Is the research important? Why or why not?

Back to Reading the Research

 Hi, group, and happy Thanksgiving! Hope you're all having a great weekend. Anyway, the research is taking me a while to get through, but I'll be posting by tomorrow morning. I'll also do the summaries this week. see ya!

 Important??
I think so. ANything that lets us know a little bit more about ourselves is useful. That's how we've gotten where we are, and why we're going in the direction we are. (being a good direction..)

Something interesting I found in the article: it says "there is a period of rigid sex-role typing during the early teens".... I think of my cousin, who is 13 and whom I live with. He is in this stage of EXTREME sex-role typing, being on the phone to different girls ALL THE FREAKING TIME. It's a sore spot with me, as I need to use the phone line to do these psychology things and occasionally exchange information with other people.

He fits in with this evolutionary model -- being barely 13 and dating McClung girls that are 13-14. And as well, support the statement in the article that says "younger people (particularily teenage males)are particularily sensitive to sex-role norms." Ha. Funny how it is.

I hope you guys didn't mind the personal life example. It was pretty interesting to me! 

 Are you kidding, Dasj? What is the point of this course if not to be able to recognize and apply personal life examples of the things we study? Man, wouldn't psych. be the most boring thing in the world if we had to refrain from seeing how it applies in our own lives and in the lives of others we know!

I agree with you. I do think that the research is important. In particular, I think of the whole raging controversy over the nature vs nurture issue. This research will hopefully be able to provide a strong case of one or the other. At best, it will prove the evolutionary hypothesis (nature) and at worst it will lend credibility to the cultural hypothesis (nurture). I was somewhat relieved that the authors inserted several disclaimers throughout the article, indicating that evolution and culture are not mutually exclusive, and also that the results of this study will not have any implications for other areas of behaviour, only for the specific behaviour being researched.

Sorry this message is kind of wordy, but what can I say ... it's late!

I expect I will be posting very often to this discussion. My method is to go through all of the reading the research topic in order, and click on every icon in order. As often as those links bring me to these discussions, I will definitely post something every time.

Say, have any of you been reading about what's going on in the comments/constructive criticism discussions? It seems that my transferring to your group has instigated some pretty heated responses, and I kind of feel bad about it. But I can't say I have any regrets, cuz this group is AWESOME!! 

 Howdy!

Great discussion! Dasj, how does your cousin meet the McClung girls? Is he posing?

I'll add another question:

Do you think this study is important to sociobiologists? Does this add to our understanding of how dating may serve a function in the preservation of the species?

I think so. Back when the earth was less populated, it would have been species-threatening to have men knock old ladies over the head and take them into
their caves...kinda crude but it gets the point across.
 

Connie

PS The objectives for the midterm are up. 

 As to my cousin, he just has connections that get him into the McClung circle.... certainly a good gene pool to scout in! I hear they're pretty upscale, in both academics and aesthetics (from what Liam says). And by getting in with aaaalll girls, he increases his chances, both by sheer number of fish in the pond, and less competition from within.

I think sociobiology is such a fascinating field. It might have been a bit more relevant when people were chasing mammoths around 10, 000 years ago and NEEDING to populate the earth a bit more. But still, it's really interesting to see how we still exhibit some of those instincts, in choosing a partner especially. It seems that we still do so much on a subconcious level with instinct and such. Realizing we aren't THAT much different from anything else on the planet. 

 Although I found the article interesting...I do not see the findings as very ground-breaking and therefore not very importantÖ

Kís research only confirms what North American society already knows, "men are dogs."
As K writes, "males have some perceptual or motivational mechanism that is attuned to, or responsive to, features that are statistically associated with female fertility." One must wonder what are these features of female fertility? Answer: the upper body, the lower body, etc.

Does the evidence gathered also support a cultural model? Kís cultural hypothesis reduces the cultural model to the "norm that males should date females who are younger." The cultural model is not this simplistic. How many times have you heard the phrase, men are only after one thing. Is it against the cultural model that boys are interested in "developed" women?

P.S.
My dadís computer crashed this week-endÖit is all good nowÖbut Iíll be posting all day tomorrow until about midnightÖ 

 MIVA!! (I'm saying that reproachfully ... I don't know any emoticons to express that sentiment!)

This study was not a test to prove that 'men are dogs'. K does write about the male mechanism for recongnizing female fertility, but I don't think he's talking about physical features exclusively. You make reference to upper body, lower body, and 'development', but the research question doesn't even refer to a female's appearance. The question is about age only. And yes, it is against the cultural model that boys are interested in developed women. The cultural model suggests that males prefer mates who appear inferior to them, in term of size, age, maturity, and career success. In order for the results to follow that model, then 13-yr. old boys should prefer girls that meet at least some of those criteria. However, by indicating a preference for older women, those adolescent males are contradicting the cultural model in every way!

I suppose you might achieve very different results if you were to research preferences with regard to appearance, but that is a whole different aspect than K et al are examining.

I think it's really important not to get too caught up in the politics of these results. It is not bad, or good, for an individual to have preferences and it is interesting to note that there are very definite trends when it comes to mating preferences ( BTW of course I don't mean the act itself ... I mean mate selection preferences ... ) Anyway, it is quite easy to interpret this research as supporting those cliches about all men wanting only one thing, but that isn't the case. I think it's only natural for males of any species to want to choose the healthiest and most fertile females to bear their offspring. And heck! we females can feel really good about being 'chosen', right? :) 

 Hmmmmmm.Depends on the guy doing the choosing, Jema:)

Does anyone else find it strange that the research points to a wanted partner being of the fertile, child-baring stereotype. From my own observations I think that many adolescent guys and girls would generally still be happiest pursuing the stereotypes given to us by the world of movies, models and music. I think that nurturing only begins to play a part as maturity sets in. This is off topic, isn't it...

The research bares some importance but I think not as much as interest. I think that we would like to know the trends of our society and how they vary with past and future trends. The research doesn't really effect humanity in a life-changing way athough it is a study of probably our most favoured activity. 

 Sorry about that last message I couldn't resist provoking a response...

As Jema writes, "The question is about age only." Kís method includes asking high school students "the youngest person" and "the oldest person" they would consider going out on a date with. From his results, he interprets a correlation between age and fertility. Is there not also a correlation between age and "development?" And waitÖ..does he not also ask for the age of the "most attractive person imaginable." Is the question about age only?

Jema also writes, "The cultural model suggests that males prefer mates who
appear inferior to them, in term of size, age, maturity, and career success." I would argue the cultural model of dating has changed. Males prefer women who are paradoxes: vulnerable yet dominating, sexual yet pure. Anybody seen the last episode of Dawsonís Creek (not that I have) or picked up a CK add lately.

As Neal says, "the research bares some importance but I think not as much as interest." It lacks importance because it simplifies the cultural model. Furthermore, research is based on a narrow study group (moderate-sized city, US, public high school, 209 students). In general, however, research in the area of "life history" is important. It is consequential that people understand any genetically encoded predispositions to certain stimuli.

P.S.
Am I the only one who is bothered that previous research in this area was based on "personal adds?" 

 Yes, Miva, I agree that that research was centred around age, especially since it emphasized the fact that older men choose younger woman, and vice versa. However, I have to argue that it does not COMPLETELY lack importance. It may lack relevance to our society, since I have to say that we are much more superficial than cultural when it comes to mating preferences. I mean, with people our age, like Neal said, we are not looking for the 'fertile, child-bearing stereotype'. Really, how many guys actually prefer chicks with large hips so that they would be more successful in childbearing? No, seriously I want to know, guys...

Okay, back to my point, which I seem to have largely digressed from. This Kenrick et al. study could be important in the evolutionary sense, if not the cultural. For instance, older men prefer younger woman, and this is still true today, which suggests that, besides physical attraction, they subconciously are choosing the woman who is still at the peak of fertility. With the women, they still choose the more mature men since they are (stereotypically) more successful and intelligent. This is also true for adolescents. Younger guys prefer older women, the same women that older men prefer because of the fertility value. And adolescent chicks still prefer older, mature men. So, this can be important as a sociobiology study to explain why our mating patterns are like this. But that cultruaal thing is way off in our society... 

 I'm sorry if I gave the impression that research in area of "life history" is not important. Page 92 of our book sums up the importance of such research quite nicely, I paraphrased it a bit...

"Our great capacity for knowledge, including knowledge of our own biological nature, can also be a liberating force." Through becoming conscious of predispositions built into our biology, we gain the capacity of self-control which can in turn be a step toward human betterment.

Anyway, I still feel that the SPECIFIC research of K are not that important due to the reasons mentioned in the previous postingÖ 

 Ahhhhhhh now that I'm finished gorging my self, I believe it is time to crack down, by the way Happy Thanks giving all :)~

Is the answer to "Adolescents Age Preference for Dating Partners", an important topic? I would support its relevance since its re-application to the world of psychology will better our understanding of the mind. The biological perspective developed in this report of empirical study, benefits our understanding of human phylogeny which would help in assessing the relationship of current behavior with that of our ancestors, and how those certain characteristics lead to reproductive success.

Which also brings me to ponder on the real necessity of these tendencies, of males preferring to pair with females at the peek of their reproductive capabilities and females with older males capable of providing a stable foundation in order to provide an environment capable of insuring the full maturation of their offspring. If they were, in fact, required in the past for the reproductive success of our species are they required now? Which might explain how the results of the tests on the junior high students test did not completely coincide with the believed norm. Could this minor discrepancy have a correlation with our culture's evolution? That maybe those tendencies in mate preference are not absolute necessity therefore those tendencies that do not mesh with the norm are not weaned out by natural selection. (IM stretching out on a limb I know, but this is just food for thought) Could those previous vital characteristics be evolving into vestigial characteristics? 

 I agree Miva about the studies on age preference with adults, being conducted only with dating agency information (not to say there is anything wrong with those who pursue their mates there). This data is bias for it represents a single section of our population, and it is a naive assumption that everyone has the same mentality of those who engage in such dating agencies. I have yet to meet someone who has been set up with a successful relationship through such an endeavor. 

 That's an excellent point, Iala ... our culture could have evolved in such a way, especially since advances in medical science are making it possible for increasingly older women to bear children. However, I still think that the results support the evolutionary model that K suggests. There are 2 reasons that I believe in this research:

1. Older men still prefer younger women. The advances in medical technology would not have affected their preferences in mates, since their sociobiological preferences would have been in place long before those medical abilities.

2. Young boys still prefer older women. If the cultural hypothesis is correct, then younger boys should prefer even younger girls, but they don't. So the cultural suggestion that males should be with someone who fits that 'inferior' description should apply, but it doesn't.

Time will tell. If, as Iala suggests, males gradually begin to prefer increasingly older women, it could support the idea that males prefer to be with a mate who can produce healthy offspring. However, if males continue to prefer that mate who fits into the cultural model, then the evolutionary hypothesis may need to be discarded, or at least revised. 

 I do agree with the reports disproving of the cultural hypothesis about younger boys matchin up with younger females, dont get me wrong in that aspect.

Its just I belive that our culture(or at least the last few generations) has evolved passed such a point from where it seems that the mature male being able to provide for his vulnerable fertile female. This is the misconception of the current cultural hypothesis, that may have been the fact in the early 19 century, but not now. Maybe the cultural hypothesis could be revised to something that is a bit more oriented twards our current culture.-i know its a bit off topic, im just in a gabby mood ^-^ 

 Iala, I agree that our culture has evolved past the point of the mature male providing for his vulnerable fertile female. However, it does make sense that our instincts still lead us to 'do like the animals', which is to mate for the purpose of procreating. Our society and culture have changed so quickly that our instincts can't keep up. It explains why most people's preferences TEND to follow the pattern identified by the research, while also allowing for variations. For example, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are a case of older woman-younger man partners. There are slight cultural and individual variations, but the pattern overall still holds true. That same pattern also holds true in other cultures, suggesting that something more elemental than culture dictates human partner preference. 

 Wow guys, interesting read for me. Now for the responses.

I agree that the results are interesting, but not something to be considered as biblical reference in terms of how EVERY single male makes his choices. Of course there will be gaps, and other influences and things that weren't completely accounted for. That's the way any qualitative study is.

It still has relevance, though. They explained some data they collected in terms of the model they supported. I don't think it generalizes men to be barbaric in their actions... they gave women just as many reasons for their choices. The man that can provide, the men that can be our stability and resources.... sheesh. I certainly don't look for that (conciously at least), it's simply not reasonable for our situation now.

But any study can be what you take it for -- completely irrelevant and biased, or just some interesting thing that someone got paid to do. What can be better than that? These guys had fun going around and theorizing about things.... at least I hope they did. That's the whole point. 

 I have to say that this has been a most enjoyable discussion. However, in the interest of summarizing it and getting a good grade, I would be most appreciative if we could wrap up the discussion by about 4:00 tomorrow (Tuesday). That way, I can do up the summaries in rough, y'all can critique, and I'll do the final drafts around 11:00 pm. I'm afraid I never have extra time in the mornings, especially not M W F due to earlier classes, so all my stuff has to be complete before I turn in on Tuesday night. Sleep well, and Happy posting! 

 okay, I know this is not really answering the question but I just have to agree with what Jema said about the evolutionary hypothesis needing to be revised.

I find it really interesting how trends from the Western world completely dominate other cultures. I lived in South Africa for most of my life. The native African people once generally prefered a younger,larger woman with bigger breasts and waists- family was what a tribe would live for. Today, Western adaptation, the prefered woman has become more mature, skinny, leggy and tall. The issue of family has become the last item on a list of other social activities. Practicality for survival has been lost.

Despite the issue of Westernization we cannot assume that ALL culture has become engulfed by it.It seems to me that the select group of people studied does not apply fully to outside groups. Perhaps a more cross-cultural approach to the research would have yielded different results, even to the evolutionary model- so that we we may look at the whole: what the world is becoming, ie: more similarity resulting in more precise differentiation, rather than the rigid cultural separation we once had. 

 Hope everyone had a good thanksgiving.I agree with Dasj that anything that helps us find out more about ourselves no matter good or bad is important. As for Miva's little comment that "men are dogs" that was a little harsh. I agree with Jema, I do not think that he talking about physical features exclusively. 

 Just agreeing with Neal...

If we look at old paintings, desirable women are pictured as "ample." 

SUMMARY FOR WEEK 4

Our group had a really good discussion on this topic, but did not really achieve a consensus. About half of us believe that the research is important because it helps us learn about ourselves. Also, it was suggested that the research did strengthen the evolutionary hypothesis and disprove the cultural model.

The few who do not believe that the research is very important or ground-breaking still think that it has some relevance and that research in this area is important. However, there are concerns about the size and demographic of the subjects. Also, it was suggested that the authors reduced the cultural model too much, making it too simplistic and thus, difficult to believe.

Nearly half of us do not feel strongly about the article's importance, or lack of importance. Many other points were raised, suggestions and questions. As a group, we question the accuracy of the results, as well as the actual focus of the questions, which we are not all convinced related to age only. We agree that more research in this area is required, and some of us feel that the cultural model needs a more thorough explanation while the evolutionary model needs some revision.

In our discussion, we were all able to see and understand each other's points of view, and it was impossible to positively answer the question.

 Group 3. Excellent suumary! Gives both sides of the story, and arguments thereof. Great at summarizing the groupís opinions concisely and accurately. You get a 5.