In what way does #8 say that it's women's fault? All it does is merely presenting a possible reason why men act as they do. The persumption that a midlife-crises is caused in part by factors outside of a man isn't blaming that factor, just saying that it's more complicated than what bitter, middleaged and divorced women make it seem.

I think that these guys just needed a pseudoscientific explanation for their own biases and other guys'(?) misbehavior. (Notice that #8 and #10 basically add up to "it's women's fault"?)

http://gethairapymedia.com/pressreleases/colorPR.html

not the most scientific seeming survey, but illustrates my point.

Some ideas are interesting... and alot of comments seem to forget human traits would have evolved long before any modern social constraint and morality.

That point aside, i agree. most of the above is lacking evidence,although evolutionary psychology is hard to test.. as evolution is hard to go back and measure.

What confuses me the most, is in an article concerned with evolutionary theory, and sexual selection is the ommission of the theory of female mate choice. How can you manage that?

Your final point over women in the work place is not even worth discussing any further... as comments have already said how poor it is.

I like evolutionary psychology.
Please publish articles that do it justice.

The part about preferring blond hair because it supposedly shows age changes is blatantly wrong. Lighter hair shows aging less than darker hair since dark hair will show grey/white hairs much more clearly than lighter hair. I know this because I'm a strawberry blonde with a lot of grey and everyone thinks I'm blonde now. My age shows less in my hair as compared to my sister who is a brunette who has a lot of streaks that make her look older. This is simply about color and contrast. While it may (or may not) be true that blondes are preferable to brunettes when choosing a mate, the logic behind this "evolutionary" trend makes no sense at all.

The list also seems very culturally biased toward Anglo-Saxon ideals. I think that you'll find people in Japan strongly prefer mates with darker hair and eyes and would tend to avoid people who looked radically different than themselves.

The entire list is full of suspect "logic" and makes me seriously doubt that "Psychology Today" actually recruits serious or learned psychologists to write their articles.

The depressing thing about this article was that it had reached the top of social bookmarking sites like Digg.com and Reddit.com - so a lot of people saw it. I guess mainly because of its controversial tone.

And d'you know, I'm not even sure if the controversial tone of the article is required to get the point across. The types of subjects covered here are going to get people's attention anyway. This could easily have been written in a more balanced way, then it could have been attractive to both a lay and scientific crowd.

On the point of including references I would guess Psychology Today has an editorial policy against it - like many mainstream media outlets. Having a policy against references is increasingly old-fashioned in the information age. Nowadays people can easily look them up, and I don't think they're going to run screaming at the sight of two names and a date in parentheses! You could put in just one or two representative examples and increase the credibility of the article no end.

I am commenting specifically on the Psychology Today presentation of the research, such as it is presented. I would assume that any actual research performed in these areas would be of substantially higher quality in reasoning.

Also, forgive the typos: I was too lazy to proofread properly.

Anyway, I agree with the consensus: "bunk." Note that I put a great deal of credence in evolutionary psychological theory, but it absolutely drives me up the proverbial genetic wall when lunkheads start to overapply it and forget that when it does manifest, it does so in the most basic sort of ways.

So, gosh, where to start? I won't bother rebutting each in detail, but just a key kick to the flimsy premise-legs of this stool they call reasoning.

#1) "A recent study shows that in Iran, where exposure to Western media and culture is limited..."

Really? LOL! Oh yeah! I forgot! We're talking about a non-developed country here. Of course they don't have access to Western culture. It's not like they were ever, uh, occupied or anything by western powers. Or were led by a leader with strong ties to the west for over a quarter century. And they certainly don't have modern media.

#2) "Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females."

Specifically, what matters is the degree to which a species is monomorphic or dimorphic. On the spectrum of mono-to-dimorphism, in relation to other species, humans are very similar. To be precise, they are 85% similar (meaning only 15% dimorphic). If you want to see real dimorphism, google "reproduction angler fish."

#3) "When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny."

No. Logically and evolutionarily, women would benefit from polyandry. The authors need to check their cultural assumptions at the door.

What may a woman-dominated system look like? Google "Mosuo"

#4) Well, given the anticipated sex disparity that is developing in India, we should have a nice little test on this assumption, no? If there aren't enough women to go around, we should see violence levels increasing over the next decade or two.

My vote: It ultimately comes down to economics.

#5) Sure. Why not, depending on the cultural factors.

#6) "So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances—more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)"

The biological mechanism isn't understood? Wow! I can't imagine why.

Critical Thinking 101 here: Correlation does not imply causation. Could it possible be that since sons are more valued in most cultures (and I'm not suggesting they should be), that folks with more sons are more likely to rise to power than those with fewer sons?

Yeesh.

#7) Hmmmm...then why is higher male age a cue of attractiveness for women? If you are going to rely on evolutionary theory, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Almost universally, women are attracted to older men (presumably they are more likely to have greater resources).

But now, we twist it around, and we want them young and competitive too... And then, you have a theory that can't be refuted! Hallelujah!

Alternative hypotheses (since I do not accept the notion that one explanation is required): Unrehabilitated criminals are more likely to be put in prison for a long time, and genius is not always on. Genius is usually established by one or two works, and after that, there are variations of a theme, that typically do not get as much attention (but future work is usually just as good as part work, but it doesn't have the same cultural impact). I mean, how does one top the Beatles? Or Windows? Future products may be as good, objectively, but culture expectations have changed.

#8) "Accordingly, a 50-year-old man married to a 25-year-old woman would not go through a midlife crisis, while a 25-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman would, just like a more typical 50-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman."

OK...It seems testable enough. Um...evidence?

#9) OK... So we finally hit one, huh? Interestingly, in a study of 280,000 women undergoing paternity tests, 30% of the children were fathered by someone other than the mother's long-term romantic partner. Evolutionary theory suggests that women will play the field (with perceived superior genetic specimens) as long such behavior will not get caught (and threaten the resources she has secured). The dynamic of infidelity is more complex than presented in this article.

#10) "Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment."

So, men groped each other in the workplace, granted promotions to other men that had sex with them, hung nude pictures of other men in the lunchrooms, and disparaged other men because they were men...

Oh...so the women just aren't fitting in to the good-ol'-boys club. Buck up, sweetie. And don't worry about when they pinch your ass: They do it too each other all the time. *wink*

So, in conclusion, is it just me, or did this article possess a huge "let's blame women for everything" theme.