The article “It’s written all over your
face” (SN: 1/17/09, p. 24) made me
recall another article (a couple of
years ago, I think!) describing the
work of researchers investigating
an apparent human, obsessive need
to identify patterns in our environment. The scientists studied stockbrokers with and without a specific
type of brain injury. The results led
the researchers to conjecture that this
obsession is hardwired into our brains
at a very basic, primitive level. Their
thinking was that perhaps our precognitive ancestors developed this
obsession as a way of locating others
of their species in the chaotic wilderness. Campsites, etc., brought an
orderliness and organization to the
wild, so if you observed a pattern,
others like you might be nearby.
I wonder if the authors of the face
studies have considered the possibility that the preference for symmetry in
the human face has nothing at all to do
with selecting the best mate (conferring
some sort of genetic advantage, such as
a better immune system), but rather, it
just satisfies this deep-seated need to
find a pattern. With this anxiety thus
removed, we become more comfortable with the symmetric face, setting
off that cascade of chemicals associated
with finding something attractive. From
there we then begin to observe other
traits that lead us to selecting an ideal
mate. If the face is not symmetrical,
perhaps we all begin to subconsciously
obsess with trying to fix it and focus too
much on the unique features, making us
feel uncomfortable.
Thanks for many thought-provoking,
accessible articles.
Neal Cox, Lake Oswego, Ore.
or because there is redundant information in symmetric images, making them
easier to process (similar to what the
reader suggests as finding a pattern).
However, one of my own studies neatly
demonstrates that this reason can’t
explain face symmetry preferences: Symmetry is preferred in upright faces and
not in inverted faces. Such upside-down
images contain the same pattern to be
found, and yet they aren’t preferred. This
isn’t direct evidence for the mate-choice
view but suggests there is something
special about symmetry preferences that
is specific to upright faces and not to
symmetric patterns in general.”
ests, resemblances to first caregivers/
parents/teachers, common life experiences, goals and outlooks all weigh
in. This article could have been titled
simply, “Measuring beauty.” Still, good
material, and thanks for the pictorial
examples — I’m a visual learner.
O. Daniel Miller, Portland, Ore.
Regarding “It’s written all over your
face,” OK, here’s the thing: We don’t
choose mates based on attractiveness (otherwise I’d still be single).
We choose someone to partner with
us. If we are needy, we seek caregiv-ers; if we are familiar with addicts, we
choose one (or more). Mutual inter-
Dolphin reader
“Dolphins wield tools of the sea”
(SN: 1/3/09, p. 13) reminded me of a
2001 book called To Touch a Wild
Dolphin by Rachel Smolker. She, my
nephew Andrew Richards and others
observed and reported on the dolphin-sponge behavior in Shark Bay in Western
Australia. I highly recommend the book.
L.C. Thompson, Phoenix, Ariz.
Send communications to:
Editor, Science News
1719 N Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
or editors@sciencenews.org
All letters subject to editing.
Psychologist Anthony Little of the
University of Stirling responds: “The
question is interesting and in fact echoes
many previous researchers’ beliefs about
symmetry. Older theories suggested we
prefer symmetry because the human
visual system is itself symmetric and so
symmetric images are easier to process,
