I’m going to regret that title tomorrow. I know it.
Two of the books I’ve been meaning to delve into sometime this year are about evolutionary biology; how the incentives that lead to reproductive and social success (which itself is a facilitator of reproductive success) shape everything from our government institutions to the popularity of dating profiles. The first book is Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. The second book is Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden.
I decided to try and get into them sometime next week, if I can fit them into the schedule, after the post on the Culture Code mental model. In that post, I included a few embedded videos of Dr. Rapaille talking about his research. In one of those videos, at around the 25:40 mark, he spoke about the “code” for biological reproduction when it came to men who wanted to sire children; the number that arose in his research regardless of what a man said he found attractive as the man couldn’t lie about his body’s response in a laboratory.
[mainbodyad]That code: 0.7. It’s the key if you want to unlock the reptilian mind in most men and manipulate it for your own advantage because over time, evolutionary pressures have resulted in a very specific, narrow waist-to-hip ratio that signaled to the primal part of the brain, “This female is genetically superior to others”. She’s going to have a higher probability of successfully reproducing, she’s going to live longer, she’s going to have lower rates of cancer … all sorts of things that were self-selecting, creating a feedback loop causing it to proliferate over thousands upon thousands of years.
This waist-to-hip ratio code is so ingrained in the deepest recesses of the brain that it even shows up in pornography consumption patterns. It is shaping the free market. Case in point: Someone looked at the top 100 adult film actresses of 2014-2015 based on page views generated at pornography giant Pornhub. He or she then cross-referenced the actresses featured with body measurements from the Internet Adult Film Database, along with secondary sources, to build this handy chart. The author then analyzed the body proportions of each actress to see how the distribution patterns looked, building a page of charts to make visualizing the numbers easier. This allowed the viewer to see what people actually wanted in a naked woman when they were left entirely on their own, in private.
Here is an annotated screenshot of the passage that caught my eye. The person putting the information together actually said – and I’m quoting here – “I had trouble finding a number for the average female waist-to-hip ratio. The number .7 came up a lot as ‘ideal’.” So powerful was this effect that around 90 out of the top 100 most desirable women in the adult industry were within striking distance of it.

Click the image to go to the page of charts. This is a screenshot of the relevant passage, where the person who put it all together noticed the 0.7 ratio number appearing over and over, with nearly all “attractive” women within striking distance of the magic figure. [Source]
Even here, though, men are more demanding. The doctors go on to examine the findings of a study (see: Swami and Tovée 2008) and talk about how gay men seem to respond more positively to a lower waist-to-chest ratio in other men, indicating a more muscular upper body with a smaller, more athletic waist.
Men, in other words, are visually wired regardless of sexual orientation to have higher standards of physical beauty. For a man, you could have the greatest personality in the world, have a kind heart, volunteer at an animal shelter, feed the poor … and if you are ugly or overweight to the point it throws off your ratios, your sexual capital will plummet in his eyes. (It’s one of the reasons that movements such as “all bodies are beautiful” are ultimately doomed to fail. The social construct cannot compete with something so fundamentally intertwined with human nature.) You might have an out if you hit the genetic lottery: Rapaille found that the minority of overweight women who had a disposition to store fat in the 0.7 ratio were still deemed attractive. Good luck with that because almost nobody does.
To provide some perspective on how important this 0.7 preference is, men consistently rate some derivation of “being tricked into going out on date by an obese person” as their greatest fear when it comes to trying to find love through online dating apps or websites. Women, in contrast, say it is something like, “meeting a serial killer”, which doesn’t make much sense when you consider that a man is vastly more likely to wind up a murder victim than a woman is, all things considered. As per Table 311 of the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States [PDF], in a huge country with more than 300 million people, there were 13,756 murder victims, a mere 3,158 of whom were female. If you’re a white woman, the odds are even lower because black men and women represent roughly half of all victims despite accounting for only 12%+ or so of the population!
This Has Some Interesting Connections to Obesity Research
Reading through all this sent me down a path of obesity studies. Few people who look at the data should have cause for doubt that obesity is going to be one of the defining economic, social, and medical issues of the next 25 to 50 years. Current projections put the rate of obesity at more than half of the population by 2030 (almost 80% will be overweight or obese when you combine both categories), with the estimated lost productivity topping $500 billion per annum due to disease, death, sickness, and pain. It even shows up in unexpected places. Disneyland has already had to renovate the Pirates of Caribbean ride because people are so much fatter than they were when the park opened, costing shareholders money. Hospitals, schools, and businesses have had to replace beds, desks, and chairs to accommodate expanding girth. Retailers have had to stock wider ranges of sizes, while manufacturers have needed to use more raw materials per garment. It’s much the same in other Western Countries. Ireland is expected to be the worst with 90% of the population fat, whereas in Britain, it will be 75%.
In the end, surplus consumption of calories has the potential to do more damage than tobacco did in the 20th century. In fact, being obese has already become a stark line of demarcation when it comes to social class. Percentage wise, the odds of being overweight if you have a college degree and make six-figures per year are much lower than if you are in poverty. I’d go so far as to bet money in another decade or two, being fat will be the equivalent among certain affluent groups as having meth face; a signal that will put a glass ceiling above the station to which you can rise in life until the situation is modified. No one will say a word but your resume will go right in the trash.
This is absolutely relevant to your investments. Your weight directly influences your salary levels, which directly funds your securities purchases. This is because, as pointed out here:
Various studies have shown that overweight people are seen as less conscientious, less agreeable, less emotionally stable, less productive, lazy, lacking in self-discipline, and even dishonest, sloppy, ugly, socially unattractive, and sexually unskilled; the list goes on and on.* The stereotypes run so deep that even obese people hold these same discriminatory beliefs about other obese people. Therefore, it may come as no surprise that research has provided strong evidence that obese people are paid less than their slimmer counterparts.
The effects are worse for women than men. Zero. Point. Seven.
The connections between obesity research and the biology of reproduction don’t stop there. Knowing that men have higher physical standards and stronger arousal reactions to certain defined mathematical relationships has value when testing theories. The United States Government noticed that gay men, as a whole, were so much less likely to be obese than other demographic groups that they spent $3,000,000 through the National Health Institute on Project Number 5401HD066963-04.
What was the cause? Was it genetic or biological? It was possible it was somehow in the gene expression given some earlier research that shows gay men’s bodies function in different ways that can be identified even against their will. For example:
- Researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia conducted a study in which they took a group of men and washed out their scent over nine days by having them refrain from eating certain foods, using only scent-free soap and shampoo. They then had these men wear sterile cotton pads under their armpits for a day, with the material stored in a bottle. A panel of 82 men and women, some gay, some straight, were exposed to each scent and asked to rate the attractiveness of the mysterious, unknown man that produced it. Straight women overwhelmingly chose the scent of straight men. Straight men overwhelmingly chose the scent of straight women. Gay men overwhelmingly chose the scent of gay men. There is something happening in the chemical markers that the conscious brain isn’t picking up on with the eyes, ears, mannerisms, or other signals that give us away to others of our tribe. [Source]
- Researchers at Cornell University used a specialized infrared lens to measure involuntary changes in pupil dilation to determine the sexual orientation of test subjects who were shown naked photos and videos of different people, allowing them to quickly determine the way someone’s brain is wired regardless of what they say or will admit publicly. [Source]
- The BBC aired an interesting documentary hosted by actor John Barrowman, who was sent to a series of scientists and subjected to a number of tests, demonstrating how modern technology can “see” gayness or straightness on brains scans (Barrowman demonstrated no arousal to women whatsoever, whereas his brain lit up like a Christmas tree in the “right” areas for a gay man) and then, based on differences in scores on other exams, can predict when the brain became wired that way (current hypothesis: mid pregnancy as most of the test differentials involve areas of the brain itself that are mapped during that period).
Given all this clear evidence there is some neurological difference between gay men and the rest of the population, it might be possible that gay men are simply less likely to become, or stay, fat because of how they are wired. Perhaps the same thing that makes them score better on linguistic fluency also causes them to feel satiated with food at lower caloric intake levels.
Nope.
The research thus far has found gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, presumably to be attractive to other gay men who, like straight men, have higher standards of physical beauty than women so they modify their behavior by putting down the fork. That’s it. They eat less so they can look hotter. It is entirely cultural pressure. Since men are shallow, you improve your dating odds if you are in better shape. If you start putting on weight, they’re much more likely to look at you and say, “You’re getting fat. It’s not attractive. Stop it.” Therein, funnily enough, may rest the secret to ending the health crisis. Incentives. Feedback. Social pressure.
Of course, Asian mothers have known this since the dawn of time.
Seriously. Asian mothers are the reigning queens of cultural fat shaming. So much so that Asian Americans are 1/3rd as likely to be obese as their white peers (and even that is somewhat overstated because it lumps ethnically diverse groups into a single category when Filipino men and women are way more likely to be obese, dragging up the figures). They don’t play around when it comes to this topic. You put on weight, they will call you a pig, beat your hands with a wooden spoon when you reach for seconds, and put a lock on the refrigerator. It might sound harsh, but if you’ve ever seen the images of what diabetes can do to your body, it’s not hard to see they are motivated by love. No good parent wants that for their son or daughter.
(This very well may get me in trouble with some of you but I’m going to say it, anyway: I think the HAES movement is misguided for this reason. What began as a motivational tool to give people the strength to begin exercising has been twisted into something that is little more than the equivalent of drug users posting pictures of their needle-marked arms, demanding praise or acceptance for behavior that will kill them, that will cause them to live in chronic pain, that will burden taxpayers and insurance customers with unbearable costs, that will affect those around them as they are unable to do things a healthy person should be able to do. My own family suffers from severe obesity so it hits home hard – even I, personally, while away at college, had to break a lifetime of bad habits and completely re-learn how to eat, dropping a ton of weight in the years that followed leaving home – but never once have they demanded it be looked upon as a virtue. It’s acknowledged as a failure. Nobody deludes themselves about it.)
Right about now is when someone brings up a single study highlighted by the media, oft-twisted, seldom-read, and used to claim the contrary. The September 11, 2014 Perceived weight discrimination and changes in weight, waist circumference, and weight status has been trumpeted as if it found that fat shaming actually causes weight gain, rather than loss, despite some fairly severe methodology criticisms. It’s not true. It’s a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Worst among these, the researchers admit in the notes. They point out the study had several limitations including, “We cannot be sure whether discrimination preceded weight gain or vice versa. It is therefore not possible to establish causal relationships; i.e. whether people gain weight as a consequence of experiencing weight discrimination, or whether gaining weight makes people more likely to experience weight discrimination or attribute experiences of discrimination to their weight.” (Emphasis added) In other words, it’s practically useless. Remember that the next time someone says, “Studies show …” No. They haven’t. They really haven’t. The hypothesis might be true but you cannot quote that study and insist that it is. The evidence isn’t there.
The Role Social Proof Plays in All of This
One of the interesting things I came across was the role social proof – which, most of you know, is probably the most powerful mental model – seems to play in all of this. One useful study that was done attempted to get to the root cause of the obesity epidemic among black Americans, who suffer disproportionately compared to other groups. The results are almost hilarious in their simplicity: People legitimately don’t know what a healthy weight looks like. It’s social proof. It’s all social proof.
The researchers showed this image to black girls and asked them to identify which women were healthy. Give it a try yourself. Which do you think are “normal”?
Say it out loud so you can’t cheat. Or better yet, write it down. The answer is at the end of this post.
Perhaps this isn’t so surprising. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that found how obesity spread through social groups. The fatter your friends become, the more likely you are to adjust your framework for what is normal and expand yourself (it actually shows a higher correlation than the weight of your spouse! I wonder if that indicates there is a gender comparison going on since most people are heterosexual so they are more likely to visually identify, and compete with, their same-gender friends when it comes to appearance). Weight loss shows the same effect. Start dropping weight, your friends will find themselves declining in size, too. We rank ourselves by those with whom we surround ourselves.
Beyond that, “normal” seems to elude some people. If you’ve ever watched shows like My 600 Pound Life, you see these 600 pound, 700 pound men and women talk about how they want to get down to a “healthy” weight … of 280 pounds. The first time I heard that, I didn’t even know how to process it. The frame of reference is so broken that severe, morbid obesity is considered normal. It’s bonkers. The whole thing is bonkers.
Completely Non-Related 5:25 a.m. Thoughts …
It’s even more odd when you stop to ask yourself, “Who wants to live like this?” And then the incapacitated spouse is always shocked that the normal-sized spouse ends up either leaving them or having multiple affairs because they haven’t had any physical intimacy in years despite the relationship having devolved into patient/nurse long before the breaking point.
I don’t even understand the mentality of the caretakers, either. I’ve tried, over and over, to put myself in their position and understand their motivations. Other than the sexual fetishists (who seem relatively rare and get off on watching a person gorge themselves), I just don’t get what they are thinking. They are helping this person commit extended suicide. How can you do that to someone you love? I think, secretly, some of them want the spouse dead so they can escape guilt-free.
If you were going to do that to someone, why would you manually wipe them after bowel movements? Or buy them a Comfort Wipe? That seems so primitive. Just … look at it. LOOK AT IT! Does this seem like a civilized society to you? Wiping your poop with paper on a stick? We have landed a man on the moon. No. No. Not okay. If you are 600 pounds and reading this, do not take this as a criticism. I care for you. You deserve a better life.
Have some self-respect and order a Japanese Toto. Then lose the weight. In the meantime, you’ll have a clean backside and won’t have to have a loved one towel you down like a zoo animal. Don’t do that to them. It’s selfish beyond measure.
What gets me is they always show these folks with Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, two of the stocks I love. It’s making me dislike the brands even though it’s irrational. You don’t get to order 4 or 5 McDoubles plus a chocolate shake and apple pie for a single meal. Humans don’t do that. I’ve found myself talking to the television sometimes … the doctors have to be so frustrated. You can tell some of them have just given up.
This post needs to stop now. It began in the afternoon, a serious discussion of reproductive biology and its influence on society. Coming back to it at almost 5:30 a.m., it has devolved into poop sticks and Japanese toilets. What have I done … I cannot evaluate this at the moment. I will return tomorrow afternoon and decide whether to delete the whole thing. If, before I get a chance to re-read it in the daylight, I have deeply wounded or offended anyone, I apologize. I’ll fix after I’ve had a chance to have my morning coffee.
Answer: Number 1 is underweight with a BMI of 16. Each subsequent woman’s weight increases by a BMI of 3. This means numbers 2, 3, and 4 are normal, healthy weights. That is what a person should look like based solely on medical risk if you want to live a long life expectancy and enjoy lots of compounding. Number 5 is overweight. Numbers 6 and 7 are obese. Numbers 8 and 9 are severely obese. You can read more about this topic, with references to the studies themselves, here.
[mainbodyad]