I tabulated some data on Miss Universe 2004 competition. You can download the excel file.

The mean height was 69.4 inches, a little over 5’9 (1.74 meters).

Here were the top six in “looks” from my perspective:

Katrina Wigander, Sweden
Venessa Fisher, Canada
Catherine Manchola, Colombia
Kathrine Soerland, Norway
Yanina Gonzalez, Paraguay
Ksiena Kustova, Russia

I ranked all the contestants on a 0 to 10 scale. The mean for the girls was 7, and I gave Sweden a 9, and the others an 8.5. All the data is cut & pasted below.

Name Country Age Height Hair Eye Looks
Telma SoAngloa 18 69Black Brown 6
Ann-MariAntigua 25 70Brown Brown 7
JenniferAustrali 20 71Blonde Blue 7.5
Daniela Austria 23 69Black Brown 7
Raquel HBahamas 24 67Brown Brown 8
Cindy MaBarbados 19 70Brown Brown 7
Lindsy DBelgium 21 69Brown Green 6
Leilah PBelize 23 69Brown Brown 7.5
GabrielaBolivia 21 72Brown Brown 7.5
Icho KeoBotswana 24 67Black Brown 5
Fabiane Brazil 19 72Black Green 7.5
Ivelina Bulgaria 18 68Brown Brown 8
Venessa Canada 18 68Blonde Green 8.5
Stacey-ACayman I 25 71Black Brown 5
Chile 23 70BrunetteGreen 7
Meng ZhaChina 23 69Brown Brown 6
CatherinColumbia 21 69Brown Brown 8.5
Nancy SoCosta Ri 23 72Brown Brown 7.5
MarjinanCroatia 18 70Brown Brown 7
AngelinaCuracao 19 69Brown Brown 7
Nayia IaCyprus 21 67Red Green 6
Lucie VaCzech Re 19 71Blonde Brown 7
Tina ChrDenmark 22 69Brown Green 7.5
Larimar Dominica 20 72Brown Brown 7.5
Susana REcuador 24 70Brown Hazel 7
Heba El-Egypt 22 69Black Brown 7.5
GabrielaEl Salva 19 66Brown Brown 6.5
Sirle KaEstonia 22 69Blonde Blue 7
FerehiyeEthiopia 18 70Black Brown 6.5
Mira SalFinland 23 69Brown Green 7
LaetitiaFrance 23 69Brown Brown 7.5
Nino MurGeorgia 21 70Brown Brown 7
ShermineGermany 21 69Brown Brown 7
Menaye DGhana 23 71Brown Brown 7
Valia KaGreece 23 71Brown Brown 7
Marva WeGuatemal 20 70Black Black 8
Odessa PGuyana 21 69Brown Brown 5
Blanka BHungary 19 67Brown Brown 8
TanushreIndia 20 67Black Brown 7
CathrionIreland 23 66Brown Hazel 6.5
Gal GadoIsrael 19 71Brown Brown 7
Laia Manetti 23 69Brown Blue 6.5
ChristinJamaica 24 70Brown Brown 7
Eri MachJapan 20 68Black Brown 6
Anita MaKenya 21 68Black Black 6.5
Yoon-YouKorea 20 68Brown Brown 7
Marie-JoLebanon 19 70Brown Brown 6
Andrea FMalaysia 19 71Black Black 7
Rosalva Mexico 21 71Brown Brown 7
Lindsay Netherla 21 69Brown Brown 7
MarifleyNicaragu 22 67Brown Brown 6.5
Anita UwNigeria 19 70Black Black 7
KathrineNorway 24 69Blonde Blue 8.5
Jessica Panama 22 71Brown Green 7.5
Yanina GParaguay 24 70Brown Brown 8.5
Liesel HPeru 24 71Black Brown 8
Maricar Philippi 21 68Black Brown 7
Paulina Poland 21 69Brown Brown 8
Alba ReyPuerto R 22 72Brown Brown 7.5
Ksiena KRussia 20 71Brown Green 8.5
Dragana Serbia & 19 72Brown Green 7
Sandy ChSingapor 19 70Brown Brown 7.5
Zuzana DSlovak R 19 68Red Green 7.5
Sabina RSlovenia 22 69Brown Brown 7
Joan RamSouth Af 25 67Black Brown 7
Maria GaSpain 21 71Brown Brown 8
LaFerne St. Vinc 20 70Black Black 7
Katrina Sweden 21 67Blonde Blue 9
Bianca SSwitzerl 25 69Brown Brown 7.5
Jane HsiTaiwan 26 70Black Brown 7
Morakot Thailand 20 67Black Brown 7.5
DaniellaTrinidad 26 69Brown Brown 7
Fatos SeTurkey 22 Brown Green 7.5
Shamara Turks & 19 Brown Brown 7
OleksandUkraine 22 70Brown Green 7.5
Nicole GUruguay 20 69Brown Brown 7.5
Shandi FUSA 25 71Blonde Blue 7.5
Ana DelgVenezuel 19 72Blonde Brown 7.5
Hoang NgVietnam 19 71Black Brown 6

Posted by razib at 12:44 PM

Seems like there is some “tacking” going on in this article which argues that abortions are eating away at the demographic base of liberals/Democrats[1]. Normally, this sort of tacking goes on by pointing out the high African American abortion rates, ergo, the loss of reliable Democrats. Here is some abortion data by timing, age, race and religion. Some of the data confuses me, after all, it is true that “Born Again Christians” have lower abortion rates, but I can imagine a situation where women are non-religious, have an abortion, and later have a “Born Again” experience. This sort of mutability of religious or political affiliation make me a bit skeptical of extrapolating on this issue, since one’s self-perception might be contingent on having had an abortion (that is, a women who is a conservative Born Again Christian Republican has a ideological & religious epiphany due to an unplanned pregnancy).

[1] The polling firm’s founder brags about a close relationship to the late Ronald Reagan, so the firm has partisan origins from what I can gather. Also, the foundation of their argument is based on asking about abortions in the social circles of Republicans and Democrats. I suspect Republicans might know less about abortions that their friends & family have had simply because there is more social stigma attached to having one in that context. Why not just survey whether one has had an abortion? I suspect there would likely be under-reporting in this circumstance from women who avow socially conservative views.

Posted by razib at 05:56 PM

For those who read my previous post on PTC taste/non-taste, and my ruminations on its implications for general gustatory preferences, I have read the full text (thanks to a gracious reader) of the recent paper which suggests that the PTC locus is being buffeted by “balancing selection” (you can download the paper here in PDF format). I think the authors have made a good case that internationally the PTC locus can be characterized as being under the influence of balancing selection, where heterozygotes have a some fitness advantage which results in the maintenance of high frequencies of both major alleles. I also agree with the authors that there is a strong likelihood that particular local populations might be more shaped by founder effects or positive selection for one of the alleles.

So why balancing selection? Basically, in balancing selection the frequencies of both alleles reach an equilibrium where the percentage of heterozygotes is maximized in a random mating population. The most powerful illustration of their argument is a graph which shows the “number of populations” as a function of the frequency of the “non-taster allele.” The graph is shaped like an inverted “V,” with a mode and mean in the region of the 50th percentile. As one shifts toward 0 or 100 percent, the number of populations displaying those frequencies drops.

One might note that some (many in fact) populations show frequencies shifted far from the central region of the graph. That might be suggestive of local positive selection for one of the alleles or random genetic drift. But note the most common trend is toward a cluster near the center of the graph. This is the pattern one would expect if one imagined that the frequencies have a tendency toward equilibriating where both are maintained within the population.

If you had positive selection for one of the alleles, it seems rather obvious that the frequencies would be heavily skewed in one direction (that is, most populations would show high frequencies of one of the alleles). On the other hand, what about a situation where there is no selection pressure. Well, in this circumstance, one would expect that the populations would cluster at either end of the graph, around 0 or 100 percent for the non-taster allele in this case.

In the event of random genetic drift being the exclusive driver of genetic change, the allele frequency moves in a “random walk” fashion up and down. If you had 100 populations where the allele frequency was initially at 50% (for simplicity), all these subpopulations would drift in a variety of directions as time progressed. But, if the frequency in a subpopulation hits 0 or 100 percent, you have reached “fixation,” and the subpopulation would no longer change in frequency (we are assuming no mutation). As time progressed, naturally more and more subpopulations would reach fixation, and the 0 and 100 percent cluster would keep increasing, until all intermediate frequency populations were eliminated.

In other words, in a situation where random genetic drift is dominant, the graph should have been somewhat “U” shaped. In a case where positive selection was dominant, there should have been a strong skew toward one end of the graph. Instead, what you see is a mixed strategy in evidence in most populations.

The authors point out there do seem to be exceptions. Native Americans for example. But, they have good answers to the questions (founder effect and so forth), and already concede that they offer one (likely the major) answer, not the only one. I attempted to use PUBMED to see what the rates of Asian Indians of PTC non-taste were. There are several hints that this population has high rates of non-taste, the higher frequency of this phenotype among the Gypsies (in comparison to Eastern Europeans) is for example used to diagnose an exoganous South Asian origin for them. But, I found several high caste, likely vegetarian, populations which had high frequencies of tasters (far higher than the 40% quoted in the Tepper paper I commented on last year). Since the South Asian populations are generally assumed to have a lot of substructure, random genetic drift might have shifted several populations far off the “optimal” frequency. But, the 40% number no doubt comes from a summation of all the various populations. I do note that the authors of the current paper had 10 Pakistanis in their sample for the South Asian portion. This warrants further investigation, and I might actually email the head author, since he probably knows a lot more about the evidence for positive selection than I, as he must have combed the literature.

Addendum: Also, please note that the clarification of three possible phenotypes, with a middling taster group between the non-tasters and super-tasters, should be cautionary about the oversimplifications that go into making population models. And one must remember that even the authors of the above paper note that there are other alleles that exist at extremely low, but non-neglible, frequencies.

Posted by razib at 03:54 PM

Following up on the themes of dance & sexual selection, here is a snippet from Michael Bailey’s book:

Michael agreed, and he embarked on a most ambitious study. Before it was over, he had interviewed 136 professional dancers from around the country, including several well-known choreographers: 48 gay men, 42 heterosexual men, 45 heterosexual women, and 1 lesbian.

One of my college roommates had an ex-girlfriend who was a dance major at Brigham Young University, mecca of Mormon youth, and she one day confided to him that almost all the male dance majors were closeted homosexuals. This is pretty weird. When I danced in clubs in college [1], sometimes I would worry that I was dancing “too gay” (I was dancing to meet chicks to date them, not become their girlfriend). I don’t know, I dated and stuff, so my dancing couldn’t have been that gay, and it is reassuring that most believe they can distinguish straight and gay dancing so that one isn’t displaying in vain.

Dance has a long history, and obviously a non-homosexual one by & large. But the opening of a niche for homosexual males in public life seems to have tinted it more toward becoming a signal for a subculture.

[1] Another phenomenon was the process by which:

Gay dance club attracts straight women.
Which attracts straight men.
Which drives the gays out.
Which means fewer straight women show up to dance.
Which means fewer straight men show up to dance.
Club closes and re-opens with a new name and personality.

Posted by razib at 11:50 PM

So, Britney Spears is engaged to her dancer? A few years back, J-Lo married choreographer/dancer Chris Judd. Christina Aguilera’s first relationship was also supposedly with her back-up dancer. Perhaps Geoffrey Miller is right, and “dancing” is a fitness indicator that has been sexually selected? I have no idea, but readers might find David B’s entry on “The Handicap Principle” interesting (note that Britney’s love interest already has a child from a previous relationship, wonder if he danced his way into her pants too).

Addendum: Following up on the themes of dance & sexual selection, here is a snippet from Michael Bailey’s book:

Michael agreed, and he embarked on a most ambitious study. Before it was over, he had interviewed 136 professional dancers from around the country, including several well-known choreographers: 48 gay men, 42 heterosexual men, 45 heterosexual women, and 1 lesbian.

One of my college roommates had an ex-girlfriend who was a dance major at Brigham Young University, mecca of Mormon youth, and she one day confided to him that almost all the male dance majors were closeted homosexuals. This is pretty weird. When I danced in clubs in college [1], sometimes I would worry that I was dancing “too gay” (I was dancing to meet chicks to date them, not become their girlfriend). I don’t know, I dated and stuff, so my dancing couldn’t have been that gay, and it is reassuring that most believe they can distinguish straight and gay dancing so that one isn’t displaying in vain.

Dance has a long history, and obviously a non-homosexual one by & large. But the opening of a niche for homosexual males in public life seems to have tinted it more toward becoming a signal for a subculture.

[1] Another phenomenon was the process by which:

Gay dance club attracts straight women.
Which attracts straight men.
Which drives the gays out.
Which means fewer straight women show up to dance.
Which means fewer straight men show up to dance.
Club closes and re-opens with a new name and personality.

Posted by razib at 06:47 PM

We can all talk. Most people can enjoy fiction. We can vaguely make out a verbal argument. On the other hand, as Barbie once noted, “math is hard.”

In any case, I finished The Mating Mind, and I found the last chapters very interesting. That’s probably because they are the most focused on specific elements of substance. I was intrigued by Miller’s hypothesis that language serves primarily to aid men woo women[1]. This explains, in his opinion, why women tend to perform at a higher level on verbal comprehension tests (they have to judge), while men tend to be better at creation of verbally oriented products (that is, as writers, speakers, etc.). He thinks adaptationist theories of language that focus on the communication & processing of information about the world “out there” are going at it the wrong way, and he is not alone in this idea, as Robin Dunbar’s “theory of gossip” is similar in deemphasizing the transmission of utilitarian facts and ideas. Miller even ends by suggesting that g might be a general fitness indicator (yes, that g) [2].

But a question, if you are asked to bet a substanial sum (say $10,000 American dollars) on which set out of two groups of males will have more children at age 65 from the following selections, which horse you back?

Males who scored a 500 (~50th percentile of test takers) on the verbal section of their S.A.T. and a 750 (~98th percentile of test takers) on the mathematical section.
Males who scored a 520 (~50th percentile of test takers) on the mathematical section of their S.A.T. and a 750 (~98th percentile of test takers) on the verbal section.

Or restated, extremely successful lawyers, or extremely successful engineers? While shows about the lives of lawyers are a dime a dozen, can anyone recall one that focused on the life of an engineering firm? Of course, I guess the C.S.I shows indicate that science can be sexy, but the criminal element seems crucial. Legal shows also tend to focus on “sexy” topics of course, but by their nature, lawyers can argue about the issues in a way that clarifies plot lines and develops depth-of-character (or lack of).

[1] He notes that men start talking about intellectual topics and use rarer words when women come into a room.

[2] From page 410 of Miller’s book: ‘So, what is this “general intelligence”? I have mentioned intelligence repeatedly throughout this book as an important criterion of mate choice, but I have not discussed it explicitly in much detail. There are two reasons for this. First, intelligence research remains controversial. A few vocal critics who do not understand modern intelligence research have had an undue influence on public opinion. Despite the fact that more is known about the nature, importance, and genetics of intelligence than about almost anything else in psychology, I do not not want to get side-tracked into such debates. Perhaps my ideas are already controversial enough….’

Posted by razib at 07:27 PM

Long-time readers of the blog might know I have an interest in the genetics of taste. Here is an old post where I explore the question of whether variance in PTC-taster/non-taster frequency cross-culturally (that is, by population) might have a relationship to preference for spicy foods. The authors in the 1998 paper which I reference above note that:

The incidence of taste blindness to PTC/PROP varies around the world, from 3% in western Africa to >40% in India.
Capsaicin, the compound responsible for the oral burn of chili pepper, is more intensely hot to PROP tasters than to nontasters.

I tried to connect the fact that South Asians have the highest frequency of non-tasters regionally with the observation that they also traditionally consume spicy dishes. This was prompted by an article which correlated latitude/climate with how spicy local dishes were. The authors noted that there is often a strong antibacterial effect that comes with the inclusion of spices, and this might have strong fitness consequences in tropical climates, and less at higher latitudes where the pathogenic environment is less stringent. I really didn’t get far, and gave up on this line of thought after Abiola noted that some West African cuisine was extremely spicy, the population with the lowest percentage of non-tasters.

But, I did not highlight that there were other correlations between various tastes and PTC/PROP status. From the paper cited above:

PROP and PTC are chemically related to compounds that are present in vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, Brussel sprouts, turnips, and kale. In large quantities these compounds interfere with iodine metabolism and result in goiter. It has been noted that incidence of thyroid-deficiency disease is relatively rare among PTC tasters.
Taster children disliked raw broccoli, whereas nontaster children liked raw broccoli.
Tasters show greater sensitivity to a wide range of tastes, including bitter tastes, sweet tastes, oral irritants such as chili pepper, and the textural sensations of fats.
Solutions of caffeine, quinine, and isohumulones (the bittering agents in beer) are more bitter to tasters.
Tasters can distinguish fat levels in dressings far better than non-tasters.

So the key points from the above article(s):
1) Non-taster and taster individuals exist in all populations.
2) The frequency of the two groups seems to vary by population, sometimes to a rather large extent.
3) Non-taster and taster status have clear implications for one’s perception of the taste of a wide range of foods.
4) Certain consumption patterns have clear relative fitness implications.

It was suggested in the paper above that PTC-PROP status is determined by a few genes, perhaps one primary locus and a secondary locus, and there could be more than two alleles at each locus. If the data on West Africa is correct, it seems that the alleles for non-taste exist at a rather low frequency, while in India, the alleles for non-taste exist at rather higher frequencies. I could offer a guess that perhaps India’s history of elite vegetarianism meant that individuals who had fewer aversions to various vegetables had an advantage as far as nutrition went (in this case, there should be a positive correlation between the frequency of non-tasters and groups which have traditionally practiced vegetarianism, Jains, high caste Hindus and South Indians). Taking into account the issues with iodine deficiency and aversion to vegetables that might exacerbate this problem, there might also be a reason that people in certain regions are tasters.

In any case, this current post was prompted by this entry over at Science Blog on this paper that suggests that:

Balancing selection keeps both alleles in human populations, that is, the authors suggest that heterozygotes “are able to taste a broader range of toxic, bitter compounds, and have an evolutionary advantage”.
There is no great variation in the frequencies across populations.

Of course, they are examining the “PTC gene” that was found recently. The previous authors had less information to go on, and hypothesized multiple genes. I’ll have to do some digging on this, but even the summary over at Science Blog (much more readable than the abstract!) notes that there are 24 genes that effect the taste of bitter. The fact that the authors found no great regional variations in the PTC gene, but previous authors have noted variations in the phenotype, suggests to me there must be other genes at work here even in the specific case of PTC taste. I don’t have access to the full paper, so if readers who do can clue me/us in to details I might have missed, that would be appreciated.

[1] This test is often given in high school biology courses using a piece of paper that has been covered with the chemical in question. Students are asked to put the paper on one’s tongue, and tasters immediately react with disgust, while non-tasters tend to be oblivious.

Posted by razib at 10:54 PM

I have recently been trying to catch up with the literature on ‘cultural evolution’, and I hope to do a general survey of the subject – eventually.

Meanwhile, I noticed that one point came up repeatedly. Whenever writers on the subject want to show cultural traits spreading as a result of competition between groups, one of the key examples (if not the only example), is the spread of the Nuer people of the Sudan in the 19th century.

The odd thing about this is that not much is known about the Nuer in the 19th century. Evans-Pritchard’s classic book on the Nuer begins by listing the Victorian explorers’ accounts, but says ‘I have not been able to make much use of their writings, however, for their contact with the Nuer was slight and the impressions they recorded were superficial, and sometimes spurious’.

The prospects for a reliable account of the 19th century Nuer are poor. So why are so many writers on cultural evolution so keen on them?

The fashion seems to have started with Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s 1998 book Unto Others. Sober and Wilson prominently featured a book by Raymond C. Kelly on The Nuer Conquest (1985). Kelly argues that the spread of the Nuer at the expense of neighbouring tribes (especially the Dinka) can be explained by the larger size of their raiding parties. This in turn depends on the Nuer tribal organisation, which depends on their lineage system, which ultimately is determined by their brideprice requirements, which are more demanding than those of other Nilotic peoples. As a result of their greater military effectiveness, the Nuer extended their territory throughout the 19th century, and absorbed several Dinka tribes who adopted Nuer customs. We therefore seem to have a good example of a cultural trait (Nuer brideprice) leading indirectly to its own competitive success.

No wonder this is attractive to advocates of ‘cultural evolution by group selection’, but is it true?

To find out, I went back to the source: Kelly’s book.

First, I have no major criticism of Kelly. His book is scholarly and well-argued (up to a point), and his thesis may even be true. He is not responsible for the use made of it by others.

What is reprehensible is the way that other writers, beginning with Sober and Wilson, have presented a highly speculative hypothesis as if it were a proven fact. My main objections are:

a. As already mentioned, little is known about the 19th century Nuer. We have less first-hand reporting on them than we do on Merovingian France or early Anglo-Saxon England.

b. Kelly’s argument involves a long chain of inferences. Like all such arguments, unless each step of inference is firm, the final conclusion is only weakly supported.

c. The argument also depends on the exclusion of rival hypotheses, and the rigour with which this is done. Kelly does deal with some previous hypotheses, such as ‘population pressure’, but it is not clear that he has considered all the alternatives. I subsequently discovered that there are other rival theories which he does not discuss.

d. In such a technical field much weight must be given to the verdict of experts. I have found two reviews of Kelly’s book. One, in American Anthropologist, is short and enthusiastic, but not by a Nuer specialist; the other, in Africa, by a French Nuer expert, is longer and more sceptical. (I could not find a review in Man, the journal of the (British) Royal Anthropological Institute.) There is also a long book by Sharon Hutchinson, Nuer Dilemmas, which merely mentions Kelly’s book among a dozen or so hypotheses on the reasons for Nuer expansion. Wendy James, another Nuer expert, in her introduction to the 1990 reissue of Evans-Pritchard’s Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer, surveys recent work on the Nuer but does not even mention Kelly. It seems fair to conclude that Nuer experts have not unanimously accepted Kelly’s thesis.

e. Finally, Kelly does not explain the underlying difference in brideprice practices itself, and it seems logically possible that he has put the cart before the horse: that the Nuer have heavier brideprice requirements because they are militarily strong (and therefore find it easy to raid cattle from neighbouring tribes), and not vice versa. The limited available evidence may not be sufficient to resolve the issue of causal priority.

But my concern is not to argue whether Kelly’s thesis is right or wrong, but to point out that it should not be presented as an unquestioned fact.

Posted by David B at 03:22 AM

The (UK) Office for National Statistics this week published data on immigration to the UK in 2001. (Go here and follow the links from the top news item.) Currently just over 1 in 12 (8.3%) of UK residents were born elsewhere. (This presumably doesn’t include those smuggled in, who are kinda difficult to count.)

Contrary to some impressions, more than half of these immigrants are ‘white’. But white immigrants (from Europe, North America, or Australasia), tend not to stay in the UK permanently – see the interesting article in Population Trends.

BTW, is it just my fancy, or has the ONS website improved hugely over the last year?

Posted by David B at 04:26 AM

Just to say I have been unavoidably offline for the past week, as my computer broke down. Since it was about 8 years old, not too surprising. I now have a new one, which takes up about half the space, is at least 20 times as powerful, and cost half as much, even without adjusting for inflation. So the world may be going to the dogs, but I must admit some things are getting better.

Thanks for all the many comments on my post ‘We need a word’. I quite like the suggestion of ‘patrophobia’, but may the fittest word survive!

Posted by David B at 04:24 AM