What is O'ism's view on Biological Determinism?

[Strangelove]

With regards to a quote that was made in another thread which I have a question about it which I want to ask:

I want to know how Objectivism holds and views elements of "Biological Determinism". Such determinism though ideas such as "Pheromones determine who are you are initially attracted to" or "facial symetry determines how popular you are". I would assume that since there is a lot of scientific evidence to back up other similar statements, that an Objectivist would take that view that Biological "Determism" does exist, but not to such an extent that it could not be overcome by an individual with enough will power (or proper nurture). Is that view, correct?

[DPW]

I want to know how Objectivism holds and views elements of "Biological Determinism". Such determinism though ideas such as "Pheromones determine who are you are initially attracted to" or "facial symetry determines how popular you are". I would assume that since there is a lot of scientific evidence to back up other similar statements, that an Objectivist would take that view that Biological "Determism" does exist, but not to such an extent that it could not be overcome by an individual with enough will power (or proper nurture). Is that view, correct?

The problem in these cases isn't that the data is flawed, but that the interpretation is wrong. Take the conclusion that "facial symetry determines how popular you are." What the data actually shows is that facial symetry is one of the primary factors that determine physical attractiveness. Physically attractive people tend to be more popular because their attractiveness is a value. That isn't determinism. There are, after all, many ugly people who are nonetheless extremely popular.

Don Watkins

[softwareNerd]

Physically attractive people tend to be more popular because their attractiveness is a value.

Is this true? If there are studies that say this, I'd be curious about the measure that was used for "popularity".

[Hal]

Is this true? If there are studies that say this, I'd be curious about the measure that was used for "popularity".

Several studies have shown that people tend to associate attractiveness with other 'good' traits such as friendliness, intelligence etc. Its a particular instance of what is colloqually known as the "halo effect" - when an object or person is encountered which has one immediately noticable positive quality, theres a tendency to interpret its other qualities in a favourable manner.

I'd personally be more inclined to class it as an irrational case of stereotyping rather than "seeing attractiveness as a value".

Edited May 28, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

With regards to a quote that was made in another thread which I have a question about it which I want to ask:

I want to know how Objectivism holds and views elements of "Biological Determinism". Such determinism though ideas such as "Pheromones determine who are you are initially attracted to" or "facial symetry determines how popular you are". I would assume that since there is a lot of scientific evidence to back up other similar statements, that an Objectivist would take that view that Biological "Determism" does exist, but not to such an extent that it could not be overcome by an individual with enough will power (or proper nurture). Is that view, correct?

I'm very interested in research along this lines and I definitely think that a lot of it is valid. However I normally read 'determine' as 'influence', since this avoids presupposing certain metaphysical premises which I do not share.

[softwareNerd]

Several studies have shown that people tend to associate attractiveness with other 'good' traits such as friendliness, intelligence etc.

That surprises me. I'm more used to people thinking in terms of beautiful but brainless bimbos or about pretty but brainless boys. Some of my male colleagues will joking rue their profession of choice (software development), saying that it attracts the smart girls but not the pretty ones.

Also, I just started thinking about a few of my acquaintances and cannot find any anecdotal evidence to suggest that the better looking ones are more popular in any measurable sense (more friends, more socializing, deeper friendships). In fact, I see no relationship (negative or positive).

Sure, in some people "intelligence seems to shine through" or one can almost immediately spot an apparent bubbly enthusiasm for life. I find that attractive, but to try to draw causation the other way around would be classically faulty substitution of correlation for causation.

Among your immediate peer group -- your office, or your class, etc. -- think of the top 2 or 3 people who would be rated most good looking by conventional standards. Are they also the two who are the most popular? If so, how are you measuring popularity.

(BTW: If this appears to be side-tracking the thread, I'd be happy to start a new one.)

[LaVache]

I'm very interested in research along this lines and I definitely think that a lot of it is valid. However I normally read 'determine' as 'influence', since this avoids presupposing certain metaphysical premises which I do not share.

You make a great point. While it's easy to throw out anything with determinism in its title, you'll miss many valid and interesting ideas. The important part is to always keep things in perspective. While it would be denying reality to say that biology doesn't play a part in, say, alcoholism, it would also be denying reality to say that someone who is biologically predisposed to alcoholism is not capable of chosing to stop drinking and taking the steps necessary to make that choice a reality. As long as free will and taking responsibility for one's own actions are kept in their proper places of honor, studying the biology, and other aspects of life, that influence our actions can be a fulfilling pursuit and provide insights into who we are.

Edited May 31, 2005 by LaVache

[Bold Standard]

I'd personally be more inclined to class it as an irrational case of stereotyping rather than "seeing attractiveness as a value".

I don't think it's necessarily irrational. Especially regarding popularity with the opposite sex. Physical attractiveness is most certainly a value-- not the only value, or the most important-- but a man's character is often displayed on the symmetry of the face. Bone structure is not all that determines symmetry- also facial expressions, hygiene, and personal style (clothes, haircuts, etc).

But what appears attractive to "people" normatively must be distinguished from the distinguished taste of a tasteful individual. For instance, I think Ayn Rand was a beautiful woman, but many disagree. Is taste innate? I doubt it- my taste has evolved with my values, therefore I think psycho-epistemological (and therefore philosophical) factors are at least a crucial element in defining taste.

I submit, as evidence, that different cultures have different opinions of what is "attractive."

That surprises me. I'm more used to people thinking in terms of beautiful but brainless bimbos or about pretty but brainless boys. Some of my male colleagues will joking rue their profession of choice (software development), saying that it attracts the smart girls but not the pretty ones.

I am confused about what you mean when you say "thinking in terms." I thought that the phenomenon of brainless beauty was noted because of its irony-- as you say "beautiful BUT brainless," implying they have one value but lack another, as if you might expect or hope for a beautiful person also to be intelligent, but that it's not always that way.

Are you suggesting that people actually find intelligence unattractive? Or unintelligence attractive? Or just that there is no causal connection between these whatsoever (in which case, why would people think in terms of brainless bimbos)?

Edited May 31, 2005 by Bold Standard

[softwareNerd]

Are you suggesting that people actually find intelligence unattractive? Or unintelligence attractive? Or just that there is no causal connection between these whatsoever ...

No, I'm not suggesting that. As I said...

I find that attractive, but to try to draw causation the other way around would be classically faulty substitution of correlation for causation.

...(in which case, why would people think in terms of brainless bimbos)?

That's an interesting question. I do not know, but I suspect it has to do with the typical mind-body dichotomy as applied to sex. I do not think the "beautiful bimbo" stereotype is one of "beautiful BUT bimbo", I think it is closer to being a case of "beautiful THEREFORE bimbo".

Ofcourse, the "beautiful bimbo" idea is more explicit philosophy than practiced philosophy. So, in practice, if someone looks intelligent, friendly, etc., that person is (almost by definition) more attractive, than someone who looks dumb, unfriendly.

The original poster was drawing a link with "popularity". If you imagine someone who is exceedingly disformed, I can see how people might be hesitant to approach that person. However, within the normal range, among the people around me, I do not find any correlation between their looks and their "popularity". Do you?

[Bold Standard]

I do not think the "beautiful bimbo" stereotype is one of "beautiful BUT bimbo", I think it is closer to being a case of "beautiful THEREFORE bimbo".

That would be a causal connection. But does this stereotype imply that being a bimbo makes her beautifull, or that being beautifull makes her a bimbo? Or are they reciprocal attributes?

However, within the normal range, among the people around me, I do not find any correlation between their looks and their "popularity". Do you?

That depends on the values of the specific people involved. I'm a musician, so normatively, in my experience, there is a correlation. But that's because most people would rather watch someone perform on stage if they are attractive to look at (as well as talented). But the same does not necissarily apply to, say a recording engineer. This person is more in demand (ie, popular) depending on their level of skill and efficiency, not necissarily physical appearance.

[Felix]

I'm more used to people thinking in terms of beautiful but brainless bimbos or about pretty but brainless boys. Some of my male colleagues will joking rue their profession of choice (software development), saying that it attracts the smart girls but not the pretty ones.

I'm in electrical engineering and here it is even worse .

I always believed that maybe humans are split into several subspecies. There are genes which make you beautiful, which gives you certain advantages in your life so that other things may become unneccessary (i.e. the brainless bimbo). On the other hand, those that lack these genetic characteristics will have to develop another way of gaining social status, i.e. intelligence (yes, I am saying that genes influence intelligence.). Those who were ugly and stupid didn't achieve social status and reproduced less.

Since like people attract each other more than people who are different, the brainies bred with each other more often, so did the beauties. Of course they also mixed a lot, making humans in general smarter and beautifuller.

So far my evolutionary theory on the emergence of brainless bimbos.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Studies have been done with twins separated at birth, and it has been discovered that they were more similar to each other than expected by chance with respect to career path, etc. But these individuals often led very different types of lives. Of course, these individuals are genetic clones of each other. Even twins raised in the same household can end up being surprisingly different people, I have noticed!

What this shows is is that there is a range of possible actions for an individual as determined by biology. I'm not sure why this should surprise or dismay anyone. Certainly someone with an IQ of 100 probably won't turn out to be a rocket scientist or neurosurgeon. It doesn't matter. The point is, there is a range of possibilities within which we all have choices.

[hunterrose]

I would assume... that an Objectivist would take that view that Biological "Determism" does exist, but not to such an extent that it could not be overcome by an individual with enough will power (or proper nurture). Is that view, correct?

Ya, more or less. There are examples of "biological determinism" that Objectivists would be highly likely to disagree with (e.g. biological difference in capacity or tendency to focus,) but it would be acknowledged that biology can give some persons advantages compared to others in at least some areas, everything else being equal.

Of course, Objectivists couldn't accept BD as a whole, since BD (generally?) says that biology complety determines actions.