Lemur
01-31-2008, 20:35
This is a spin-off from the Black Guys in Movies (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97929) thread, where we had begun to discuss the implications of smell (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1818503&postcount=70).
Vladimir mentioned that some dogs get weird around certain ethnic groups; I supplied a real-life story about a Rottweiler I owned who freaked out around Italian-American men and nobody else; Louis brought up humans and their documented reactions to smells.
To continue, I've read plenty of stuff about how humans react to each others' smell, all of it subconsciously, if you believe the reports. There's a study that says it's all about immune systems (http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22081/42913). But my favorite has to be the study conducted concerning lap dancers and tips (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9942043&fsrc=RSS) ...
Hidden charms
Oct 11th 2007
Lap dancers earn more when they are most fertile
“BECAUSE academics may be unfamiliar with the gentlemen's club sub-culture, some background may be helpful to understand why this is an ideal setting for understanding real-world attractiveness effects of human female oestrus.”
No doubt readers of The Economist are equally unfamiliar with this sub-culture, but for Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico, who penned the words above in a paper just published in Evolution and Human Behaviour, such clubs are a field site as revealing of human biology as the Serengeti is of the biology of lions and antelopes. Dr Miller is an evolutionary psychologist—and the author of the theory that the large brains of humans evolved to attract the opposite sex in much the same way that a peacock's tail does. His latest foray, into the flesh-pots of Albuquerque, is intended to investigate an orthodoxy of human mating theory. This is that in people, oestrus—the outward signs of ovulation—has been lost, so that men cannot tell when women are fertile.
This theory is based on the idea that in evolutionary terms it benefits women to disguise when they are fertile so that their menfolk will stick around all the time. Otherwise, the theory goes, a man might go hunting for alternative mating opportunities at moments when he knew that his partner was infertile and thus that her infidelity could not result in children.
However, this should result in an evolutionary arms race between the sexes, as men evolve ever-heightened sensitivity to signs of female fertility. Dr Miller thought lap-dancing clubs a good place to study this arms race, because male detection of female fertility cues would probably translate into an easily quantifiable signal, namely dollars earned. He therefore recruited some of the girls into his experiment, with a view to comparing the earnings of those on the Pill (whose fertility was thus suppressed) with those not on the Pill.
The results support the idea that if evolution has favoured concealed ovulation in women, it has also favoured ovulation-detection in men. The average earnings per shift of women who were ovulating was $335. During menstruation (when they were infertile) that dropped to $185—about what women on the Pill made throughout the month. The lessons are clear. A woman is sexier when she is most fertile. And if she wishes to earn a good living as a dancer, she should stay off the Pill.
I still maintain that not having a dog's level of smell sensitivity is a good thing. I don't know how subways or crowded elevators would be bearable if you could parse who ate what for lunch and which females are in what part of their cycle. Too much information!
What do the Orgahs think? Are we swimming in a sea of unseen pheromones, reacting to chemical clues that our higher monkeybrains cannot understand?
Vladimir mentioned that some dogs get weird around certain ethnic groups; I supplied a real-life story about a Rottweiler I owned who freaked out around Italian-American men and nobody else; Louis brought up humans and their documented reactions to smells.
To continue, I've read plenty of stuff about how humans react to each others' smell, all of it subconsciously, if you believe the reports. There's a study that says it's all about immune systems (http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22081/42913). But my favorite has to be the study conducted concerning lap dancers and tips (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9942043&fsrc=RSS) ...
Hidden charms
Oct 11th 2007
Lap dancers earn more when they are most fertile
“BECAUSE academics may be unfamiliar with the gentlemen's club sub-culture, some background may be helpful to understand why this is an ideal setting for understanding real-world attractiveness effects of human female oestrus.”
No doubt readers of The Economist are equally unfamiliar with this sub-culture, but for Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico, who penned the words above in a paper just published in Evolution and Human Behaviour, such clubs are a field site as revealing of human biology as the Serengeti is of the biology of lions and antelopes. Dr Miller is an evolutionary psychologist—and the author of the theory that the large brains of humans evolved to attract the opposite sex in much the same way that a peacock's tail does. His latest foray, into the flesh-pots of Albuquerque, is intended to investigate an orthodoxy of human mating theory. This is that in people, oestrus—the outward signs of ovulation—has been lost, so that men cannot tell when women are fertile.
This theory is based on the idea that in evolutionary terms it benefits women to disguise when they are fertile so that their menfolk will stick around all the time. Otherwise, the theory goes, a man might go hunting for alternative mating opportunities at moments when he knew that his partner was infertile and thus that her infidelity could not result in children.
However, this should result in an evolutionary arms race between the sexes, as men evolve ever-heightened sensitivity to signs of female fertility. Dr Miller thought lap-dancing clubs a good place to study this arms race, because male detection of female fertility cues would probably translate into an easily quantifiable signal, namely dollars earned. He therefore recruited some of the girls into his experiment, with a view to comparing the earnings of those on the Pill (whose fertility was thus suppressed) with those not on the Pill.
The results support the idea that if evolution has favoured concealed ovulation in women, it has also favoured ovulation-detection in men. The average earnings per shift of women who were ovulating was $335. During menstruation (when they were infertile) that dropped to $185—about what women on the Pill made throughout the month. The lessons are clear. A woman is sexier when she is most fertile. And if she wishes to earn a good living as a dancer, she should stay off the Pill.
I still maintain that not having a dog's level of smell sensitivity is a good thing. I don't know how subways or crowded elevators would be bearable if you could parse who ate what for lunch and which females are in what part of their cycle. Too much information!
What do the Orgahs think? Are we swimming in a sea of unseen pheromones, reacting to chemical clues that our higher monkeybrains cannot understand?