Nick_Tarleton comments on Open Thread: August 2009 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: taw 01 August 2009 03:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (188)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 01 August 2009 10:51:53PM *  0 points [-]

If preference for large breasts was genetic, surely there might be a family somewhere with some mutation which would prefer small breasts. Do we have any evidence of that?

On the other hand, do we have disconfirming evidence? (Would we expect to have noticed?)

Comment author: taw 01 August 2009 11:53:24PM 1 point [-]

All such evidence would be expected to come from different times or from isolated communities, today vast majority of the world population lives in one connected memetic soup. Unfortunately I don't know enough about anthropology to give particularly convincing evidence.

Wikipedia search suggests some cultures don't care much about breasts at all, what you can consider weak evidence against Paleogenetic explanation.

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2009 05:20:42AM 0 points [-]

Wikipedia search suggests some cultures don't care much about breasts at all, what you can consider weak evidence against Paleogenetic explanation.

Weak, yeah. After all, Westerners consider the face to be a great part of a person's sex appeal, and it's very important in sex (kissing, oral sex, etc.) - yet they don't cover it up. Do they not care?

What's really needed is data showing that breast size or proportions are uncorrelated with reproductive success, or at least with ratings of attractiveness.