The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature [Paperback]

Geoffrey Miller's answer is a resounding "Yes!" Humans, however, are far more complex than peacocks. In this book, Miller contends that instead of garish tails or mating calls, it is the human brain that provides the mechanisms for mate selection. Like the peacock's tail, the human brain is a costly organ - using 20% of our resources even when resting. Why is the brain so demanding? It has many jobs to do, memory, vision, controlling motion and speech and directing other activities. The human mind's most impressive abilities, Miller states, are "courtship tools, evolved to attract and entertain sexual partners." These "tools" include such seemingly disparate practices as sports, poetry, art and literature. Many of these factors in our lives are the result of language development. Why did these talents evolve, and how do they affect our mate selection? Where some animals offer food as a mating incentive, men offer diamonds, songs or prose. Why not offer something to eat, like a potatoe, instead of a diamond, which lacks practical value?

Miller's argument focusses on "fitness factors" in mating strategies. In humans these are far more complex than in the rest of animal kingdom. In his view, the factors must be mainly expressed by the male, and by adults more than the young. They must be elements that can be judged by females before mating, and the more vivid the presentation, the more likely the mating will be. In human societies, the presentation may not even be displayed by the male, but may be "purchased" - hence, movies, concerts, art objects may be bought in the pursuit of females instead of actually created by the suitor.

And what of the suitor's object of his quest? Are human females simply gawking airheads waiting to see which male displays or buys the best offering in the mating game? Far from it, contends Miller. He makes the claim that will be hotly contested by feminazis, that historically, males predominate in literature, the arts and business. Recognizing that female cognitive skills match those of human males, he argues that the female mind had to evolve in parallel with that of males'. However, their skills reside in assessing the worth of what males are offering. They must make the judgement of which "fitness factors" are the most attractive. Hence, if men developed language ability to "show off" their creativity, women evolved the ability to evaluate how skillfully the men performed. Miller's analysis is not empty rhetoric. He reviews a broad range of behaviour patterns, attributing to each the evolutionary roots likely involved in developing them.

Miller's prose skills are outstanding in this valuable survey. His use of metaphor keeps you smiling as he presents his case. He transforms a Satin Bowerbird into an effete artist at one point. This comical account has the bird, expressing himself just as a Letterman guest might, explaining why the bower nest is under constant niggling attention by the male until its arrangement successfully attracts a mate. It's indicative of Miller's high quality imagination. Make no mistake, however, this book isn't just a frolic promoting Miller's abilities as a raconteur. His message is serious, and what he's proposed requires serious reflection. His thesis explains many facets of the human condition and must be considered earnestly. You may even find something of yourself in this book, which is as good a reason to buy it as any.
[stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

As a neophyte I was impressed with the intriguing ideas evenly sprinkled throught the book. Principal among these was the runaway brain, fitness indicators and the handicap principle that Miller uses as a basis to explain human mind's intricate evolution. Miller tries to argue that any form of sexual selection for fitness indicators should even out genetic variation in fitness - which means if females favor tall males then all males should be tall. Yet we dont see that and the differences remain in the species - so why does evolution allows such differences. Another interesting idea, originally proposed by Zahavi, is the handicap principle - which is advertising fitness and "sexual ornamentation" by handicapping an individual with a survival cost. It basically means fit peacocks showing off extravagant plumage to attract mates even if it means making themselves more prone to predators or simply carrying the extra load around risking their survial. Highly evolved fitness indicators means using costly signals to attract a mate. In human terms it might transform to - you buying an expensive diamond ring from Cartier for your lady-love fully aware that its gonna make a dent in your pocket, will add no survival benefit whatsoever to you or her but yet show her that you make so much money that not only you can buy that ring but you are willing to devote tremendous personal resources to win her.

Evolution of human morality - which itself is a costly indicator, may also have been selected through sexual choice. Morally uninspiring traits have evolved to be sexual turn-offs in human male-female dynamics. One entire book on this is Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. Moreover generosity to blood relatives could be genetic selfishness. It was rather surprising to read that even art could have been evolved through sexual choice. Hand-axes could have been the first Objects 'de Art - some were too cumbersome and costly to have been practically used - might suggest at mental and physical fitness value. Art is afterall an application of skill beyond the necessary and some of them might have been crafted just for asthetic value. All fitness indicators are hence costly and used to enchance sexual status and find out for yourself whether the converse is true.

The book has so many compelling ideas that any one review cannot do justice to it. If you are still undecided about buying a book on evolutionary psychology, this one is highly recommended. By the way, it would not be a bad idea to read this book with one of Leil Lowndes. Although they deal with varied disciplines, you'll find that they complement each other.

Miller makes clear an argument the humans evolved according to sexual selection, an suggestion that Darwin first proposed in Descent of Man. Males and females picking each other for specific attributes drove, through sexual selection, an evolution of human features including brain size increases, sexual organ characteristics and human behaviors.

It is an evocative story, and one that may even be supported by recent studies in neurological disorders characterized by maturational delay. If the engine behind Miller's runaway sexual selection is a slowing down in maturation rates (neoteny) revealed in the fossil record by a decrease in sexual dimorphism, then the neurological, physiological and behavioral tendencies of humans with disorders characterized by maturational delay should reveal the kind of human the Miller describes as transitional to modern times.

It is not often that an evolutionary theory uncovers an opportunity to reveal clues about our origin in the present day. Miller's theory does this. Kudos to an original and well thought out exposition.