It seems to me that all of John Kulig's examples, and Michael Sylvester's original
example, can be understood better in terms of inaccessibility than in terms of
difference. As John points out, Russians and Poles are not different; neither were
Montagues and Capulets or knights and princesses. They were, however, socially
forbidden or inaccessible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller
Dept. of Psychology
Salem State College
Salem, MA 01970
978-542-6483
"John W. Kulig" wrote:
> Well, the data generally indicates "birds of a feather flock together" more
> than "opposites attract" when it comes to marriage. David Buss has several
> articles on mate selection (an early general article is "Human Mate Selection"
> (1985) _American Scientist_, 73, 47-51). You generally see assortative mating
> (similarity) on nearly every measure tested - age, race, ethnicity, SES,
> height, weight, g (general intelligence), geographic closeness. We'd expect
> some of these variables to overlap (SES and g for instance; or race and
> neighborhood), and I can't remember if the assortative mating correlations
> have partialled out other variables. But the correlations always seem to be
> positive, indicating propinquity and similarity in mating - and no evidence of
> opposites attracting.
>
> But - I think there is still a puzzle in here. Many of our myths and stories
> have strong elements on people pursuing people _different_ from themselves. We
> have Romeo & Juliet, and West Side Story (Romeo & Juliet update). In Tarus
> Bulba (Russian legend, story by Gogal), we have a Russian falling fatally in
> love with a Polish princess (Russians and Poles - back then - were fierce
> rivals) - with deadly consquences at the end. In Medieval legends we have
> knights falling for princesses (knights were from a different social class
> than princesses - we often forget that's the original meaning of those
> stories). In the Cinderalla and the numerous Beauty & Beast stories (King
> Kong, for instance) we have opposites (at least on the surface). In the Capra
> movie "It's a Wonderful Life" George Bailey ends up with the girl next door -
> but he's happy about this only after divine intervention. Why would these
> stories be gripping if we didn't have a germ of desire for difference? A
> parsimoneous explanation of the Romeo and Juliet and Tarus Bulba stories is
> that their infautaion is created totally by a barrier between them (not any
> difference between Poles vs Russians - many of whom are blonde btw). But this
> wouldn't explain the Knight and princess phenomena and many of the other
> legends.
>
> Genetically, there are consequences to marrying too close to oneself.
> Inbreeding (at one extreme) creates "inbreeding depression" (reduced
> variability in offspring and more deleterious recessives expressing
> themselves). When mating occurs between members with less in common, we have
> "hybrid vigor" (more variability, and healthier). In fact, the secular trend
> toward greater height of Europeans and Americans (sometimes attributed to
> better diet) is perhaps better explained by the bicycle (yup, no kidding). The
> bicycle - followed by the train and the automobile - allows people to marry
> some from a different village.
>
> >From a culutural angle, we can argue that the marriage process maintains
> propinquity (similarity). We "individualistic" Americans mistakenly believe
> marriage is for the sole benefit of the two lovebirds, but in "collectivistic"
> societies marriage is steeped in the traditions of that culture. We wouldn't
> expect societal forces to encourage mating between total opposites, and we'd
> expect matchmaking to pair up people so as to continue the values and
> traditions of the society. I don't know if these thoughts are too far removed
> from the original question - but I think there are many different angles to
> the issue ...
>
> Michael Sylvester wrote:
>
> > While discussing physical characteristics and interperonal attraction in
> > the Social Psych segment,it was noted that some middle-east men
> > seem to have a specific attraction for blondes.As a matter of fact,one of
> > my students mentioned that while she and others were on a tour of the
> > Middle-East,the men would select the blonde women in her group for special
> > attention and favors.And that one even proposed buying a blonde friend
> > for a certain amount of camels.
> > How can this affinity for blondes be explained?
> > I have also observed the same with the Greeks and Italian affinity.
> > One reason that pops up is that blonde is so rare in the Middle-East that
> > it becomes a prized object.
> > There is also the illusion that the blonde represents the quintessential
> > European woman.
> > Comments invited.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu
> Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468
> Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "The only rational way of educating is to be an example - if
> one can't help it, a warning example." A. Einstein, 1934.
--
