Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Anti-Panglossianism: Why Hot People Exist

Dude gets all the britches.
I'm sorry for the delay. Once again I have far too much to do, but unless I write about something other than for work or school I'll go crazy. So. Let's get into why people are hot!

One of my favorite characters is Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide. The good doctor explains to the naive Candide that the reason we have two legs is to fit into pants and that our noses were created specifically by God to fit glasses. This happy design demonstrates that everything cannot be other than it is because everything serves an end. Necessarily therefore, everything  serves the best possible end.

What I love about this is that it demonstrates how absurd that logic is. Of course noses weren't designed for glasses but rather  glasses were designed to fit noses. We don't have two legs to fit into pants, but pants designed to cover our legs. While this is amusing in and of itself, this blog has become about what ideas are interesting and useful to bring in to your everyday thinking. I want to focus therefore on  understanding that why that is illogical is that applies to many other areas of life.

That brings me to dem hotties. Certain physical features are generally considered hot: symmetrical faces, nice skin, big breasts. But these things aren't sexy because they're beautiful, rather they are beautiful because they're indicators that they'd be good for sex. Symmetrical facial features are a excellent indicator of genetic health. It is a real challenge for genes to coordinate production of cells so that two sides mirror each other. Nice skin indicates a lack of toxin buildup and good hydration. Bigger breasts indicates better ability to nourish babies. Same for girls with hour-glass figures: flared hips indicates the ability for easier births while a fit upper body indicates strong muscle growth abilities. We don't just find these things attractive; we find them attractive because our brain has been hardwired to pick up on what these things indicate.

But this applies to many other things as well, and goes deeper than most people commonly understand. Most people know that we like sugar because sugar provides a quick boost of energy that was unavailable to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. But that only goes half way- the very reason things taste sweet is because of the chemical composition of the energy producing sugars. Those chemicals have no inherent taste; nothing about the particular structure necessitates any inherent "sweetness." Rather our brains recognize the chemical composition of sugar and, because of its energy qualities and the beneficial properties for those in our evolutionary heritage, it interprets that flavor as sweet and desirable. We don't get energy because it's sweet, it's sweet because we get energy. It's the same reason why rotten meat tastes and smells awful. Those bad sensations are a result of our brain interpreting chemical signals which indicate the presence of dangerous, disease-inducing bacteria. Since those are bad for us, our brains create the unpleasant sensation that warns us away from that.

Understanding this reverse Pangloss explanation for why things strike us in certain ways allows us to better understand ourselves and our preferences. Most importantly it allows us to be aware when those preferences are trying to be taken advantage of. Fast food is loaded with fat and sugar to take advantage of those natural instincts. Commercials have attractive models display their goods in the hopes that we associate their product with those people we find so appealing. When we recognize the real reason we are drawn to these commercials, we can consciously chose to not fall prey to the Pangloss ploys being used.

1 comment:

  1. So, in conclusion, pay attention to biological motivations or you will buy things you don't really need?

    I think ev-psych explanations for human behavior are equally Panglossian. Your account of attractiveness is ahistorical, even though it's common knowledge that standards of beauty have changed drastically even in the last few hundred years. If humans are basically "hardwired" to always want the same things, then the tastes we have and the society that those tastes imply are basically good. If, on the other hand, our tastes are determined by historical accident, the world around us appears monstrous and grotesque. Attractiveness DOES have something to do with biology, but it just as indisputably DOES have something to do with our social context. To put aside the task of criticizing what is wrong with our social context with the excuse that our tastes (and by extension, world) are natural and just is the very definition of Panglossianism.

    ReplyDelete