Hotness Theory

Update (Feb. 18, 2012): Sadly, it seems that the evidence I have used to back up this hypothesis is equally well explained by plain old "survivability" signaling, so my whole idea here is probably unfounded. 

We humans are oddly attracted to certain traits. By and large, there are easy explanations for these attractions. The way evolution makes us adapt, it makes sense for features than indicate higher propensities for survival or reproduction to become attractive… but that’s not clearly the case all the time. Take, for instance, facial symmetry and facial averageness. The more symmetrical your face is, and the closer to average the ratios and shapes on you face are, the more attractive your face is. to me, that’s just weird. That’s the question I want to probe here.

Of course there are ways to speculate biologically on why this may be. Symmetry and averageness might indicate something good about your DNA, and people who are attracted to people with good DNA are more likely to have kids with good DNA. Still, I think the biological adaptation explanations don’t have too much going for them. I think the adaptive pressure isn’t biological, as much as economic. I guess I could tag this post with “evolutionary economics.”

Before trying to speculate on another explanation, let’s note some interesting facts that beg for explanations. In general (and those are two really important words, because exceptions abound) attractive people are more intelligent, have more friends, and get better jobs. Evolution’s a bit of a jerk; contrary to popular opinion, if you’re ugly, chances are you got the short end of the stick in other areas of life too.

So why? Allow me to speculate. Society can be thought of as a network. Every person is a node, attached to his or friends, who are attached to theirs, etc. This network serves as a mechanism for sharing information and ideas.

The stronger this network is, i.e., the stronger and more numerous the connections, the more efficiently it transmits stuff. It’s also more robust, and spontaneous interactions between two bright people bouncing heads are more likely. All in all, a better network means a more effective species.

Attractive people are well-connected hubs – they have stronger and more numerous connections. The more hubs like this there are, the better the network. The features that make them attractive could be arbitrary, or they could complement other adaptive purposes, but the important part is that they are “agreed” upon signals. Notice that I mean "agreed" in the sense that everyone’s DNA agrees to be attracted to those features. It’s not a conscious decision. Like language: no one sits down and invents common words. Words, like attractive traits, just sort of happen.

This only works if lots of people are attracted to the same thing; so the adaptive pressure is placed on the group for everyone to become attracted to the same things. In our case, those things include facial symmetry and facial averageness. So we have a social network that is strong, because it contains some nodes that are very well connected. I might have to write a follow-up post arguing why a network with a few well-connected hubs is better than one with the same number connections, but more equally spread. Eh, another time. I’ve got a report to finish tonight. Just assume I'm right, please.

Now, this explains the intelligence-attractiveness link pretty well – network hubs have a higher relative benefit from intelligence than average person. Society gets more bang for its buck when network hubs have more intelligence, because they can put it to better use is transmitting information and ideas across the network.

So that’s my hypothesis. What do you think? Any criticisms? Flawed reasoning or assumptions? What would you add? How could this be tested? Remember: you being the gorgeous human being that you are, it’s your duty to participate in the sharing of ideas, so leave a comment below!