Of all pseudo-scientific bullshit…

This article on the BBC really takes the cake.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author.

So he’s researching literature. That’s all fine and well. We like literature. We’re on board… Until we read the following, that is:

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

Now I’m really bloody confused; how does he analyze over 345,00 texts? What are the logistics of the research process like? And how does he select his reading materials; particularly wherein a “small selection” from India and China comes into play…? This is important because of the following passage in the article:

“The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

Um, OK. Because literature has absolutely nothing to do with culture… I mean, it’s not at all a cultural phenomenon. Since British and American cultures are closely related, I want to know what that “small selection” of Indian and Chinese poetry really means in context of the research. Perhaps clarity is in the eye of the beholder, in this case. The journalism is what really gets me here – because of the inanity that such pieces inevitably perpetuate.

I don’t like it when people have knee-jerk reactions to this kind of research, for obvious reasons which relate to the nature of my education and professional interests. But neither do I like half-assed reporting.

The fact that models with hardly any hips have been en vogue for a number of years now, while, at the same time, Playboy Playmates tend to be more generously proportioned down there should tell us all something about “the beholder.” Literature and actual human relations are even more likely to experience this sort of dissonance – but hey, as long as we in the press can reassert a certain “standard” for women to follow, why not print a headline that reads: “Slim waist holds sway in history.”

Interestingly enough, here is some info from Dr. Singh’s U of Texas at Austin page:

My current research interests are to understand evolutionary significance of human physical attractiveness. Current research is directed to (a) identify morphological features which are universally judged to be attractive; (b) specify hormonal and physiological correlates of physical attractiveness to determine whether attractiveness is an honest signal of health and genetic quality; (c) use such information to understand and explain eating disorders and body image dissatisfaction. Other research interests are to examine the relationship of morphological features with sexual orientation and reproductive strategies.

Speaking of dissonance… The BBC article has absolutely no mention of the “honest signal of health and genetic quality” nor is there any mention of the further aims of the research: “to understand and explain eating disorders and body image dissatisfaction.” Agree or agree with Dr. Singh’s motivations – the universality bit is particularly contentious – there is a whole lot more to chew on in the above paragraph.

The BBC, meanwhile, is selling a splashy story – “the key to female attractiveness.” Right right right.