I'm not sure where exactly to stick this link, but I thought GNXP readers might find the following research interesting: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 
Apparently, as societies become more egalitarian, gender differences in personality become _more_ extreme. In particular, the men tend to become more "masculine" than in less egalitarian societies. While the authors made no mention of the following as a possible explanation, my first thought was that when women begin to acquire their own resources a man must compete harder in order to appear as a suitable mate. It may also be possible that women may feel the need to downplay their status in order to avoid intimidating possible suitors. (I've directly observed the latter behavior in my female med school classmates.)

Eric: 
Yeah, I'll grant that my argument Re:Ashkenazi beauty was pretty handy-wavy. I stand by the Semitic/European hybrid vs. pure Mediterranean part and I think the idea that Ashkenazim have been selected for intelligence has pretty good support (the raw current IQ numbers, the long standing importance of literacy for social acceptance (and thus probably breeding), a social niche which required relatively abstract reasoning, etc. etc.), but I stand on relatively weak ground for the rest of it and frankly I don't feeling like doing the footwork to defend that position any better. If you wish, I concede the point, but if you'd allow me to, I'd rather defer it to someone more interested in defending it.

Razib: 
 
Do you actually believe  
this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_aragon 
is considerably more attractive then 
this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn 
 
Futhermore, do you think this 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Cappello 
represents the height of beauty? (To be sure, the population was smaller, but do you even think Cappello reaches 2 std above the mean? Would you turn for a second glance if you passed her on the street?)  
 
If I presented you with those three pictures, do you think you would rank them in the same order as 16th century observers would? 
 
My thesis has little to do with the universality of beauty. My thesis concerns the local issue that, I don't believe that your interpretation of those portraits tells us, the GNXP readers, much about Henry VIII selection criteria for his mates. 
 
The Catherines were acknowledged to be attractive by their contemporaries. So, yes, Henry cared about beauty. Also, he was pissed when Anne of Cleves didn't have the goods she was purported to have. Finally, Anne Boleyn was plain, but made up for it by being so charming that "the young men of the court swarmed around her" and Jane Seymour served Boleyn until Boleyn's death. At which point, she was immediatly betrothed to Henry. You can infer from that what you will.  
 
Basically, to be clear, I do believe some standards of beauty are conserved across culture, but the variation is great enough and those portraits are low fidelity enough that you probably aren't able to make useful inferences about how Henry viewed his wives centuries ago.  
 
Furthermore, these are answerable questions, we don't need to use the portraits as a proxy. The Annes and Jane were average to below average and the Catherines were attractive. Why not just take that as the springboard for your conversations.

Razib: 
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your basic thesis is that you found it surprising that the portraits available on the web of Henry the VIII's wives weren't appealing to you. The issue I take with this is that you are applying your 21th century standard of beauty to a stylized version of 16th century beauty. Now, if it turns out that the appeal of 16th century portraits to Razib is predictive of 16th century perceptions of the beauty of the women depicted, than I would concede that you're on to something. Otherwise, there isn't much insight to be garnered by your perceptions.  
 
Incidentally, my understanding of Ann Boleyn's appeal was that, despite her average appearance, she was quite the charmer. As for the rest of his wives, a brief google search reveals that Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr were thought to be attractive while Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves were less so. Now my question to you is this. Do you think you could predict which portraits were the beauties and which were not without prior knowledge of the 16th century perception? Would you for instance consider Bianca Cappello's portrait on wikipedia beautiful? I certainly wouldn't, but she apparently was a great beauty in her time.  
 
Now, I do agree with you that the calculus by which men of power chose their mates is an interesting subject, but it just doesn't make much sense to make inferences about their decisions based on our contemporary perception of centuries old artwork that a layman can see is stylized relative to a photograph. We're better off just looking at what the historical record has to say about the appearance (and other characteristics) of the wives of great men.

The only thing notable about this post is that Ann Boleyn was average in physical appearance, beyond that there isn't much that we can infer because: 
#1) One expects that standards of beauty beyond the usual garbage about symmetry and etc. has changed substantially in the last few centuries. 
#2) Who knows how accurate the provided potraits are and, frankly, given the quality of the artwork, do you really believe those are accurate portrayals of the appearance of Henry's wives? 
 
Also, re: Natalie Portman: 
Ashkenazi Jews aren't usually noted for their beauty. Sure, we've got a few winners (Gina Gershon, Natalie Portman, for instance.), but by and large, we're actually known (within the faith, may I add) to be a pretty homely as ethnic groups go. Also, the usual arguments on this blog (and the ones I, myself, put stock in) is that relative to the gentiles around them Ashkenazim were selected more for intelligence than physical vigor (which correlates with beauty.) Furthermore, Ashkenazi Jews aren't even pure Mediterraneans. The most logical inference one might make from the extant data is that Ashkenazim are (tightly bottle-necked) Mediterranean (or Semitic)/local European hybrids. Now, if you want to say that it's unfair to compare Henry's wives to Portman because she's gone through an extensive screening process by Hollywood casting directors, I'd say you were on to something, but the (probably tongue in cheek) comment about Mediterranean selection for beauty doesn't apply.... 
 
(Oh and to continue my rant of unnessecary anality:  
Razib, the expression is "by _and_ large"  
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bya1.htm 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/by+and+large)

Whiskeydrinker -- Where are you getting this idea that high verbal ability correlates with low IQ? Furthermore, where is the data for low testerone in high achieving Ashkenazim? 
 
Also, according to this: 
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ashkenaz.htm 
the average Ashkenazi "math iq" is ~111. In as much as testerone correlates with mathematical abililty, defense of your position would require a bit more data that directly defends your thesis.

A quick question: 
How is the arrest status of each participant determined? Is their criminal record checked or are they asked about their criminal/arrest record as part of the interview.  
 
A cynical view of this data would argue that church goers are more likely to lie about an arrest record since they are more likely to feel guilty about it.

Re: Kevin: 
My guess is that you aren't that far from the mean amongst GNXP readers... 
(I'm pretty much with you up until the GOP part.) (I'm an independent.)

>>The Holocaust was not a genetic bottleneck, any more than the Black Death was. In both cases, millions survived. 
 
The above is a poor analogy.  
 
I don't know if the Black Death meets everyone's definition of a genetic bottleneck, but it certainly was an event that had at least one long standing genetic effect. Look up CCR5, if you don't believe this is the case.

Flat earth theories are instances of communal delusions (just as religions are). Communal delusions aren't a phenomena you can erradicate--they just morph into new and interesting communal delusions. So if you can't erradicate them, manage them.

Get 'em little honeybees get 'em. 
:-D 
(video of Japanese honey bees engaging in their defensive strategy against Giant hornets.) 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp72gXkYJIw&feature=related

This may already be obvious to readers on gnxp, but Laurence Summers is actually an investor in the website that this video was pulled from.  
 
It's an interesting idea, actually. 
Read more about it here: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/technology/07summers.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199854800&en=dd2360ad1c206cea&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Some Random Weirdo: 
I'm curious who you think is this most pampered minority here in the U.S.? 
 
Also, 
I've been reading GNXP for a year or two now and I still don't quite get where the "Finn-baiting" theme comes from. Would anyone care to explain how this site which seems to focus it's efforts on issues of intelligence, religion, heritability, and biotech has this extracurricular interest in the peculiarities of Finnish society.

QFT 
"  
Another explanation is that parents want sons to marry someone who will bear many children. Educated wives are less fertile." 
 
This is the first thought that came to mind for me as well. It seems like the most obvious explanation.

Alright... I've got to know. What exactly is the origin of this blog's obsession with the Finns?

That's strange. My previous post was truncated. 
In any case, the Telegraph has an article reporting on a recent finding that the non-paternity rate is

The Telegraph has an article indicating that the non-paternity rate in the U.K. is