Talk:Koinophilia/Archive 1

Article complexity
Wow...how humbling....I'm a scientist and I don't understand this page - the vocab is way over my head. Please could it be rewritten in lay speak by someone who understands it? Lystrablue 08:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I stuck the "technical" tag above. Specifically The evolutionary problem is quite dense.  --zandperl 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree: I found the article clear and illuminating. Its use of technical jargon seems limited to those concepts of biology and evolution theory that it is necessary to know in order to be able to understand the topic of the article. Thus, nothing would be gained by expunging technical terms, and accuracy would be loss. Instead, what might be helpful would be to make more words into links, so that a reader who does not recognize the word "phenotype" would be able to click it and learn about both the vocable and the concept.
 * In support of my position, I can say that I don't even have a degree of any sort, and thus should be a much better model of a layman than our scientist friend Lystrablue. 213.45.150.183 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's a stupid rant in the part where bi-sex and asex is justified on koinophilia... But I guess that since koinophilia explains that people are attracted more to the average more arseholes breed together and consequently there's more chance new generations are arseholes themselves... So probability is that some arsehole got his hands in this and screwed.

???
This topic got me thinking about something...

Seems like an attraction to features that are more common in younger individuals would have fitness value inasmuch as the difference between generations might be the result of some fitness value of those features (either for natural selection or sexual selection). The greater the fitness value of the feature, the greater you would expect to find the difference in prevalence with age, right?

OK so far? Let's pretend for a moment that we actually do have genes that cause us to be attracted to features that are more prevalent in younger individuals. Now let's say that I'm a high-school student and for the novelty of it some of the more avant-garde kids get nose-rings. No adults I know have nose rings, but some kids I know do. Might such a gene kick in to amplify the coolness factor of nose-rings? And to the extent that my (and others') attraction to nose-rings is increased, more of us will want to sport them. And the more young people that get them, the greater the difference between generations. And the greater the difference between generations, the more attractive I think it is. Voilà -- a positive feedback loop.

And then what happens if nose-rings get popular enough that lots of people I think of as distinctly older than me start to have them, too? The gene starts to turns off, because the difference in prevalence of the feature with age is decreasing.

Clearly there are other forces at work as well -- for example, getting away with rebellious behavior is a way of acquiring status, and kids look for ways to differentiate themselves. I'm just wondering whether such a gene might exist and could play a role in the steep rise and fall of fads.

AmigoNico 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Koinophilia section
Why is there a section titled Koinophilia within the article titled Koinophilia? This is redundant. --zandperl 14:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article revision
This article has been completely revised to make it understandable, and easy to read even for a person with only a minimal biological background. Technical jargon has been reduced to a minimum, and where it is unavoidable, it has been defined, with cross-references to the appropriate other Wikipedia entries. All of the above objections and comments have been addressed. 146.232.75.208 12:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)jkoeslag

merge from Averageness proposal
Against proposed merge from averageness, at least in the current state. Both articles could do with work, but averageness is a reasonably good article in need of expansion, whereas the Koinophilia needs some pretty drastic trimming of WP:SYN and contains some eyebrow raising statements. (E.g. the uncritical citing of V. C. Wynne-Edwards in the statement "V.C Wynne-Edwards[22] [23] have suggested, the ceremonial challenging of territory ownership[27] might serve to control population size" ought to ring very loud alarm bells for anyone paying attention to the topic since the late 1960's). I hope to tag and edit this a bit in the coming weeks. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it odd that I worked for so long in the area of sexual selection and had not heard the term "Koinophilia" before, so I entered searched for it as "topic" in the ISI WoS and got a measly 8 hits, all papers by JH Koeslag (citations:2,2,3,5,6,7,5,13). Looks like a neologism to me. Note also that some claims, like that the theory was "was tested in humans by Judith Langlois" makes it sound like "Koinophilia" is a term in use by other researchers. The Langlois & Roggman paper does not mention the word "Koinophilia", or cite any of Koeslag's work. Elsewhere references are thrown in with little rationale, for instance the sentences "Koinophilia, because it discriminates against all rare, unusual and aberrant forms of behavior, is capable of evolutionarily stabilizing all of the very many forms of group activities that occur in nature. In addition to cooperation, this includes, amongst others, social conventions, ritualistic behavior, expressions of the emotions, [31] and other forms of communication between individuals." why reference 31 (Krebs & Dawkins's Mind "reading & manipulation" chapter in the 2nd Behavioural Ecology) belongs there is a total stumper, similarly bizzare linking and referencing goes on throughout.

If I follow the logic of the following paragraphs: ''"Koinophilia, because it discriminates against all rare, unusual and aberrant forms of behavior, is capable of evolutionarily stabilizing all of the very many forms of group activities that occur in nature. In addition to cooperation, this includes, amongst others, social conventions, ritualistic behavior, expressions of the emotions, [31] and other forms of communication between individuals. Any individual who behaves abnormally (as a result of a mutation, or through immigration) will not easily find a mate, and will thus not be able to transmit that mutation to the next generation. In a cooperative group or species, koinophilia therefore has the effect of, not only canceling, but, in fact, reversing the advantage of selfishness in a cooperative environment.[5][6] Koinophilia therefore evolutionarily stabilizes all forms of cooperative and social behavior against selfishness, and antisocial behavior, regardless of the game theory details of the encounters and interactions.

Thus, whether it is a matter of joining the hunting pack, respecting the rules governing contests over territories, [27] or gannets adhering to a convention which permits breeding on only one of two adjacent cliffs,[22] [23] koinophilia vigorously defends all of these practices against extinction at the hands of selfish, antisocial or nonconformist mutants."'' then the idea is, cooperation is a hot topic in evolutionary theory, since apparent benefits exist for selfish, antisocial or nonconformist mutants that evolution ought to reward them... But koinophilia says/assumes that all rare mutants will be unfavoured as mates, therefore they cannot evolve to the over the population. ta-da problem solved.  It's possible that references 5 & 6 actually say something more clever than this, but this seems to be what the paragraphs say (and references 5 & 6 have each been cited but once by an author other than Koeslag in a peer reviewed biology journal, and exceptionally parenthetically at that). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So what is your suggested solution to the problem of having two articles on very similar subjects that have little or no linkage between them? Th reason I suggested the merge in this direction was that "averageness" as a title is completely ineffective at conveying the sense that it's about appearance-based sexual selection; it could be a title from pure mathematics. But it sounds like you're unhappy with the Koinophilia article, or at least its title: would it work better to do a merge in the other direction? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this article ought to be deleted. A better merge for averageness would be to combine with Symmetry (physical attractiveness) and Youthfulness into one comprehensive article, something like Facial attractiveness maybe.  The problem there is that many of these articles apply to much more than just human faces (e.g. I think Fluctuating asymmetry ought to have it's own article, rather than redirecting to Symmetry (physical attractiveness) since it's origins, and much of the literature, are outside the area of sexual selection).  There's lots here that needs fixing, and many articles on mate choice criteria from the sexual selection area that need writing, but I think the Koinophilia article isn't where the effort ought to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fascinated by Pete.Hurd's comments on this article and the concept of koinophilia. I have read and re-read his arguments but can discover not a single sentence or proposition which debates the merits and demerits of koinophilia, or discusses where it might be fundamentally flawed or illogical. He trashes the idea simply on the grounds that he had never heard of "koinophilia" before, that it is a neologism, and that it leads to, not illogical, but to not widely acknowledged conclusions. Thus, his main criticism is that anyone claiming to have finally discovered a solution (and a blinding obvious and simple one at that) to Wynne-Edwards' dilemma is, by definition, a crackpot scientist. If those are the criteria on which to reject or accept new ideas in science, then where would the advances proposed by Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein or Watson and Crick be today? At least when Galileo discussed his heliocentric theory of the solar system with Pope Urban VIII, the Pope countered Galileo's argument that the heliocentric theory provided a very much simpler and obvious explanation of the planets' movements than any of the current theories by remarking that God was not bound by mathematical simplicity - He could make the planets move in whatever manner he liked, very simply or incomprehensibly complexly. At least that was a clear, intelligent and logical argument, which even Galileo must have found difficult to counter. Pete.Hurd might examine the exchanges between Pope Urban VIII and Galileo to discover what real scientific debate is about (before the Pope delivered Galileo to the Inquisition). Johan Koeslag, 21 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.100.10 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm not debating it's merits or demerits. I've never been sent one of your papers to referee, and so I don't really plan to get into the merits.  My point here is that there's no strong evidence that anyone other than you has ever discussed the merits and demerits of this subject.  That raises questions about whether the topic can be considered to be encyclopedic; whether it passes Wikipedia's criterion of notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If I don't hear any good reasons in a week, I taking off the merge tags. It's been almost three years, for God's sake.Dondegroovily (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability
It is unclear if this topic is an area of general research or just a single researcher's neologism. Can anybody provide any review articles that discuss Koinophilia and place this research in context? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of "notability" maybe the following should be borne in mind. At least two articles have appeared in Nature, both with editorial comment,  on the "averageness hypothesis" and human facial beauty. Illustrative material from the 1998 article made it to the front cover of that issue of Nature. The term "koinophilia" is not used in either article, but "averageness", which is synonymous with "koinophilia", is used throughout both articles and in the editorial commentaries, as are the evolutionary reasons why "averageness" is a determinant of sexual attractiveness, as described this Wikipedia article, and by Koeslag in the scientific literature. 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 has been a program entitled "Koinophilia" on the Discovery TV channel with Nancy Etcoff (from Harvard University) as guest celebrity. (I believe both Langlois and Koeslag were invited to contribute to the program, but circumstances prevented either attending the interviews.) The preferred term today seems to be "Averageness", which continues to be  discussed widely on the internet (including in the many articles on physical attraction and beauty in Wikipedia), generating a great many  repetitions of Judith Langlois' work (on composite faces and entire bodies) in the Psychology Journals (and on the internet), and, under the heading of "koinophilia", in the plastic surgery journals. A lack of notability does not seem to characterize this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article, and the references to this work in articles such as Co-operation (evolution), implied much more to the concept of "Koinophilia" than simply a neologism for what otherwise goes by (I don't like the term either) "Averageness". I don't buy the idea that things like Enquist & Ghirlanda (1998) are endorsements of the notability of "koinophilia" because they don't endorse either the term, or the expanded claims made beyond the concept of Averageness. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If "averageness" is the preferred term, shouldn't we merge this page into the page on averageness? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If only the material common to both topics is kept... I'm ok with that, but I don't know how much from here would be new that that wouldn't, well, see my reluctance in the (see Talk:Koinophilia secition above) Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesson 1 of Evolutionary Biology 1 emphasises that fitness is not fleetness of foot, sharpness of vision, acuteness of hearing, highly effective camouflage, a glossy coat, or a wet nose. It is, pure, simply, and uncomplicatedly the propensity to produce offspring and grand-offspring. This is the full, complete, final and, indeed, only determinant of fitness. Thus fit features become increasingly more common over the generations, while unfit features become increasingly rare. It means that, at the end of the day, fit features are announced by their profusion, and unfit features by their scarcity in the community. This is the fundamental truth at the very foundation of our understanding of biology. Fleetness in a cheetah, because it characterises nearly all cheetahs, can therefore, unequivocally, be considered a fit feature in this species, but, because it is non-existent in sloths, is a maladaptive feature in these animals. Stated as tersely as this, however, this statement can be somewhat misleading, as it is always possible to breed cheetahs that can run faster than any of their wild ancestors. This extra potential speed is therefore maladaptive, either because it takes its fitness toll in other aspects of a cheetah's life, or the extra speed itself becomes hazardous and counterproductive. It is therefore the common range of speeds of cheetahs that is presumably favoured by natural selection, and may thus be termed a "fit feature" in this species. This should be known as the First Law of (Evolutionary) Biology, on a par with the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is the basis of all Biology, without which biology makes no sense: it, in fact, degenerates into a hotch-spotch of disconnected and disjointed facts, totally lacking cohesion or predictive value.

The ability of (multicellular) sexual creatures to reproduce, and, therefore, to express their fitness, is critically dependent on their choice of a mate. Fitness in these creatures has no meaning except in the context of a mate. A bad pairing can reduce fitness to zero, whereas a wise (or lucky) pairing can enhance fitness. The First Law of Evolutionary Biology states that there is not a single phenotypic feature (other than the propensity to reproduce) which is a universal or even near-universal indicator of fitness. The fitness of all sexual creatures, however, critically depends on their ability to choose the right mate. They will therefore all share at least one feature that is directly indicative of fitness regardless of the species. Thus, regardless of what types of pairings promote the greatest number of offspring and grand-offspring, the fittest pairings will, according to the First Law of Evolutionary Biology, ultimately become the commonest pairings. The descendants of these successful pairings will inherit the stimuli and responses which brought the parents (and grandparents etc.) together, with the result that these stimuli and responses will now also be the norm in that evolutionarily successful group. To choose an exceptional, unusual or rare mate under these circumstances, therefore spells evolutionary suicide. It therefore behoves sexual creatures to bear this in mind when choosing a mate. This is the Second Law of Evolutionary Biology. It flows ineluctably from the First Law.

The Second Law makes several important falsifiable predictions. Firstly it predicts that sexual creatures will avoid mating with mutants. This is a generally accepted biological fact, but it is never explained how the mutants are recognised as such. Humans do not need to study medicine to recognise mutants. They can all do it, even children, who remorselessly torment fellow children with club feet, withered arms, asymmetrical ears, or even the swot who asks all the questions, and knows all the answers in class. Children readily identify unusualness, and do not like it. The Second Law also predicts that humans will find averaged faces and bodies more attractive than their alternatives, despite the common assertion that beauty is special and out of the ordinary. (In all fairness, absolute averageness is, in fact, a mathematical rarity - out of a group of 100 persons, for instance, none has exactly the mathematically average height! - so there is a modicum of truth in the observation that exceptional beauty is exceptional, despite being average - very few individuals are totally and utterly average in every respect.) The Second Law further predicts that sexual creatures will tend to coalesce into groups consisting of individuals who all look incredibly alike (e.g. starlings, impala, deer, bears etc), with prominent phenotypic gaps between the separate groups (e.g. lions, leopards, cheetahs). The First Law explains diversification and evolutionary gradualism, the Second Law predicts that, in sexual creatures, this results in speciation.

To deny or ignore the Second law of Evolutionary Biology is to denounce the First Law of Evolutionary Biology. Persons who can mindlessly recite the First Law, but are intellectually unable use the this valuable tool to derive, or appreciate, its implications should leave Evolutionary Biology and switch to tending roses, teaching creationism or inventing perpetual motion machines. Note that those who wish to expunge of the term "koinophilia" from biology in general and Wikipedia in particular are in fact doing so, at their own insistence, for koinophilic reasons. They need the comfort and safety of commonness before they dare express an opinion of their own (other than fright and alarm at any apparent novelty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your explanation of stabilizing selection is a very colorful one. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, has the purpose of documenting things or ideas as they exist in the real world. If an idea has no life or existence outside of wikipedia, then it does not belong in wikipedia.   Wikipedia is not a forum for advancing ideas it is a place to document ideas that have a significant, notable impact, which can be verified through reliable secondary sources, which are independent of the subject, this cannot be said of the neologisms: "koinophilia", "the First law of Evolutionary Biology", or "the Second law of Evolutionary Biology''. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is all this first and second law of thermodynamics evolutionary biology reminding anyone else of the Sadi Carnot human thermodynamics walled garden kerfuffle? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make several points here. Firstly I did not place "Koinophilia" in Wikipedia. I was approached for any material I had on the subject, because the person, whom I presumed was an editor of Wikipedia, felt it important that there should be an article on Koinophilia in Wikipedia. I had no popular rendering of my work, so I simply submitted copies of my scientific papers on the topic. The author was not a biologist and quickly ran into trouble, inviting, amongst others, those initial comments: "Wow...how humbling....I'm a scientist and I don't understand this page - the vocab is way over my head. Please could it be rewritten in lay speak by someone who understands it? Lystrablue 08:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" and "I agree, I stuck the "technical" tag above. Specifically The evolutionary problem is quite dense. --zandperl 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)". It was at this point that I was asked to try to sort the article out in order to explain koinophilia in simple terms, which is what I did. The "lack of neutrality" and "conflict of interest" flags were slapped on the article post hoc, only after I identified myself in response to Pete Hurd's attack on the article in December 2007. I reject those epithets, as I believe that Pete Hurd originally had no reason to suspect that I, JH Koeslag, had written the article. I doubt whether a neutral reader would suspect it either. It was written purely to explain what koinophilia is, and what its implications are, in the clearest and simplest terms for anyone to understand. There are cross references to all the main entries that are relevant to material being discussed, and there is no difficulty in obtaining a full picture of all the different points of view, relating to anything discussed in this article.

Secondly, koinophilia is hardly a neologism as it has been in existence for at least 18 years, and very quickly became widely known. A Google search would throw up scores of (independent) references to, and discussions of, koinophilia, including the poem "Koinophilia", which still appears 3rd on the list when one types "koinophilia" into Google today. I took the liberty of contacting the author of this poem for his impressions of koinophilia and how he had come across the word. This is his reply: "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. What is ironic is that the Google search engine itself is a kind of koinophilia. It computes the number of inquiries about specific words and ranks them according to popularity. It might be that this editor is opposed to the theory and is using a semantic objection to obscure his/her real reasons. I think that this is the real issue behind his/her objections."

The fact that the Discovery TV Channel ran a full programme entitled "koinophilia" also says that it was a word that was in common usage, and sufficiently fascinating to justify a popular rendering of it on this popular commercial international TV channel.

I find Pete Hurd's brushing aside of the 2 Letters to Nature by Perrett et al. curious in the extreme. Sure, Perrett does not use the word "koinophilia" but "averageness hypothesis" instead. But he could not have explained the central thesis of koinophilia better in those articles if he had tried. In these articles he repeats Judith Langlois' work and tries to show that the most attractive face is not the average face (which is far more in line with current biological thinking than the disappointingly unexciting notion that attractive faces are only average). Both his attempts at refuting koinophilia were graced by editorial commentaries. Nature could not have acknowledged the importance of the koinophilia theory in clearer and more vivid terms. (Who amongst the commentators in these Talk columns has had an idea of theirs acknowledged in this manner by Nature?) Although Perrett concludes that people are attracted to something other than the average face, the face that turned out to be the most beautiful is almost indistinguishable from the average face (i.e. it is clearly still a modal face). It is very definitely not a fringe face from one of the extremes of the spectrum, as lay intuition and biological dogma currently believe it ought to be. The face that turned out to be marginally (though statistically significantly) more popular than the averaged face simply looks younger than the face that was averaged from women aged between 22 and 46 years. (Faces change with age!)

Thirdly, the article does not describe original research that has never been published before. Nor does it contain original research, as scurrilously claimed by one of the tags. Everything described in this Wikipedia article has been published in high impact, well respected, peer reviewed, international journals over the course of one and half decades. The fact that only the human beauty prediction of the koinophilia theory has been tested and commented on repeatedly, and has caught both the public and the scientific communities' imagination, does not mean that koinophilia does not make other falsifiable predictions. There are chat groups on the internet that give the impression that saltatory evolution is fully and satisfactorily explained by koinophilia. (The reservations about saltatory evolution on the grounds that there is no mechanism to explain it, are therefore considered to have fallen away.) A Wikipedia entry on "averageness" or "koinophilia" has to acknowledge that these further unavoidable, and inescapable implications exist. Otherwise it would be the same as writing about evolution but insisting that humans were specially and separately created, and did not descend from "monkeys". Evolutionary theory, rightly or wrongly, maintains that humans are the product of evolutionary mechanisms that are no different from those that created the dog, bat, whale or amoeba. Hiding, ignoring or insisting that human evolution may not be discussed in Wikipedia means that the "Evolution" article is incomplete and misleading. Jkoeslag 22 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

delete
95% of this (as best anyone can tell) is not about koinophilia and koinophilia is not notable.J8079s (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is obviously a "pet page" for someone with undeniable bias. Consider the following verbiage from the article:

"Thus, koinophilia, although not perfect or infallible in its ability to distinguish fit from unfit mates, remains, on average, the best strategy when choosing a mate. It will be right far more often than it will be wrong. Even when it is wrong, a koinophilic choice always ensures that the offspring will inherit a suite of thoroughly tried and tested features."

Pure opinion arrived at by conjecture. The whole article is like this. Pandarsson (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do NOT delete
Definitely do not delete this very important article on koinophilia. Wikipedia would be significantly poorer if this article were deleted. Millerman, Brisbane, 29 October--203.202.23.100 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. Koinophilia is a most interesting topic that I first heard about well over a decade ago. Reading this article has clarified a number of issues that I had forgotten about and the article has given me much food for thought. The article must remain in Wikipedia. Biologist, 3 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.83.247 (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this not all just a load of hooey?
The person/people that wrote this are totally misrepresenting the idea of koinophilia. It was NOT part of Darwin's theory or anything like that whatsoever. Darwin and evolutionary thinkers absolutely ***DID NOT*** postulate any of this!!! They would have said that the higher ranking individuals in the group would have been more attractive to females... which is of course the actual truth.

The article makes out as if koinophilia were around all the time and part of evolutionary thinking and then it were somehow "proven" by these image experiments. In actual fact, it was the weird result from the images that started the idea of koinophilia in the first place.

If it stays the whole article needs to be rewritten, without the nonsense. Anonywiki (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be Bold J8079s (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism
A section under the heading of "Criticism" is a welcome addition to this encyclopedic entry on koinophilia. However, the criticism must be valid. Anonywiki's criticism is based on his claim that "most [European] males prefer an Asian/Indian/Hispanic woman", which is not only not backed up by a reference, but also contradicts published research evidence in this regard. Many publications and textbooks of population and evolutionary genetics contradicts Anonywiki’s criticism. This is probably best summed up in David Buss' review in American Scientist.

David Buss (Buss DM. Human mate selection. American Scientist, 1985, 37: 47-51) notes that although opposites are sometimes said to attract, in fact we are most likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every respect. To quote from his article: "In general, the tendency to choose someone similar to oneself as a mate is so pervasive that Thiessen (1979) prefers the term 'assortative narcissism'. Indeed, negative assortative mating in human populations has never been reliably demonstrated with the single exception of sex.......Age is probably the variable for which assortment is the strongest [especially in younger couples]... Husbands and wives are also similar with respect to race, religion, ethnic background and socioeconomic status.... Spuhler (1968) summarized studies on assortment for a variety of characteristics ranging from height, weight, eye color and less obvious traits such as nose breadth, and earlobe length." Buss concludes that "there is no evidence that the patterns of mate selection in Western societies have changed substantially over 50 years: current levels of assortment are comparable to those that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s." A cursory glance at matrimonial advertisements in Indian newspapers would convince Anonywiki that the situation is not any different in India.

Anonywiki must withdraw this particular criticism, and replace it with something that is scientifically defensible. I have read with interest the attacks, on this page, on this article and on the concept of koinophilia. Both Pete.Hurd and Anonywiki have ridiculed koinophilia and tried to pass it off as "hooey". However when challenged to explain why koinophilia is "hooey", Pete.Hurd retreated completely from his previous position and questioned koinophilia's "notability" instead. A complete change of strategy! Anonywicki has resorted to propagating falsehoods, as if with vengeance.

A recent publication in Journal Theoretical Biology ( How is the individuality of a face recognised? doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.011 ) has hypothesized that Koinophilia could play a role not only in mate selection, but also in face recognition. Evidence in support of koinophilia is mounting.

This is therefore a plea that some real, scientifically defensible criticisms be added to article, and not the "hooey" that Anonywiki has inserted. I would do so myself, if it weren't for the fact that I find koinophilia explains a lot of the inexplicable in biology, and every bit of it makes complete and convincing sense to me. --Unnikrishnan M K (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "Criticism" section for the reasons given by Unnikrishnan M K. I can find no study that corroborates Anonywiki's contentions. The section can be re-instated when someone can supply a sound evolutionary argument why sexual creatures should prefer extreme, unusual or strange mates (i.e. the opposite of koinophilia), or provide evidence that a preference for unusual mates is pervasive amongst sexual creatures. Johan Koeslag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, again
Criticism such as the one inserted earlier has no place on Wikipedia, unless published in scientific journals or books. However, discussion on this talk page above indicates that criticism of koinophilia has been published in Nature, so it should be mentioned in the article as well.

- This criticism is mentioned and discussed in the report of Perrett et al's work on average faces published in Nature (jkoeslag 30 July 2010)

BTW - I could very well be wrong, but one objection by Pete.Hurd above seemed to be valid to me. The use of koinophilia to explain cooperation seems to work by banning evolution as such. The question is: Why is there no emergence of new phenotypes that would abuse cooperation? The "koinophiliac" answer is: Because no new phenotypes can emerge at all (being unable to find mates). This answer does explain why selfish wolf mutants don't get to reproduce, but I don't see how it explains why Darwin's finch mutants with adapted beaks get to reproduce - i.e. why evolution occurs at all.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This last question is now answered in the article under the heading "Rate of Evolution"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (Removed the answer that was here as it caused confusion.) Oggmus (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-instatement of section on cooperation
The section on the evolution of cooperation under the influence of koinophilia has been re-instated. The reason given for its earlier deletion is that "it is not koinophilia". I wonder how "J8079s (talk | contribs)" came to that conclusion. The Wikipedia entry on Natural Selection contains a chapter/section on "Sexual selection" in which no link between "natural selection" and "sexual selection" is provided. They are two parallel processes both of which affect evolution, but neither in the article nor in general biology is it claimed that the one is the result of the other, or an inevitable accompliment. Even Darwin recognised it as an additional force which he was obliged to acknowledge to explain some features that are very nearly impossible to explain on pure "natural selection" grounds. Natural selection and sexual selection are thus totally separate forces, although acting on the same target. So the "sexual selection" section in Natural selection is not "natural selection" and should be deleted from the main article, if the the reasons given by "J8079s (talk | contribs)" for wanting the "cooperation" section deleted from the Main article on koinophilia are valid. In fact the section on cooperation shows the far reaching consequences of koinophilia very clearly (whether one agrees with koinophilia or not). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which simply defines concepts and phenomena. It provides explanations, context, descriptions and consequences, as well as history (where appropriate) and other points of interest. The main article on Natural selection is a good example of what a reader is looking for in an encyclopedia.

The commentary on this discussion page (see especially "Criticism, again") shows to what extent the section on cooperation is an integral part of the koinophila concept. Without it koinophilia (its dictionary definition) would strike most readers as a blindingly obvious, and trivial idea hardly worthy of a special name (see, for instance, the legend that accompanies the albino peacock picture in Natural Selection), and probably without noteworthy consequences. Johan Koeslag 26 August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Parsimony of Koinophilia
The most striking feature of Koinophilia is its parsimony. Koinophilia answers so many questions in evolution such as speciation, punctuated equilibrium, and cooperation within the species. Koinophilia also appears to provide a reference( the prototypical average face)  with which faces of individuals of a given species are compared,  enabling rapid recognition by exception reporting. Thus koinophilia appears to guide not only mate selection but also recognition of individuals in a community, both being critically linked to survival.

The parsimony of Koinophilia is best illustrated by the ockham's razor principle. See passage below (quoted from wikipedia..)

Occam's razor  (or Ockham's razor[1]  ) is often expressed in Latin   as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony , law of economy   or law of succinctness). The principle is popularly interpreted as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

Thus, with a single axiomatic assumption, koinophilia appears to demonstrate tremendous economy in reasoning. If the simplest explanation is the best, koinophilia is indeed the most convincing principle that explains the course of many diverse evolutionary outcomes by natural selection.

How could such a simple and straightforward theory fail to achieve popularity? I am not sure. But this reminds me of an incident (possibly apocryphal, but surely illustrative) where a mathematical problem was answered correctly, but differently, by a school going child  and a expert mathematician.

The problem goes like this: Two cyclists A and B are separated by 30 km along a straight road. They simultaneously start pedalling towards each other at a speed of 30 kmph. The moment they begin to pedal, a fly starts from Cyclist A and flies towards cyclist B at a speed of 60 km. When the fly meets cyclist B, it returns to A, flying up and down till it is crushed between the wheels of the two cyclists when they meet.

What is the distance traveled by the fly?

An expert mathematician is supposed to have answered the question, in a few minutes, using a continued fraction. A schoolboy gave the answer in a few seconds. The cyclists will meet at midpoint in half an hour. The fly would have traveled 30 km during this period!

Koinophilia is like the schoolboy's answer to the fly-bicycle problem. The answer is the same, only the reasoning is simpler.

Unnikrishnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.242.66 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Simplification of the article
I am not sure why the article was tagged as "too technical" again in September 2010 (it was given this label in the very early stages of its existence when it was paraphrased directly from scientific articles on thre subject). I thought the problem had been solved, but the many compresions of the article since then seem to have re-introduced the problem. I think it is particularly the term "phenotype" (etc) that might be causing the problem, so I have removed them, or defined them. I hope this makes the article easier to read and understand. Johan Koeslag, 18 October

Interpretation of Composite Images
The subtext for the image showing the Hot Or Not images includes the following interpretation of the results:
 * The face in the bottom right hand corner is the average of all the faces, and is more attractive than any of the "hottest faces" to the left of it.

I strongly suspect that there would be widespread disagreement with the above statement. It seems to me that there are several characteristics which generally distinguish the first row from the third, and to the extent that the bottom right (BR) image inherits from all the images rather than just the third row, it would be less attractive to many men than the faces to its left: If some justification for the claim that the BR face is "more attractive" exists, could it not be given? --AmigoNico (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The BR face is wider and looks as though it contains more fat, especially toward the bottom.
 * The eyes in the BR face are less open and have less eyeliner.
 * The eyebrows in the BR face have less arch.
 * The hair in the BR face is less visible and has less volume.

--> The entire illustration has been deleted as it does not depict the results of a proper scientific population study. The average face at the bottom right is not the average one would get from averaging a representative sample of real people. For real average faces one needs to go to the links at the bottom of the article. jkoeslag 29 December 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD
see rest of talk: pet page, bias, WP:NOR, COI, notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.117.64 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Thank you to the many people who have helped improve this article. I had not noticed the "thank you" facility after each editing entry on the "View History" page. My apologies to everyone who wondered why I had not responded appropriately. J Koeslag 22 December 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Illustrating the average
Far be it from me to pour a bucket of cold water on other people's idea of the attractive, but the sense of the 'Averageness' section would be better illustrated by a photo of an averaged face (combined digitally by averaging the faces of many people to form a single 'face' image) than by putting up a crudely-labelled photo of a single, non-averaged celebrity noted for her non-average beauty.

The section (IMAGE REQUEST) should contain a scientifically-averaged 'face'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I entirely agree with you, but I have not been able to find a scientifically averaged face, except on the "Beauty Check" website. I have approached person who created that average face, but there is a reluctance to make it freely available on Wikipedia - hence only the link to that site. Please let me know where one enters "IMAGE REQUEST" to see what is available on Wikimedia Commons. Oggmus (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons is available freely to everyone at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. A search for "averaged face" gave no hits. 'average faced' (without quotes) finds your image and one or two others, but not what we want. There are scientific papers so there must be various scientists who could be approached. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the search for me. I tried a Google Image search, but did not come up with anything that was either on Wikimedia Commons or was not copyrighted. I will approach the person who made the Beauty Check average faces again to see whether they would mind making their excellent photographs available on Wikipedia. That person did create a new (1 + 1 = average of the two) combination for me, but to avoid having the portraits of two actual girls made available without restriction, the new combination was created with two averaged faces (which were then averaged to produce the final "average face") was given to me. But the effect was not the same. The published average faces in journals are generally of poor quality, and these pictures are copyrighted by the journals. But I will see what I can do. Thanks very much, once again, for your interest and help. Oggmus (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Poor quality could be tolerated for this special purpose. It's always possible that a scientist (or even a journal) will agree to publish an image with a CC-by-SA license; quite a few journals do this for all their images so it's certainly worth asking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. The choice of an illustration of an average face for this article is not entirely straight-forward. A simple final result of the averaging process (which is generally what is found in the journals and on many of the websites that have done a vaguely scientific job of averaging faces) is not very interesting. Judith Langlois and others have noted that the average face nearly always looks strangely "familiar". Furthermore, the fact that all the faces that are used in the averaging process have to have neutral expressions makes the final resultant face also look bored and disinterested, and therefore not strikingly attractive. It is only when it is compared with the other faces that it looks the most attractive of all of the faces. It is obviously impossible to publish 30 portraits on a Wikipedia page, together with the average, to get the sense of what the averaging process achieves. But simply averaging two faces (all three of which would easily fit on to a Wikipedia page), produces a most striking effect. It is this that we need to strive for. Oggmus (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Chiswick Chap, I have been unable to contact the person who made the illustration of what happens if you average two faces. There is an in-line hyperlink to the website where this illustration is on display, but it would have been nice to have the actual three pictures in this article. So, for the moment the best available illustration is the one of Jessica Alba, whose facial features are all close to the population average. This is, of course, the corollary of what the researchers in this field have found. So, from this point of view it is a valuable illustration, showing that the averageness theory of beauty works both "forwards" and "backwards". Oggmus (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap. I find understanding the ins and outs of the legal requirements and limitations of uploading on to Wikimedia Commons illustrations that are not one's own work a bit overwhelming. Precisely what does a CC-by-SA license mean in terms of the original copyright holder? Maybe we can move this discussion on to your own User Talk page, or mine, as it is not relevant here. Please let me what you think. I have added a PS to my earlier comments, which you might like to look at, because that is relevant and possibly interesting to other readers. Oggmus (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done that. Sounds right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The above exchange of ideas and proposals has been rearranged to make the train of thought easier to follow. Oggmus (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)