact that these ideas are based on faulty conclusions (as seen in Ms. Pincott’s book).
For me, I share the conclusion of Brain Raines, the protagonist of The Mustard Seed, who exclaimed in Chapter 12 that “sex can be, and should be, a human act, and I mean that in a positive way, not as an insult.”
Seeing sex as a “human act” – and not an “animal act” – would require seeing the power of reason and logic to overcome “instincts” and “evolutionary biases.” We see this power even among people who are not…shall we say…“very intellectual.” For starters, unlike our ancestors (or people living in developing countries today), virtually no American in the 21st century is trying to have as many babies as humanly possible. The average American wants 2-3 kids. Furthermore, they want their marriage to be based on love and happiness – not pumping “good genes” into the next generation. This sounds like common sense (and it is!) but our common sense is being weakened by “science” that is nothing of the sort – and the consequence of that “science” weakens morality and the enjoyment of life.
For those – whether they live in America or other countries – who wish to close their mind and live an animal existence – I can only say to them: “that is your prerogative.” But for those of us who aspire to a more spiritually satisfactory existence, we should be aware that our “instincts” are often misleading, and they should be overcome (not embraced!) through the power of reason, and dare I say, love, as well.
This continuous competition between “instinct” and “reason” reinforces an idea that I’ve bandied about: We are souls who entered animal bodies to test the strength of the soul and create testaments to the power of the soul (creative acts such as raising a child or writing a book, etc). I won’t endorse or reject this idea (because there is a lack of evidence either way), but I think it’s a nice thought as we go about our lives (and it’s certainly better than the Darwinian alternative).
-Todd
No comments:
Post a Comment