Talk:Koinophilia

Moving towards Good Article status
This article has been under development now for 8 years. It is not far from being a Good Article but both the lead and the body read as somewhat essay-like arguments rather than simple encyclopedic descriptions.

The argument for koinophilia - that extremes are selected against because the average is safer - can be stated in one sentence.

It is therefore something of a surprise to find that the argument is stated and restated, in something of the style of a Gould essay on a curiosity of evolutionary theory, complete with asides, exceptions, anecdotes and colourful examples. All that's missing is the crisply witty ending. A lot of this comes from the original IP editor's casting of the article back in 2007.

It is always an awkward question when an article has evolved in this way whether to try to copy-edit one's way to clarity, or to start again from the cited sources. The latter looks like a lot of work but is clean and straightforward, and usually doesn't take more than a few days. I've had a quick go at cleanup but am not specially satisfied with the results. Perhaps WP:TNT and reuse of the sources would indeed be best. It would be good to see this interesting evolutionary topic at GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the stuff here should move to a new home "koinophilia" has not caught on as the name for averageness. User:Jkoeslag redirects to User:Oggmus This source is what we need to build an article . I think wikipedia is being used to publish WP:original research. J8079s (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @J8079s: Maybe, but the article is cited, and has been edited by numerous hands: Jkoeslag and Oggmus have between them made 33.5% of the edits, and have added 40.8% of the content. There is clearly room for WP:CoI here but the article seems reasonably even-handed on the science, and it is absolutely in order for a Wikipedia article on a topic to describe its theory and the evidence for and against it, provided that is cited. J8079s (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there is a problem if an article overly relies on work by a one specific author and is also written by that same author - independent of whether it has been frequently copy-edited by other Wikipedia editors. The risk exists that the article will be identified as a neologism - for instance, Koeslag and co-authors use koinophilia in several article titles, but Langlois et al. in none - nor do any of the other references. A pubmed search in fact does suggest that no other authors use this word. Samsara 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The title is not specially important; what title would you suggest for the topic? Sexual selection of course exists, but this is a narrower topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a page for Averageness that could use some work and one for Neoteny. These subjects are hotly debated in peer review journals but they are TLDR There is so much work to do that I would be afraid to start. I think your idea WP:TNT is the way to go 'be bold J8079s (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's currently some WP:Citation overkill in the article; WP:Citation overkill is not always bad, but there is a big case of it in this version of the Introduction section; see that first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I think that the Introduction section would be better titled something else, since the WP:Lead is supposed to be the introduction. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅Oggmus (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth searching for "koinophilia" on Google put the usage of the term into perspective. It has even been a question on Stephen Fry's BBC programme "QI". (BTW. reference 1 has been cited 30 times). Oggmus (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Google hits wouldn't surprise me as Wikipedia unfortunately creates further ripples in the pond. It distorts reality, and that's hard to filter out. I would be happier if we could substantiate that this is a widely used term based on the peer reviewed literature. Samsara 07:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "koinophilia" gained considerable popularity amongst the general public during the early 1990's, sparking, for instance, this poem by Richard Fein on the internet entitled "Koinophilia" speculating on whether Helen of Troy's face really launched 1000 ships or whether her face was simply a composite of 1000 women's faces giving her her legendary beauty. There was a program entitled "Koinophilia" on the Discovery TV channel with Nancy Etcoff (from Harvard University) as guest celebrity. (Both Langlois and Koeslag were invited to contribute to the program, but circumstances prevented either attending the interviews.) The term was also used in one of the episodes of the TV show "The Office". And I have already mentioned Stephen Fry’s QI program. The person who wrote the poem entitled “Koinophilia” (referred to above) had this to say about how he came across the term: "I read about koinophilia in a popular psychology magazine in the U.S. called Psychology Today. But that was years ago and I no longer have the issue or recall the issue#. There are googles of sites referring to the term. There is resistance to the theory of koinophilia because of “political correctness.” But that doesn’t invalidate the term itself. There are religious fanatics who oppose evolution, but not even the most fanatical would deny that the term evolution exists....." I have no idea what is “politically incorrect” about the term “koinophilia” – and, although Judith Langlois assiduously avoids the term, it is nevertheless her work, right from the beginning, that is most commonly associated with the notion of “koinophilia”. Oggmus (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As was previously noted, an account called Jkoeslag made an edit to their page to redirect to the Oggmus account. You are now referring to Koeslag in the third person. Is the Oggmus account operated by Koeslag or by several people? Samsara 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Oggmus is Koeslag. I used the third person as the use of the first person would have been confusing when the paragraph is signed "Oggmus". Oggmus (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I trust without detailed review that the sources (Discovery, Office, QI) you've listed all check out. That would give the term borderline notability for its use in popular culture, but give only weak indication to its academic merits. I don't think this question can ultimately be addressed other than through peer-reviewed academic papers. Samsara 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Publications that use the term "koinophilia":


 * Unnikrishnan M.K. (2009) How is the individuality of a face recognized? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 261 (3), 469–474. doi:10.1016/ j.jtbi.2009.08.011


 * Unnikrishnan M.K. (2012) Koinophilia revisited: the evolutionary link between mate selection and face recognition. Current Science, 102 (4) :563-570.


 * Miller W.B. (2013) The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. (Chapter: What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?) pp. 395-396. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. ISBN 10:1-61233-2773.


 * Naini F.B. (2011) Facial aesthetics. Concepts and clinical diagnosis. (Chapter: The enigma of facial beauty). Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN: 978-1-4051-8192-1.


 * Ruby C.D. (2011) Koinophilia. International Book Marketing Service Ltd. ISBN 13: 9786139947881.
 * ***** NO ***** --- this book "primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources "


 * Otto S.P. (1991) On evolution under sexual and viability selection: a two locus diploid model. Evolution 45(6) 1443-1457. (not 100% certain of this one, as I have been unable to inspect the whole article)

Selection of important articles that cite the Koeslag 1990 paper


 * Alam M., Dover J.S. (2001) On Beauty: Evolution, Psychosocial Considerations, and Surgical Enhancement. Journal of the American Medical Association: Dermatology 137(6):795-807. doi:10-1001


 * Apicella C., Little A.C., Marlow F.W. (2006) Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception 36(12) 1813 – 1820


 * Rhodes G. (2006) The Evolutionary Psychology of facial Beauty. Annual Reviews of Psychology 57:199-226.


 * Leopold D.A., Rhodes, G. (2010) A Comparative View of Face Perception. Journal of Comparative Psychology 124(3): 233–251. Oggmus (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * These certainly show that the term is at least in some kind of use (and they need citing in the article if not already). ✅Oggmus (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't as examples disprove the claim by J8079s that most mentions of the concept use some other term - that's quite a tricky thing to disprove as you'd need a review paper or two, or perhaps an authoritative textbook, which summed up the field as a whole. (Ruby 2011 is not a valid source, it's cribbed from here.) I think, though, the other sources are enough to raise sufficient doubt that K is a junior synonym of Averageness to stop any immediate merge pending further investigation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My search at google books and jstor indicate that "koinophilia" means the same as Averageness. This page seems to be aboutSexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744016 Page Count: 26 as extended by Koeslage. I am going to boldly re direct this page. Futher work should take place there. J8079s (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirecting effectively deletes this article. As this long standing article appears to have a great deal of information not present on other pages, I am re-instating it and suggest further discussion and agreement be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.125.98 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's correct. If we are going to merge the two articles, then we need to satisfy ourselves that the merged article contains all that is worth having from both articles, and that the two terms really are "the same". I suspect that on the contrary K. means "averageness in visual appearance" which is certainly not the whole topic and may well be a worthwhile subtopic, I don't know, but it needs investigating before we boldly go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect will save the history as opposed to a deletion which will remove it. This appears to be a just rewrite of of the editor's published (or unpublished) work.J8079s (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither seem at all appropriate at this time, given the above citations; if the topic proves to be indistinguishably close to Averageness (which we have definitely not established) then a merge would be in order, given that there is material here not found there; if the topic is different, then the article should remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

From the article The term koinophilia derives from the Greek, koinos, "the usual", and philos, "fondness". As a mating strategy it was identified in humans by Judith Langlois and her coworkers,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] who found that the average of two human faces[17] was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became.[18]

Please re reread the article and substitute the word "averageness" for "koinophilia" also note that none of the sources in the above quote use "koinophilia". J8079s (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

tag
Not really the tag I wanted but it will do. The word koinophilia (coined by the creator/major contributor of the article) by means the same as Averageness. This page should re direct to Averageness there is strong support for this in the talk page archive. Nothing I can find uses the word to mean anything but averageness. That Koeslag extends the theory is reportable at the target page if a source can be found.Wikipedia is not here to host or review WP:OR J8079s (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I've now done a little reading around the subject, which definitely doesn't make me an expert. It seems that Koinophilia is a term introduced by Koeslag and used occasionally by other authors, so its use here is not a priori WP:OR as there are correctly cited and reliable sources. The CoI tag is valid but is a "caution and warning" notice, not a roadblock as such. The difference between Averageness and Koinophilia seems very slight if it exists at all, and I'd personally not object to a merge-and-redirect if other editors would like that (this means a fresh discussion, here, with notices at the top of both source and target articles, see WP:MERGE). The coverage in this article is more substantial than in Averageness so a merge of the cited materials seems necessary, rather than a simple redirect. The name "Koinophilia" would appear in boldface in the Averageness article as a valid synonym and redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge
I am slightly at a loss here, regarding the heated arguments concerning merger with "Averageness". Firstly it is one of the strengths of Wikipedia (but can on occasions be a bit frustrating) that one can look up almost any topic under the name that raised your curiosity or interest in the subject in the first place. As a result a great many topics are spread over multiple articles. To give one example, "beauty" is duplicated and complemented by the following articles (in no particular order):
 * Beauty
 * Attractiveness
 * Physical attractiveness
 * Sexual attraction
 * Averageness
 * Fluctuating asymmetry
 * Facial symmetry
 * Femininity
 * Female body shape
 * Cuteness
 * Secondary sex characteristics
 * Human physical appearance
 * Human shape

The amount of overlap varies considerably, in some it is considerable, others less so, but the repetition of ideas is remarkable. A fair number could easily be merged without any loss of Wikipedia informativeness. But each article adds its own flavor, richness and perspective to the topic. In Encyclopaedia Britannica this does not occur, which, for me, makes it an entirely useless, boring and a frustrating source of hemi-demi-information.

The other observation on this topic is that "Koinophilia" has, on average, twice the number of hits than "Averageness" has. As was pointed out on the Talk Page some years ago when the subject was first flighted (and then dropped) is that "Averageness" is an ambiguous, and unexciting term, and more likely to be associated with mathematics and statistics, and complex formulas, than with biology or physical attraction. "Koinophilia" is the term used for "Averageness" by the general public, and in popular culture. Thus no TV program or popular science discussion would entitle an episode "Averageness", as it sounds, at the very least, uninteresting, and probably mathematically boring. Viewership would fall drastically. It is impossible even to imagine Stephen Fry asking his QI panel what "Averageness" means. It would have left the panel and audience baffled by its inaneness. Instead "Koinophilia" got a lively and humorous response, and a spike in hits on the Koinophilia article in Wikipedia last year. So I do not think that redirecting to, or merging the articles under the title of "Averageness" improves, or is in the best interests of Wikipedia's usefulness to an inquiring mind. User:Chiswick Chap after considerable editing of the article to render it more encyclopedic, initiated the GAN process, long before I had any notion as to what "GAN" meant or implied. But it was his idea, and certainly not mine. So here is an independent reader/editor who concludes, from simply judging the article on its inherent merits, that it would "sail through" (or words to that effect) the GAN process. (Chiswick Chap, I hope I am not misquoting or misrepresenting your comments.) Oggmus (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I noted the heat with regret, and can say that I liked the article when I read it, or I wouldn't have spent time copy-editing it. However, I am persuaded that it substantially overlaps with Averageness and think it should be merged; that will mean moving some edited text and citations to the other article, which I hope we can then get to GA status. I have therefore started a formal merger discussion on that article's talk page (we always do such discussions at the proposed destination). I'm in fact halfway through setting that up, so bear with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. We don't judge things on whether they make good memes or good marketing. Also, the mere fact that some articles haven't been merged yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Samsara 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I quote: "I don't think this question can ultimately be addressed other than through peer-reviewed academic papers. Samsara 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." The following references might therefore be worth reading:


 * Miller, W.B. (2013). "What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?". In: The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. Boca Raton, Florida.: Universal Publishers. pp. 177, 395–396. ISBN 1-61233-2773.


 * Unnikrishnan, M.K. (2009). "How is the individuality of a face recognized?". Journal of Theoretical Biology 261 (3): 469–474. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.011. Oggmus (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

- COULD EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE - MERGER DISCUSSION IS AT AVERAGENESS NOT HERE --- THANK YOU Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC) -

Proposal to move the Koinophilia#Averageness and physical attractiveness section to the Averageness page
The Physical Attractiveness section of this article seems out of place on a page concerning Evolutionary biology theory. Though the research described in this section lends an ounce of support for the theory in question, the bulk of it belongs elsewhere. To my eye, this section being so large and high up on the page means it is confusing to the reader trying to understand the proposal and intention of the evolutionary idea.

Therefore I recommend this should be moved, and suggest the Averageness page as a destination as there are points made in this section which are not made in the Averageness page and the Averageness page is referenced as this sections main article.

(Aside: It's possible that the merger conversation has come about because of the confusion this section causes. I intend to comment on discussion of the merger of the Koinophilia and Averageness pages on the Averageness Talk page very shortly) Ambercritter (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of removing the "Physical attractiveness" section completely (heading and all) to the Averageness page, or leaving behind a very attenuated discussion of what had been there before? Oggmus (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it makes the most sense to delete the section entirely. The paragraph in the introduction starting with 'As a mating strategy it was identified in humans by Judith Langlois' is sufficient mention of the research.  All that I suggest to add to that paragraph is a link through to the Averageness page.


 * Also, I've just noticed that the paragraph in the introduction starting 'Koinophilia provides simple explanations for' includes the items 'what constitutes a beautiful face' and 'how the individuality of a face is recognized' which are not in the same sphere as the evolutionary items in the rest of the sentence or paragraph so I would delete those as well (or incorporate them the following paragraph perhaps). Ambercritter (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, move and merge. For this article, the content seems too broad. Samsara 10:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability established
Now the bad news This source reviews the theory and shoots it full of holes. How ever no one observing a dog in heat or even aware of the enormous variability of human sexual response would find this very convincing. Moreover, this mechanism suffers from the absence of any practical means of actually achieving sexual isolation apart from theory. The article can stay but the holes must be reported. There are plenty. See I work very slowly so Be BoldJ8079s (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To put in a more Wiki way we will need to give the critics proper weight per WP:NPOV J8079s (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article's notability and separate identity have been agreed, so as you say, the correct course now is to note, neutrally and without prejudice, the arguments for and against the concept, with the evidence that supports them. Any claim added without reliable sources will be removed; everything will be checked for neutrality of tone and encyclopedic value. Within those ordinary constraints, by all means expand the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes well said. A few notes from the source In a positive the theory acknowledges/confirms that evolution is discontinuous however

as a result the theory is "simply insufficient to explain speciation". I trying too to see how to work this into the lead. J8079s (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * beneficial mutations would also not be selected
 * No concrete means of sexual isolation
 * would not apply to plants


 * ✅ Oggmus (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)