The Peacock's Tail And The Professor's Shoe
This shoe was on the foot of an evolutionary psych prof friend of mine at this past week's Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference, and like the peacock's tail, it's a "costly signal."
Male peacocks show their quality as mates by the size of their tail. The bigger the tail, the harder for the peacock to get around and the more vulnerable to predators, so only the most alpha peacocks can manage to survive with a huge tail.
Alpha gazelles are similar. When the gazelles spot a hyena, the natural predator of the gazelles, across the plain, the weak gazelles book. The strong ones not only stay in place, they bounce up and down really, really high in the air ("stotting," it's called).
It's like they're saying, "Ya know, Hyena Boy, you are so not going to catch my ass that I'm going to hang around and have a cigarette and an espresso, and after I'm done, I might consider taking off." Interestingly, the hyenas tend to ignore the stotters and chase after the gazelles that booked right away.
This theory, in which waste or hardship advertises the quality of an organism, is called "the handicap principle," and it was originated by Israeli ornithologist Amotz Zahavi who, with his wife Avishag, co-authored the book by the same name that I have and recommend.
And now, because I'm totally wiped after this conference, on deadline, and need to go to bed, I'll copy a more comprehensive definition of the handicap principle out of Wikipedia:
The handicap principle is a hypothesis originally proposed in 1975 by biologist Amotz Zahavi[1][2][3] to explain how evolution may lead to "honest" or reliable signaling between animals who have an obvious motivation to bluff or deceive each other. The handicap principle suggests that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler, costing the signaler something that an individual with less of that trait could not afford. For example, in the case of sexual selection, the theory suggests that animals of greater biological fitness signal this status through handicapping behaviour or morphology that effectively lowers this quality. The central idea is that sexually selected traits function like conspicuous consumption, signalling the ability to afford to squander a resource simply by squandering it. Receivers know that the signal indicates quality because inferior quality signallers cannot afford to produce such wastefully extravagant signals.
Back to our ev. psych prof with the very funky shoes, only because she's secure in her position and her reputation as a researcher can she dress so wildly. In fact, dressing wildly -- not bowing to the usual professorial wardrobe trends (bleak, bleak, and bleaker) -- suggests that she's a researcher of exceptionally high quality.
On the other hand, there was a student at the conference -- probably an undergrad, but maybe a grad student -- in a short fluffy skirt and fishnets. I commented to shoe prof that the grad student would be wise to wait to, well, become somebody before dressing as did. At her level, wearing what she wore was not a costly signal, merely costly. Shoe prof, who's a very, very nice person, and ever-practical, merely noted how bad your legs look when you take off fishnets.
I can't comment on shoes much. I'm a guy and for the most part a shoe is a shoe to me.
On the other hand a short fluffy skirt and fishnets may send the wrong message to both males and females.
Sometimes excessive display is to cover up some type of insecurity.
You know, it's the same thing they say about a guy driving a sports car they might be trying to cover up something.
David M. at June 1, 2009 4:43 AM
In your opinion, does the handicap principle explain religion?
Example pickup line: "Despite possessing beliefs that you consider to be a handicap, I not only survive, but prosper!"
Pseudonym at June 1, 2009 5:13 AM
Actually, atheism, especially in some places and businesses in the USA, would be the costly signal. Very, very costly, since Americans will vote for all sorts of people for president before they'd vote for one of us godless types.
Amy Alkon at June 1, 2009 6:57 AM
[D]oes the handicap principle explain religion?
Only if you wear outrageous platform shoes to church, I would imagine. The preacher might think your sole neads saving...
...Sorry...
old rpm daddy at June 1, 2009 7:10 AM
it's the same thing they say about a guy driving a sports car
I don't know whether anyone's tested this, but different sports cars probably say different things to women. I think women think "rich and high status" for a guy with a Jag in an understated color. I would guess that a red Corvette sends another message.
Amy Alkon at June 1, 2009 7:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/06/01/the_peacocks_ta.html#comment-1651464">comment from old rpm daddyThe preacher might think your sole neads saving
10 demerits!
Amy Alkon
at June 1, 2009 7:26 AM
Dear Advice Goddess:
I would like to ask a question out there for something that has bugged me for 20 some years. My brother-in-law is one of those foot fetish guys. The way most guys like butts or boobs, he likes feet. He talks about them just as guys talk about the usual sexy parts of a woman.
Here's the problem: He sends out emails to women he knows (including his sister, my wife) telling them of certain shoes for sale here and there. He includes the photos of the shoe, and why this or that one accents the calf, reveals the toes, etc. It gives me a major case of the "ewwww" factor, but my wife thinks it's harmless.
I'm not a jealous guy at all, but this creeps me out. Any reactions?
Eric at June 1, 2009 8:28 AM
The amusing thing about this shoe being called a "costly signal" is that less than ten years ago it would have been sitting in the back of a thrift store, available to anyone with fifty cents!
But now platforms are chic once more.
Everything old is new again...
Lynne at June 1, 2009 8:30 AM
Those shoes evoke images of ice packs, air casts, ACE bandages, crutches, weeks of physical therapy...yup, costly.
Juliana at June 1, 2009 8:30 AM
I don't know whether anyone's tested this - Amy
A few days ago there was a special called the science of sex appeal, I only caught the first few seconds of the second half, but they were testing womens reactions and arousal to the 'faces' of cars
I got it on my DVR I just havent had the chance to watch ot yet
lujlp at June 1, 2009 8:36 AM
"It gives me a major case of the "ewwww" factor, but my wife thinks it's harmless."
I think I can understand where your coming from here, but let me tell you why I agree with your wife.
A lover of mine has a major foot fetish. He would rub my feet all day long if it were possible. He always notices a new pedicure and a new pair of shoes. It makes me feel super sexy when he talks about my feet now. I totally love that he even notices.
Your bro-in-law is prolly trying to save the world with his passion for beautiful feet! Let him keep trying!
kg at June 1, 2009 9:28 AM
kg- my brother-in-law is my wife's brother. That's the "rub".
Eric at June 1, 2009 9:43 AM
Okay, between that and the "sole neads saving" line, I think we've hit the quota for bad puns in this thread.
Jdbar at June 1, 2009 10:20 AM
"In fact, dressing wildly -- not bowing to the usual professorial wardrobe trends (bleak, bleak, and bleaker) -- suggests that she's a researcher of exceptionally high quality"
I disagree. I work with some "wildly" dressed people and a good portion of them are not workers of exceptional quality. I think it's just a matter of taste and the fact that the old rules on dress code are now passé.
karen at June 1, 2009 11:17 AM
Those shoes rock. But I'm still waiting to hear about Amy's slut toes. I did a quick google search, but results were as I expected, foot fetish stuff.
Wild guess, is it when second toe is longer than the big toe?
sterling at June 1, 2009 1:57 PM
Human females' outrageous, permanently protuberant breasts are unique among all mammal species -- talk about your "costly signals"!
Jay R at June 1, 2009 4:10 PM
Yeah, especially if a woman wants them to protrude more than they already do.
brian at June 1, 2009 4:55 PM
I just have never cared for wedges, espadrilles or similar "heels". They remind me of hooker platforms. They may make the leg look nice, but they are "safe" shoes. No real effort needed to wear them. Essentially I think of them as fairly conservative and clunky.
I'd rather see a "sandal" with a 1-2 inch heel.
Anonymous Coward at June 1, 2009 8:04 PM
The story of the fishnets reminds me of an academic conference I attended many years ago. One presenter was a female grad-student wearing jeans and a sexy blouse that left her tummy bare. It was summer, and the attire was absolutely appropriate to the weather - but not to giving a talk.
The women listened to her talk. The men admired her waist and belly button - despite our best efforts, it was very difficult to concentrate on what she was saying. Even today, I can tell you she was wearing a white blouse, but I haven't the foggiest idea what her talk was about.
Wearing fishnets to a conference is just as inappropriate. It will detract from people's ability to take her seriously - the men, at least, will notice her legs, not her brain.
bradley13 at June 2, 2009 12:06 AM
I would guess that a red Corvette sends another message.
To me the message is that he is compensating for something that he is lacking.
I wonder if this is why women wear high heels in general. It is a very costly signal, what with the risk of injury and the almost certainty of additional degeneration of the legs, not to mention a reduced ability to flee in case of attack. Healthy women don't much contemplate these things and therefore show their health and youth in their feet?
Just an idea,
Julie
Julie at June 2, 2009 1:57 PM
I think women think "rich and high status" for a guy with a Jag in an understated color.
I think "The Equalizer".
Paul Hrissikopoulos at June 3, 2009 9:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/06/01/the_peacocks_ta.html#comment-1651864">comment from Paul HrissikopoulosYou've been missed, Hriss!
Amy Alkon
at June 3, 2009 10:38 PM
Good to be missed. Better to be back!
Paul Hrissikopoulos at June 5, 2009 11:12 AM
well friday i finally got an black iphone 4 yeah you can call me whatever i was holding on got tire d of waiting and whos knows white will come out in march 2011 they can keep backing it up so noo i would buy it i would wait for iphone 5Apple seems to have a habit of taking away features with upgrades, and now numerous USB audio devices have quit working as well. I fear this was intentional, and doubt they will restore USB device support, which pi$$es me off to no end.Oh, and the new "Torx" screws are five-point, not six. You won"t find them at your local store or anywhere else yet. Apparently, the new units are coming with them, and if you take an older phone in for service that"s what you get back.
Clayton Feikles at March 17, 2011 5:28 AM
Leave a comment