Why do beautiful people have more daughters ? Simply put, evolution helps pass on their genes in the most efficient way possible. According to evolutionary psychologists being attractive is the single most important factor determining a woman's reproductive success. Therefore this is the trait most apt to be passed on to females.
The book poses lots of interesting questions, but the book's flaw is that the answer to all of them boils down to the same thing : Sex.
Take for example this passage

"All men (criminal or not) are more or less the same. The ultimate reason why men do what they do-- whether they be criminals, musicians, painters, writers, or scientists-- is to impress women so they will sleep with them. Men do everything they do in order to get laid."

Now, being male I'll accept that sex is a powerful motivator. But the only one ? Sorry, but I just can't buy that.
And I realize this is a book written for lay people and not for scientists. But what kind of self respecting scientist would write a paragraph of such utter drivel ? ( )

Modern science is all for evolution except when it comes to human behavior. They prefer to believe — and belief would seem to be the proper word — that differences between how men and women act are in every case a result of socialization. Raise children differently, they argue, and they will behave differently.

The 2007 book “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters” by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa challenges that idea. The book was actually written by Kanazawa based on ideas formed by Miller, who died early in the project. Kanazawa generously listed Miller's name first.

The book, as the title suggests, uses a question and answer format. Why do men like blonde bombshells (and why do women want to look like them)? Why does having sons reduce the likelihood of divorce? Why are diamonds a girl's best friend? Why might handsome men make bad husbands? Why are almost all violent criminals men? Why do some men beat up their wives and girlfriends? Why is sexual harassment so persistent? Why are women more religious than men? And, of course, why do beautiful people have more daughters?

People in all cultures behave essentially the same, the book tells us. Studies that suggest that certain cultures are radically different are in each case either mistaken or fraudulent, as in the case of Margaret Mead's celebrated book on Samoa. So the answer to every question comes down to differing male and female reproductive strategies. Men can theoretically have hundreds of children; women can have relatively few. Women always know who their children are; men can never be certain (or at least not until recently). This explains almost everything, the authors say, although some explanations get a bit convoluted.

There are a few questions evolutionary psychology cannot yet explain, and Kanazawa frankly admits this in a final chapter? How do you explain homosexuality? Why do parents in advanced societies have fewer children? And a few others. To pose one more question, why must one theory explain everything? ( )

I was expecting to read something controversial and maybe challenging, but what I found was shallow, generalized, and often misleading. It was sensationalist, but the writing was dull. I'm not well educated with the field of Psychology, Biology, or Anthropology, so as a layman I was surprised by how many of the books arguments failed to convince me.

Here's, word for word, one of the most objectionable passages in the book:

"All men, criminal or not, are more or less the same. The ultimate reason why men do what they do, whether they be criminals, musicians, painters, writers, or scientists, is to impress women so they will sleep with them. Men do everything they do in order to get laid."

I would like to direct the authors' attention to every celibate man ever, as well as to every man who has ever turned out the opportunity to get laid. I'm not particularly offended by the authors' low opinion of men in general, but by their lack of sense in what they claim is an educational book.

Other ideas in this book (paraphrased):

The book says humans are adapted for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because there hasn't been enough time or a stable enough environment for natural selection since the discovery of agriculture. But it also says all of humanity has the same essential culture, because culture is a direct result of biology. That's the sort of absurd belief that could only be developed by someone deeply immersed in academia. The book attempts to prove all human culture is the same by listing a couple debunked pieces of research on aberrant cultures, but they authors forgot to prove the sameness between all world cultures.

The book says anyone who didn't have children was a genetic failure. People who had more children were inherently more successful than those who did not. This ignores that helping children succeed might be a better strategy than just having tons of them. A non-reproductive person can (and historically often did) help their siblings and their siblings' children. A person with fewer children might have more successful children as a result. The genes responsible for an individual not reproducing or having fewer kids might still thrive.

The book says blonde women are universally considered the most beautiful. Except they aren't. That isn't even debateable.

The book says suicide bombers are mostly Muslim because their culture accepts Polygyny. The dearth of marriageable women makes suicide bombing an attractive option. Riddle me this, authors: why doesn't China have scads of suicide bombers? There are something like 30 million more single men than women in China, and yet suicide boming is basically unknown there.



Absolutely not recommended. ( )

I checked this out from the library b/c I was intrigued by the title. (Good job naming this book.) It is written by evolutionary psychologists so that gives you an idea of where it's going. It was somewhat thought-provoking and fascinating but also silly. The main idea is that we are driven by impulses in our genetic makeup and that b/c of the "Savanna Principal" we don't know what to do with situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. ( )

This book in many ways was unsatisfactory. After mentioning that too many social scientists are environmental determinists, he then sets up the sex drive as being the prime determinant for nearly every action humans do. The book is set up in a fashion where the authros puts forth a question that we might want answered and then contrives an answer, which may or not ring true. ( )