|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jul 30, 2005 9:17:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 1, 2005 14:56:20 GMT -5
very interesting study, but I wonder...
I've heard that ppl would generally seek genes that are similar to themselves, but I've also heard of studies indicating that ppl like to select mates with genes different than theirs so their offspring get the best of both worlds??
I've also heard, that when ppl are exogamus and gain gentic variety they are more healthy and smart (case in point, inbreededness is linked to higher rates of genetic disease and such).
Yet I live here in the USA where people's ethnic and genetic backgrounds are all mixed and extremely diverse, yet they are dumber than their European and Asian counterparts (No offense, I mean in terms of test score, over all, there are many smart Americans)
Also I do notice how a lot of people choose mates who are similar, but what about those who choose mates from totally different races ??
I think we need to do more studying on this fascinating subject.
|
|
Oldbrit
Junior Member
Infidel
Posts: 67
|
Post by Oldbrit on Dec 2, 2005 8:55:08 GMT -5
There's a study on complimentary MHC genes (immunity conferring) and sexual attraction. Google this "MHC genes sexual attraction" examples:-http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Smell/attraction.html www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-1174.htmland many more. Of course, this effect is only noticeable in societies where women are free to sniff out a suitable sire for their offspring. (my wife of 32years still tells me I smell right and our children are all quite robust and better looking than both of us), but those places where women are married off by their male relatives tend to lack prosperity and are rife with genetic ailments. Check the imbalances in the M/F ratios of the Gulf states. |
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 2, 2005 17:23:15 GMT -5
Interesting article, I have alwayz known about the MHC, but I do not see how it works with Rushton's theory. I mean one says that we look for similar genes, one says we look for dissimilar genes. Perhaps we look for similar genes overall, but dissimilar genes for immunity so our kids can have a larger range of protection.  Your thoughts? |
|
Oldbrit
Junior Member
Infidel
Posts: 67
|
Post by Oldbrit on Dec 5, 2005 7:38:26 GMT -5
Interesting article, I have alwayz known about the MHC, but I do not see how it works with Rushton's theory. I mean one says that we look for similar genes, one says we look for dissimilar genes. Perhaps we look for similar genes overall, but dissimilar genes for immunity so our kids can have a larger range of protection. Your thoughts? I think a mixture of similarities & complimentarities are necessary. A couple need to share quite a lot of things in order to find any value in each others company, but they might arrive at the same place from different directions and thus widen each other's understanding. The relationship between brother & sister might be like that but they won't have complimentary MHC genes and sustained mutual sexual interest (which helps a couple stay together longer hence benefitting their offspring) results from there always being something new about the beloved to discover. |
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 5, 2005 14:11:30 GMT -5
yeah I guess it is a complex evolutionary process.
Has anyone here just found certain ppl very attractive, maybe they're not considered extremely good-looking by others, just ok, but you in particular like them. Dunno, but I think that may be something evolutionary or genetical.
|
|
|
|
Post by korenghen on Dec 5, 2005 21:33:38 GMT -5
yeah I guess it is a complex evolutionary process. Has anyone here just found certain ppl very attractive, maybe they're not considered extremely good-looking by others, just ok, but you in particular like them. Dunno, but I think that may be something evolutionary or genetical I agree with this because i being of indian decent find dark skinnd people very attractive esp black females  n this is a big no-no in indian culture |
|
|
|
Post by ivyleak on Dec 11, 2005 10:48:05 GMT -5
yeah I guess it is a complex evolutionary process. Has anyone here just found certain ppl very attractive, maybe they're not considered extremely good-looking by others, just ok, but you in particular like them. Dunno, but I think that may be something evolutionary or genetical. This is true for me also. I always like convex noses and think they look regal. Conversely, my nose is concave, as are all my family members. It seems that most of the population agrees that the convex nose is ugly, so why do I find it so beautiful? They just look so noble, like French paintings. |
|
|
|
Post by dorlandt on Dec 12, 2005 2:17:25 GMT -5
mmmmmm... i like me some convex nose. i find very thin hooked nose, usually when accompioned with 'lighter' colouring (i think noric) to be very attractive - 'famous' examples: adrian brody, evengy plushenko... mmm i do not like concave noses - on women they can be cute, but they are too 'piggy' looking on men for me to find them superficially attractive. of course add the *right* personality and anyone can be beautiful  |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 12, 2005 2:49:38 GMT -5
Convex noses arent ugly as whole,not at all. At one point the "Roman Nose" was the most prized among much of Western Europe throughout the centuries. Certain armenoid type ones are though. I'am glad my nose is Roman.  |
|
n this is a big no-no in indian culture
