Male Preference for Optimal Lumbar Curvature, or...

Huh, this is interesting I guess.

A psychology study from The University of Texas at Austin sheds new light on today's standards of beauty, attributing modern men's preferences for women with a curvy backside to prehistoric influences.

The study, published online in Evolution and Human Behavior, investigated men's mate preference for women with a "theoretically optimal angle of lumbar curvature," a 45.5 degree curve from back to buttocks allowing ancestral women to better support, provide for, and carry out multiple pregnancies.

"What's fascinating about this research is that it is yet another scientific illustration of a close fit between a sex-differentiated feature of human morphology—in this case lumbar curvature—and an evolved standard of attractiveness," said the study's co-author David Buss, a UT Austin psychology professor. "This adds to a growing body of evidence that beauty is not entirely arbitrary, or 'in the eyes of the beholder' as many in mainstream social science believed, but rather has a coherent adaptive logic."

This research, led by UT Austin alumnus and Bilkent University psychologist David Lewis, consisted of two studies. The first looked at vertebral wedging, an underlying spinal feature that can influence the actual curve in women's lower backs.

About 100 men rated the attractiveness of several manipulated images displaying spinal curves ranging across the natural spectrum. Men were most attracted to images of women exhibiting the hypothesized optimum of 45 degrees of lumbar curvature.

"This spinal structure would have enabled pregnant women to balance their weight over the hips," Lewis said. "These women would have been more effective at foraging during pregnancy and less likely to suffer spinal injuries. In turn, men who preferred these women would have had mates who were better able to provide for fetus and offspring, and who would have been able to carry out multiple pregnancies without injury."

The second study addressed the question of whether men prefer this angle because it reflects larger buttocks, or whether it really can be attributed to the angle in the spine itself.

Approximately 200 men were presented with groups of images of women with differing buttock size and vertebral wedging, but maintaining a 45.5-degree curve. Men consistently preferred women whose spinal curvature was closer to optimum regardless of buttock size.

Hmm, I wonder how this is being covered by other news outlets...

Really ?

Classy headline yo.

Business Insider Australia, huh.

That's...not...what they said.

'Better workers' ?  Well credit for least sexy picture, Telegraph.

Maybe I should just stick to the BBC.  Gah, and now I'm blinded by excessive whitespace, as the BBC push what was the mobile site onto the desktop.  And another site falls victim to the cult of flat design.  Well at least they've lost the hyper-pixelated pictures that used to plague the mobile site.

Interesting Genetic Research and Utterly Inept Journalism

Saw various articles about the genetic study of Britons in the past two days, and while the data is interesting (clusters of very similar genetic profiles, Anglo-Saxon DNA dominant in England, hardly any Viking or Roman influence), noticed that almost every article managed to misrepresent the findings on at least one fundamental level.  Here's the Telegraph's headline:

Wow, that seems surprising, huh ?  Assuming, you don't take a literal reading of the headline, which would, in that case, seem to be utter obviously on-its-face horseshit.  So, okay...okay, not literally living in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, but...

Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up.

Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.

In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.

Okay, first sentence is still suggesting the same horseshit.  Latter sentences seem to clarify.  Especially as '600AD' plus '1415 years' would bring us exactly up to the present day.  Still, seems pretty shocking that populations in the United Kingdom in the Twenty-First Century would bear such a close resemblance to those of one and a half millennia earlier, given especially all the migrations of the past century.  One might expect for example that there would be a greater Jewish presence after the Holocaust, a greater percentage of Caribbean, African, and Middle-Eastern populations from the end of empire, a reflection of the Italian presence post-war in Scotland, and some reflection of the in-migration from the eras of the European Community and European Union.  So, what might explain this seeming discrepancy, huh ?

The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80km of each other.

Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.

They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles, using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic groupings.

Quoted from the same fucking article.  So the researchers analysed the DNA of a very selective population of white people in isolated rural populations for the explicit purpose of determining the genetic makeup not of modern-day Britain at all, but that of a century or more before now.

Here's the Guardian headline on the same story for comparison:

A little better...

Since that asshole Rupert Murdoch put his best publication (by far), The Times, behind a paywall, as with The Sun & The Wall Street Rag, I can't easily assess the content of their coverage of this very important subject.  But I can access the headline at least, and...

I just...WTF ?  Is that picture from the latest series of Game of Thrones, or...Oh, is it that shitty series by the so-called 'History' Channel ?  It's that, isn't it ?  This is the picture you chose...and the headline you chose...for covering serious scientific research.

I just give up.