new book- anyone seen it?

From: Paul Marsden (paulsmarsden@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2001 - 17:32:43 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: new book- anyone seen it?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA12347 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:35:35 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [62.7.249.4]
    From: "Paul Marsden" <paulsmarsden@hotmail.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: new book- anyone seen it?
    Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:32:43 -0000
    Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Message-ID: <LAW2-OE5N3Isam5R4r300000345@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2001 17:31:41.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FBBF9E0:01C0A1AC]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    If anyone has seen/sees this, please let us know what it's like.

    Vincent

    Haven't seen it - but here is the New Scientist piece December 2000 on it

    Move over Casanova

    When you're single no one wants to know. Yet the minute you get a partner,
    the others come running. Ever wondered why, asks Jonathan Knight

    BEFORE I got married a few weeks ago, friends told me that flashing a
    wedding ring was a sure way to attract female attention. Some said it was
    because women consider married men to be safe. Others said a wedding band is
    a quick way for women to identify a quality mate, one that's been
    pre-filtered by someone else.
    So in the interests of science, I have been spending more time in bars
    lately. As I sip my pint of California microbrew, I keep my left hand
    clearly visible and wait. And wait. So far, I would call the results
    inconclusive.
    It's really not all that far-fetched an idea, though. Females of other
    species copy the preferences of their peers all the time. Female quail, for
    example, prefer a male they have just seen copulating. And female guppies go
    for the more popular male, even if he is a bit of a wimp. Now researchers at
    the University of Louisville, Kentucky, have compelling evidence that
    people--particularly women--engage in mate copying too. Just hearing that
    other women want to date a man piques their interest.
    The effects of peer attention could factor into a variety of social
    phenomena: why a bushy beard and tangled locks were sexy in the seventies
    but today's hair can't be short enough, or why teens pierce parts of their
    bodies adults rarely even think about. They could help explain the
    unexpected sex appeal of Mick Jagger or Jack Nicholson, and may be at work
    in celebrity of all kinds. Everyone wants to be unique, but when it comes to
    mating, imitation appears to have some powerful evolutionary advantages.
    Until recently, all the evidence of mate copying has come from fish and
    birds. That's partly because it's easier to spot in these animals than in
    humans. Male grouse, for example, gather at special sites called leks where
    all the action takes place. Leks are the grouse equivalent of a singles bar.
    Here they strut around displaying their feathers in the hope of pulling a
    bird. Females wander through the lek, choose a male, mate on the spot--here
    the singles bar analogy breaks down a bit--and then head off into the
    undergrowth to nest. Some males on the lek have all the luck. The most
    successful may win up to 80 per cent of the passing females.
    So what do the females see in these Casanovas? Some researchers suspected
    that mate copying was initiating a snowball effect: once a few females chose
    the same guy, the rest would come running. In 1994, behavioural biologists
    tested this idea by placing several stuffed female dummies on a black grouse
    lek near randomly chosen males. The eager cocks courted and mounted the
    dummies, sometimes for up to half an hour, which gave passing females lots
    of time to notice. Sure enough, the lucky males ended up mating with more
    real females on that day than either the day before or the day after.
    Other experiments in the lab showed a similar effect in fish known as river
    bullheads. Unlike male grouse, who play no part in raising their offspring,
    bullhead males are attentive fathers. They guard the eggs and stay with
    hatchlings until they are old enough to survive on their own. And female
    bullheads will always try to spawn with males that already have nests
    containing eggs. It looked as though both grouse and fish females were
    copying others as a shortcut to finding a good mate.
    True, there are other explanations for these behaviours. In the case of the
    grouse, the females might simply have been stimulated by the sight of the
    males' prolonged encounters with the dummies--normal grouse copulations are
    almost instantaneous. Similarly, bullhead females might have other reasons
    for their preference. For example, by laying their eggs in nests that are
    already occupied, they decrease the chances of them being eaten by
    predators.
    But such objections to mate copying have been sidelined in recent years, in
    part because of the work at Louisville by biologist Lee Dugatkin. In 1996,
    Dugatkin got female guppies to change their mind about which male they liked
    best solely on account of the preferences of other females. Normally, female
    guppies like orange. Given a choice, a female will go with the brightest
    orange male she can find. This may be because the most vividly coloured
    males tend to be the boldest, and will confront approaching predators. (The
    researchers added weight to this idea with an experiment in which they
    trapped a drab male in a glass cylinder and held him right up close to a
    large fish. Females that saw this happening subsequently preferred this drab
    male to a more orange one held further away.)
    Dugatkin and his colleagues wanted to see if they could override the fish's
    genetically based preference for orange. They built a fish tank with two
    smaller tanks attached, one containing an orange male and the other holding
    a drab one. A female plopped in the middle tank would court the orange male
    through the glass. The same female was liable to change her mind, however,
    if she was first held in the middle by a clear cylinder while a second
    female was trapped by a Plexiglas divider so that she could only swim close
    to the drab male. For want of anything better, she courted the drab male.
    When she was removed, along with the dividers, the original female would
    start courting the drab male rather than the orange one.
    Several other cases of mate copying have been reported since then. Last year
    David White and Bennett Galef of McMaster University in Ontario reported
    findings from a similar experiment with Japanese quail using cages instead
    of tanks. In this case, the males were equally "attractive" but one was
    allowed to mate with a female for ten minutes, while the other was by
    himself. When the cages were lifted, the female most often courted the male
    that had just mated. Similar studies have also turned up mate copying in
    Japanese madaka fish, sailfin mollies and swordtails.
    The prevalence of copying suggests it must give the copier some edge in
    evolution, though exactly what this is remains unclear. One good reason for
    copying might be that it saves time choosing a mate--time that could be
    spent doing other things, such as eating or looking out for predators. Or it
    may be simply that choosing a quality mate is tricky, and by watching what
    others do, you get more information on which to base this tough choice. This
    strategy fails, of course, if the individual you copy knows less than you
    do. But the fact that young guppies tend to copy old ones rather than the
    other way around suggests that here, at least, copying may be a way of
    passing down accumulated wisdom.
    Birds and fish aren't renowned for their intelligence, though. So perhaps
    they rely on imitation because they tend not to do much thinking on their
    own. They follow the flock. They go with the flow. Would independent-minded
    human beings, with the power of reason and free choice, care about the
    choices other people make?
    To find out, Dugatkin teamed up with psychologist Michael Cunningham, also
    at Louisville. They presented 166 female undergraduates with a report
    ostensibly written by five of their peers after a 20-minute interview with a
    man named Chris. In fact, the five women and Chris were all fictitious. The
    reports ranked Chris's physical attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10, and
    indicated how many of the women were interested in dating him.
    The reports rated Chris as either a 3 or a 10 in attractiveness. In
    addition, four, one or none of the women said she was interested in dating
    him. Once they had read the reports, the women undergraduates were asked how
    interested they might be, on a scale of 0 to 6, in dating Chris. A high
    attractiveness rating raised the women's interest by just over a point on
    average compared with a low rating. But peer attention had a stronger
    effect, raising the average dating interest by one-and-a-half points. "The
    underlying assumption is that he must have something going for him," says
    Cunningham. "If other people are attracted to him, he must have something
    they want."
    Men are influenced by their peers too, but not nearly as much as women.
    Running the same experiment on a similar number of men with all the sexes
    reversed--but keeping the androgynous name, Chris--Dugatkin and Cunningham
    found that while men responded similarly to the attractiveness ratings, they
    relied less on other men to decide whether they were interested in Chris.
    High peer attention boosted their mean interest by less than a point in most
    of the experiments.
    The difference between men and women was even more pronounced when they were
    asked to rank their interest in marrying Chris. In this case, high peer
    attention raised the rating given by the men by barely half a point on
    average, whereas the women's interest jumped by two to three times as much.
    This is exactly what evolutionary theory might predict about mate copying.
    In most species females tend to be more picky than males. That's because
    they usually invest much more time and energy than males in raising their
    offspring, so choosing the best mate pays big dividends. Males, on the other
    hand, can afford to be a bit more cavalier. "So males tend to use a smaller
    subset of information to determine what they are interested in," says
    Dugatkin.
    What exactly are women looking for in a mate? Dugatkin and Cunningham found
    that women (and men) were strongly influenced by the peer attention rating
    when forming opinions about Chris's various attributes. Regardless of the
    beauty rating, if four peers were attracted they said Chris must have a good
    sense of humour and good social skills, and, they said, Chris must be
    wealthy. These qualities are attractive because they suggest that Chris will
    be a good parent and provider.
    Studies suggest that wealth may be particularly important to women. Over a
    decade ago, David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist from the University of
    Texas at Austin, surveyed the mate preferences of some 10,000 people across
    37 cultures. He found that women universally placed greater importance than
    men on good financial prospects as well as related factors such as status
    and ambition. More recent studies show that these factors weigh much less
    heavily with women in highly paid, high-status jobs, suggesting that the
    importance women place on wealth is linked to their own socioeconomic
    status.
    To see just how powerful an influence wealth could have on Chris's
    attractiveness, Cunningham and Dugatkin did another experiment in which they
    added a description of Chris as a humanities major with the potential to
    earn only about $20,000 a year. For half of the subjects, they added that
    Chris's parents had won $10 million in a sweepstake and set up a trust fund
    for Chris that would pay him $500,000 a year.
    Personal wealth
    When all other variables were the same, wealthy Chris sparked slightly more
    interest among both females and males than poor academic Chris. But the
    impact was much smaller than Dugatkin had expected, possibly because the
    money said nothing about Chris's abilities. "One reason people would care
    about wealth is as an indicator of ambitiousness and personality overall,"
    says Dugatkin.
    In some sense, then, being a rich person might be like being an orange
    guppy. Peer attention overrides orange colour in guppies, unless, Dugatkin
    has found, the guppy is very orange indeed. Then peer attention no longer
    gets the female to switch. In humans, what counts may be the ability to
    generate money rather than simply having lots of it. So the question is, if
    Chris had an earning potential of $500,000 a year, would that override the
    peer attention effect? It's certainly possible, Dugatkin says, but the
    experiment has still to be done.
    What does any of this have to do with everyday life? "The phenomenon of
    groupies is relevant," says Buss. "You get fairly geeky-looking guys
    generating a sort of mass hysteria which might be a mate copying
    phenomenon." Chances are that few teenage girls swooned over John Lennon
    before the Beatles were famous.
    That sort of celebrity then leads directly to another kind of imitation. By
    the mid-1960s most young men were trying to look like the Beatles, then
    later Led Zeppelin and Depeche Mode. Today it's Eminem or David Beckham.
    "Mate copying does help us explain why there is a great deal of variation
    across societies and across time in what we find attractive about the
    opposite sex," says Dugatkin. Trends in clothing, hairstyle, even body
    piercing, are so volatile because of peer attention's snowball effect.
    As for the wedding ring effect, the hunt goes on. A few years ago,
    Cunningham and his colleagues tried an experiment in which women sat alone
    at a bar with a wedding ring clearly visible. But the results were
    inconclusive. "Choosing females may have been a tactical error," Cunningham
    says. "If she is an attractive enough female, whether she has a wedding ring
    or not, there is a high base rate of being approached."
    He has not yet tried the reverse experiment, with men waiting at the bar, in
    part because the base rate of women approaching men is quite low. Many more
    hours of observation would be required to detect an effect--as I can
    personally attest. "The way the ballet usually works is that the female
    makes eye contact and smiles," says Cunningham. "But it's still the guy who
    has to get up off his stool and move."
    So I'm getting off the stool and heading home. I am, after all, happily
    married.
    The Imitation Factor by Lee Alan Dugatkin is published in January 2001 by
    The Free Press

    Dr Paul Marsden
    tel: +44 (0) 777 95 77 248
    email: paul@viralculture.com

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 17:37:54 GMT