Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature - Psychology Today

[applegrove]

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

By:Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D.
Psychology Today

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

.....SNIP"

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

[applegrove]

1. Don't know that I agree with all they say. But fun for a Sunday afternoon

[MrScorpio]

2. That "blondes are more attractive" thingy doesn't apply to me

I have other preferences... And blondes aren't even in the top three

[applegrove]

3. Me neither. Though in my youth I liked blond men. But not anymore.

[MrScorpio]

4. It also went on to say that men like big tits as well

I'm quite satisfied with a nice handful of B-C cups.

More than isn't a prerequisite

[xmas74]

41. You used to love 'em red.

I'm still red but age is starting to darken it to more of an auburn.

[MrScorpio]

43. I still love 'em red

And auburn is right up there

[xmas74]

49. The very light auburn comes with now

being a thirtysomething (a couple of years into it now-it's just not the strawberry it used to be.)

Oh, and the eyes still are not up to the blue-eyed mania mentioned in the article. Turns out mine are the rarest color-grey.

(And no Anne of Green Gables jokes here. I've heard more than my fair share growing up.)

[flying rabbit]

5. Interesting...

:popcorn:

[jmm]

6. Some consider "intelligent design" to be supported by

scientific evidence. That doesn't make it true.

[Der Blaue Engel]

61. Heh

:thumbsup:

[applegrove]

7. Here are the ten:

1) Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)

2) Humans are naturally polygamous

3) Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

4) Most suicide bombers are Muslim

5) Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce

6) Beautiful people have more daughters

7) What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals

8) The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of

9) It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)

10) Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Politically incorrect - and also wrong in some places

I don't know whether the authors realize they are conflating suicide bombing and general terrorist bombing, but it seems to me like they are. And we have enough blown-up abortion clinics and other general bombing in this country to rule out the "they're all Muslims" line they advance.

Also, I'd love to know whether the 72 virgins in paradise bit has any fact to it, because it sure sounds like anti-Muslim propaganda to me.

[applegrove]

10. I think those stats were for the whole world..not just the USA. And I don't

recall any suicide clinic bombings in the USA. Yes they mean suicide bombings.
And yes the thing about 72 virgins is true. It came out after 9/11. How else are you going to convince sexually inactive twentisomething devout muslims to blow themselves up. If fact there was some discussion at the time. Very devout very right wing muslim men are not allowed any contact with women till they marry. And they cannot marry till they have some money. So that was part of the discussion and the why young radical muslim men were so vulnerable to becoming suicide bombers.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. IMO they conflate bombings with suicide bombings

And if the 72 virgins line is in the Qu'ran, show me the passage. There's all sorts of 'facts' that came out after 9/11 about Islam, and a great deal of them were racist propaganda designed to heat up Americans for the upcoming war. I have yet to see one single discussion that makes any reference to an actual passage - every single one of them states that it is a tenet of Islam, without offering any proof. The argument that it is used to convert young men into suicide bombers doesn't prove that the passage actually exists.

[applegrove]

15. I don't know that the 72 Virgins were actually in the Koran itself. I'm a little

vague on where it came from. But it was part of the discussion after 9/11. It was specific to the 9/11 bombers I think.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. Right - that's the thing that I have always wondered about

I've never really gotten a straight answer from anyone either, so apparently there's some disagreement. But I do have to wonder, because right after 9/11 there was everyone talking about how evil Muslims were because they believed they would get 72 virgins in heaven if they killed themselves trying to kill other people, and it was suddenly EVERYWHERE. Everyone all at once knew that fact. And media outlets like Fox Snooze were beating the drums with that line incessantly. With that, and the fact that no one has ever pointed to the passage to my knowledge, I think it's war propaganda to get us to hate Muslims. It wouldn't at all be above the same administration that gave us "They hate us for our freedoms" to make up a fact and slip it into the public consciousness for their benefit.

[supernova]

21. I've actually heard a different version

that "72 virgins" thing may be a mistranslation of the Koran. It may mean 72 raisins, then a rare commodity, and speaking to an abundance of food in heaven.

Is there anybody that can verify this?

[applegrove]

23. I vaguely rememember something like that. It was years ago.

[EstimatedProphet]

26. That's an interesting take

[Kutjara]

44. I believe it wasn't raisins, but white grapes.

They were a scarce food considered a luxury suitable only for royalty in 7th Century Arabia. Indeed, they were apparently valued as highly as jewels and pearls. If so, the reference was indeed to richly abundant food.

The apparant confusion arises over the word "hur," which in Arabic means "virgin," but in 7th Century Aramaic (which there is evidence some parts of the original versions of the Qu'ran were written in) "hur" means "white" and is typically taken to mean "white grapes."

This debate has raged for several years now, and nobody agrees which version of "hur" was meant, although there is strong evidence in the "hadith" (the body of Islamic practice used by Imams in deciding Qu'ranic interpretation) that "virgins" is what was actually meant.

[supernova]

56. Thank you, Kutjara

very informative post. :thumbsup:

I was trying to remember where I had heard that story. I think I remember it from a kind of world religions workshop my former church gave one summer when we did focus on the origins of Islam.

[krispos42]

48. I tried reading it on Wikipedia, but there wasn't a summarized version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins

One person says it may in fact be a mis-translation and actually mean 72 white raisins, and somebody else says that Muslims believe in the 72 virgins like Christians believe in wings, harps, and sitting on the clouds.

Interpretations
Margaret Nydell states that mainstream Muslims regard this belief about 72 virgins in the same way that mainstream Christians regard the belief that after death they will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds.<49>

One radical new interpretation of the relevant passages of the Qur'an, widely rejected as revisionist scholarship by Muslim scholars, is The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an written by Christoph Luxenberg. In respect of this particular point, Luxenberg argues that the relevant passage actually translates to a portrayal of paradise as a lush garden with pooling water and trees with rare fruit, including white raisins (considered to be delicacies at the time that the Qur'an was written), not virgin maidens.

Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf has said: “The narration, which claims that everyone would have seventy-two wives has a weak chain of narrators”.

[The Straight Story]

40. About the 72 virgins things - the answer may well not matter (but here it is)

http://ko.offroadpakistan.com/religion/2004_08/quran_may_promise_grapes_not_virgins.html

Now - why does it not really matter?

Luxenberg’s analysis, which has drawn raves from many scholars, also transforms the meaning of the verse that is sometimes cited to require women to wear veils. Instead of instructing pious women ”to draw their veils over their bosoms,” he says, it advises them to ”buckle their belts around their hips.” (from the article)

So while we may translate it one way, those who follow a sect of the faith may choose not to (as with the veils thing).

[LostinVA]

67. Also, dark-haired women were prized for many, many years -- not blondes

Specifically in Western European countries. The "blonde bombshell" thing is quite new.

[last_texas_dem]

9. Isn't "attractive" a subjective judgment

A number of the points made by the article, I can see. If it's something stated as a fact, backed up by factual information, even if it's something controversial to point out, that's one thing. However, I don't understand the whole "blondes are more attractive" thing. Yes, I'm sure there are statistics that prove that more men say they are more attracted to blondes, and thus you could say blondes are more "desired" by men or something along those lines. But how does that make them more "attractive" when attractive is a judgment in the eye of the beholder. From a young age, I've found that I tend to be more attracted to dark-eyed brunettes; is what I consider to be my "natural" preference somehow going against "human nature"?! haha

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Me too

I love black hair. Always have.

This article really strikes me as written by a propeller-head. The authors are trying to come up with reasons for why what they believe to be true is true, without stopping to determine whether they are actually true.

[applegrove]

16. I would call most of these a thesis of sorts. I think most topics are

a little more complicated than any of us have the time to go into here.

[EstimatedProphet]

25. I'm no evolutionary psychologist

I'm a biologist. Maybe the field functions more on theory than what I am used to. However, from my perspective, I would like to see more documentation that the observations they write about are actually going on, and not just presuppositions. As several people have noted here, what some people consider "pretty" is very different from other people.

Of course, this is an abbreviated article, and not a scientific publication. Hopefully the book would go into more depth than is possible in a popular journal article.

[applegrove]

28. I was on Arts & Letters Daily and this article just popped out at me.

I knew it would make for interesting discussion. But yes..article dosn't go deep enough at all.

[Susang]

11. There are no truths in evolutionary psychology

Only theories. And a whole helluva lot of them. Here's a good overview to show how contentious this field actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

[last_texas_dem]

24. Thanks for the link

I used to argue about evolutionary psychology quite a bit with my ex-girlfriend, who was a psychology major in college. I had doubts about a number of the things she would bring up that they had been discussing in her classes because of the way that it seemed to me that things that were theories were presented as indisputably factual. However, not having much of a background in psychology myself, I've worried that my own personal bias, having much to with my political beliefs, was causing me to be too close-minded. However, I'm glad to see that others share my skepticism.

This argument (from the "controversies" section on Wikipedia) was probably the one I made most often:

>>Is" and "Ought"

Criticism
Evolutionary Psychology is not promoted as a theory of ethics, merely stating what is, not what ought to be, but many critics have alleged that evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are nothing more than political justifications for the "status quo." Evolutionary psychologists have long been accused of conflating "is" and "ought", and evolutionary psychology has been used to argue against social change (because the way things are now has been evolved and adapted), and to argue against social justice (e.g. the claim that the rich are only rich because they've inherited greater abilities, so programs to raise the standards of the poor are doomed to fail).>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy

[Susang]

30. My issue with the field is

The practitioners of Evolutionary Psychology tend to demonstrate a significantly higher knowledge of psychology than genetics. Sometimes it gets downright embarrassing, calling a gene "selfish" and assigning human motivations to them is one example. Pretty discounting much of cultural evolution is another.

[realisticphish]

32. the worst part is

that a real psychologist NEVER assumes. We cannot do research on non-living people, so it will always remain only a vague theory in the eyes of serious psychology. Unfortunately, these idiots have a pretty big audience

[NuttyFluffers]

65. also, studying humanities, several of their cultural assessments were very off

their brush is quite broad and has a very telling bias towards status quo cultures and expectations. outside of true matriarchies, of which we haven't real solid evidence of, there's quite a large spectrum of real cultural variety. but most of these theories get distilled into citing certain well known patriarchies, ignoring counter-evidence. but then, they play well into the market they are trying to convince, don't they?

[Jade Fox]

55. Thank you.

[supernova]

12. The blonde haired blue-eyed one speaks

This is one of those articles where I have to wonder about the preferences of the people who wrote it.

According to them, I blond-haired, blue-eyed supernova, am among the most desirable females on the planet. Yet, I'm home alone more often than not. (My choice, mostly, I know)

I just wonder if the wrote this as away to justify their own biases? Or does the evidence really support that? Kinda like that Baby Boomer duo several years ago who wrote a book about Baby Boomer achievement as compared to other age groups and coming out on top, saying "Gee, we really are all that!"

I wonder if this article is like that.

[mainegreen]

71. There are much better explanations for the blonde/blue eyed thing

than sexual attractiveness. This article consisted of a great deal of incoherent logical rambling with valid scientific data and theories sprinkled on top to give it an aura of authenticity.

[baldguy]

17. Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Because of educational, socio-economic & political pressures they've been forced into.

[applegrove]

18. Absolutely. With a mass of poor youth who are not alloud near women

if they are radical, you make a stew of emotions waiting to be told what to do.

[supernova]

19. Yes, and the authors' reasoning

is that is true because young adult, lower status muslim men realize that they won't be able to compete for females with the genuinely wealthy men who can afford more than one wife. IOW, fewer men of higher status are sucking up most of the available females. And that there are evolutionary "reasons" why women are better off in such an arrangement.

If you can't get a wife, you can make yourself useful, make your life have meaning by being a suicide bomber, IOW.

I'm sure a lack of economic and political opportunity plays a part, but I'm not prepared to say it's a sole reason.

[applegrove]

22. I think lack of economic opportunity sends the poor muslim kids to

radical imans who feed them. And then they start on the road to becoming bombs. I think Saudi Arabia is guilty of funding such "schools" to keep the youth of the Middle East "in line" and not becoming democracy nuts.

How is that going by the way?

[supernova]

27. There was an article in England recently

being critical of the fact that Britian doesn't have enough Imams, so they import them, usually from Pakistan. The article went on to bemoan the idea that these imams, first time out of their cultures, may not be prepared to help their young charges deal with being muslim and reconciling that to living in the open, democratic west. It was basically an appeal to have more home grown British imams.

[applegrove]

29. That sounds like a good idea.

[supernova]

35. Top 5 articles in this BBC search

are what I'm talking about. I guess I must have synthesized a bunch of different articles.

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=British+imams&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go

[applegrove]

36. The poor Brits are still traumatized. Good that they are having a discussion

on what to do. Maybe some day the USA will do the same. Ask why is this happening rather than Let's go get em. Cause em are all over the Middle East and with the USA in Iraq,,they have less resources to "get em" other places. Notably Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[idgiehkt]

31. these all sound like a big bag of b.s. to me

"From the evolutionary psychological perspective..."

um, what?

In other words it looks like they had preconcieved notions and tailored the results to meet their expectations. I don't have time to take them all apart but it could be very easily done.

[realisticphish]

33. indeed

It's just nonesense, frankly. Evolutionary psychology is a weak science in any situation, and when applied over-zealously, it become nothing more than ideology

[idgiehkt]

37. I can see how it could be used to support this or that ideology

There really isn't much sicker or sadder than co-opting the past to try to support what is f*cked up about the way things are in the present.

[applegrove]

38. I think it is just evolutionary psychologists being eps. I doubt there is

an agenda.

[idgiehkt]

50. not consciously maybe

but agendas rarely are.

For instance talking about how polygamy benefits women from an economic standpoint without factoring the psychological strain and the sexual abuse and it's consequences (that would outweigh any financial benefit) that seems to be rampant in religious polygamist communities...it's just irresponsible. Alot of those theories on that list seem to come from someone's utopian ideal...a few seemed rather adolescent. Mostly they seemed devoid of any cultural or chronological perspective...for instance saying men prefer blondes genetically is kind of racist and rather ridiculous from an *evolutionary* standpoint since the human race originated in Africa over 100k years ago, and there probably weren't many blondes to be had that weren't the result of a genetic defect. I think we may be genetically hardwired to be attracted to difference or uncommon traits; albinism could have been one of those back in the day and since true blondes and large breasts are statistically rare it is probably the rarity that attracts rather than the attributes themselves because of some innate genetic drive *to* evolve, which would have species being attracted to the new mutations rather than the mundane same old same old. I've seen studies of this with other species for instance where scientists attached a light colored feather to one male bird in a study and all the females flocked to that bird because he had, they thought, a new and different trait. Maybe genetically we are always shopping for new mutations that might give our offspring a better chance at survival. In laymans terms though we just know it as "lust". Rarity may be *the* drive that propels species along an evolutionary path...to the extent that the feature is not harmful or doesn't weaken the bearer of that gene to where survival of the fittest weeds them out. Blah, blah, blah...I have to go to work, that's why I didn't want to get started talking about this, lol. :hi:

[applegrove]

53. Not to mention that some other study says Blonds are going to go extinct in

about 200 years. Because it isn't a dominant gene.

[realisticphish]

58. however

I've heard that THAT study is flawed as well, because (supposedly) it ignores the carrier genes, that is, heterozygous carriers. That could carry such a gene on indefinately.

But I have no link to back me up, so take that with a grain of salt :shrug:

[mitchum]

47. Yes, it's such a soft science that a bunny rabbit seems armor-plated in comparison (n/t)

[Deja Q]

46. Seconded.

Some make sense, but others seem very much contrived.

[Orsino]

34. "Truths"? No. Theories.

Not too unreasonable, though. An interesting article hiding behind a hyperbolic headline.

[MilesColtrane]

39. From the article...

"In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man."

Ah, another reason for the BushCo™ drive to concentrate weath and increase the inequality between rich and poor. They envy the Saudis.

[applegrove]

42. I don't happen to agree with that one. I don't hear women rushing

to promote polygamy anywhere. Doubt this psychology today article has any political intentions.

[Deja Q]

45. Hmmm.

#1 - the blue makes sense, but I'm partial to brunettes. So, all you ladies out there go get a bleach job if you think I'm creepy! :P

#2 - George Bernard Shaw is a twit.

#3 - Well, plenty of men exist and some 'cultures' seem to treat badly despite having large populations. No doubt some men wouldn't mind impregnating a small harem either. That's their problem.

#4 - Uh-oh.

#5 - I'll take your word for it.

#6 - Hmmm, if it's 105 wieners to 100 clams, just who is doing the counting, why are they counting, and just how is this imbalance being maintained? Waving magic wands and chanting incantations?

#7 - If that doesn't re-define mysogany, what will? Besides, if the author read up the history of Microsoft he'd realize he's more wrong than right re: Gates. But whatever. Business is still business. And that's power, and in that respect the article (and Microsoft's history) is correct. Still, I had no idea Bill wanted to fuck. I thought it was about power, dominance, and control over people. Maybe he likes to screw everyone over.

#8 - Bull shit. Plenty of single men out there have midlife crises. Where's the woman to be the excuse? What sort of dilettante scribbled out this list, anyway?

#9 - Awww, can't they put in an "honorable mention" for Newt Gingrich? More amusingly, how come the intelligent are left single whereas the conniving and stupid get it regularly? Does Darwin have a thing against intelligence being a good trait?!

#10 - Most men. Some don't mind trying to build relationships.

Just how many stereotypes can be counted in that article?

[SarahB]

51. What if you're a blonde with a bunch of boys?

I'm so confused now. :cry:

[xchrom]

52. remember the article isn't talking about each of us individually -- but as a huge group.

and the suicide bomber thingy wasn't about religion at all -- but about getting laid.

people are less likely to be -- violent in that way -- if there is more availability of sex.
that's all -- it sn't pretty -- but i can imagine there is some truth there.

i have never imagined that our nature is politically correct -- hence education, sophistication, and civilization.
those are the things that improve us over time -- and even allow us to look at an article like this and maybe go wow.

one thing i take away from this is -- more sex is probably a good thing for everyone.

[applegrove]

54. Sex seems to be the basis of it all doesn't it? Why it is evolutionary psychology I guess.

I'm a very lightly informed anthropology fan. So I love this stuff. Even though I cannot cage the veracity..I love new little facts.

[xchrom]

57. yeah -- i love this stuff too.

and sex really does seem to the ''center of the universe''.

kinda funny, isn't it?

[ZombieNixon]

59. Much of it seems sketchy, but I can agree that sex is the driving force behind much of society.

:P

[NorthernSpy]

60. evolutionary psychology is the new Freud...

Just another glib and tendentious narrative of gee-whiz "explanations" built around a handful of carefully selected data points. Heavy on ideology; light on science.

[Fleshdancer]

62. The "sexual harassment isn't sexist" part is ridiculous

From the article:

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.

Soooo...when was the last time O'Reilly left a message on his male employee's answering machine detailing what he wanted to do to his body in the shower? :eyes:


This crap is insulting to both genders - to the women who have experienced sexual harassment and know first hand it has everything to do with sexism and to the majority of men who don't utilize abusive, intimidating and degrading tactics in the workplace. Such strange assumptions in this article.

[ThomCat]

72. Agreed.

I worked in an office with a bunch of guys. I've never heard them sexually harass each other or other guys. I've heard them have many conversations about bending women over desks and taking them with bags over their faces. I've heard all kinds of obnoxious, sexist, demeaning shit. But always from guys and always targetting women.

The whole article seems like unfounded B.S. It's one person's personal theories.

[applegrove]

73. That was the worst thesis for sure. I guess they are comparing harrassment

in the west with harrassment in the middle east or something. And women cannot even work in many of those places and they get stoned to death or murdered for stepping out of line. I'd love to read more on that one thesis but I was harrassed so it makes me sick to think about it.

[Fleshdancer]

63. dupe

[piesRsquare]

64. What an oversimplified load of horseshit!

:puke:

[supernova]

66. These things might be true, IF..

If we lived by our instincts alone, just as other animals do, not having the overarching critical thinking that mitigates these problems.

But we do not. We are more than capable of examing our own behaviors and seeing whether or not, in the drive to replicate our genes, these behaviors cause harm to others.

For example, it might very well be that men have always harassed each other in the workplace, and women, only having been a part of the workplace for the last 100 years or so, are just now noticing it (in evolutionary terms). But that doesn't make that behavior right. We are certainly capable and should call attention to it when it happens. And both sexes would be better off down the line.

[distantearlywarning]

68. Vastly oversimplified.

And not "truths", just theory. Evolutionary Psychology is a relatively new discipline, and as such doesn't have a ton of research yet to back up its claims. Although some of these seem plausible, they really need more research before they can be presented as absolute truth.

Also, I think the author is still applying some cultural bias - not the same thing as a universal truth. Take the "big boobs, small waist" thing, for instance. All this says is that men like curvy girls (and research indicates that they do). Men want to mate with women with about a .7 hip-to-waist ratio, and that's been demonstrated world-wide in many different cultures. But contrary to what the author implies, that doesn't necessarily mean SKINNY. I am a big girl myself (need to lose at least 30 lbs), and yet I nevertheless have about a .8 hip-to-waist ratio. If I worked out a little more and lost a little excess belly fat, my hip-to-waist ratio would be .7 long before I ever reached what my current culture thinks is an ideal weight. I know this because it's been true for me in the past. At 20 lbs overweight, I am still curvy in the right way. I was curvy in the right way at 110 lbs in high school too, it's just that everything was on a smaller scale then. In a culture where fat isn't stigmatized, I'd undoubtably still be an attractive mate, and well, my husband thinks I'm still one now. I bet I'm not the only woman out there like that. Some anthropologist should make a hip-to-waist ratio study of old paintings and art where the ideal women are a big larger to see if the .7 holds true there too.

[SmokingJacket]

69. A generalization isn't a "truth." nt

[fasttense]

70. I read the first so-called truth and knew it was a bunch of sh*t.

My personal pet peeve are people who assume beauty is what they see on television and in magazines today. Miller does the same with his attempt to rationalize why men like blond bombshells.

A quick look at past beauties clearly indicates that what we think of as blond bombshells have not always been considered beautiful throughout history. A late night Learning Channel show on oddities described a Victorian-day beauty who had passed away at the early age of 15. She was so beloved and beautiful (The entire town praised her beauty as indicated from letters written by the pastor, mayor and a blacksmith) that the grieving family actually had her stuffed and displayed in the home. The woman was passed down from generation to generation and could be seen in a British museum. When they finally showed the stunning beauty, she looked like a slightly overweight middle aged woman of today.

Miller fails to explain why some South American men prefer very hairy women, why many primitive black societies found blond hair repulsive, and why fat women were considered more beautiful than thin women in the middle ages. There is no beauty standard that can span the ages and all societies. The standard is what the times and society says it is. I've heard many a beauty expert say that Marlyn Monroe was too fat and would never be considered beautiful by today's standards.

Remember the Roman sculptors who went back to adding in imperfections because the flaws added to the beauty? This article comes across more like a puff piece that belongs in a fashion magazine and not in Psychology Today.

[Aristus]

74. If most suicide bombers are Muslim, it's because terrorists like

Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph and Ted Kaczinski didn't have the stones to stay with their bombs until boom-time.

Let's just say their level of commitment wasn't as high...