hips and guns

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/12/03/hourglass-figures-we-take-it-all-back.aspx
"Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back"
by Sharon Begley
December 3, 2008
Newsweek

The article discusses new research into the trope that a .7 waist:hip ratio is evolutionarily and (consequently) aesthetically ideal shape for women. The gist of it is that men only prefer that shape in societies in which women are economically dependent on men. Moreover, hormones of the androgen family (including testosterone) lead to both higher waist:hip ratios, as well as increased stamina, strength, and competitiveness. This perhaps explains the difference in preferences across societies. Frankly, I think this is a nice piece of analysis - it doesn't get bogged down trying to fight a nature vs. nurture style fight. It combines perspectives from biology, evolution, sociology, and economics.

Of course, take this all with a grain of salt:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/the-gun-show-loophole-revisited
"The 'Gun-Show Loophole,' Revisited"
by Catherine RampellDecember 1, 2008
The New York Times

Here, we have an example of a first analysis of whether gun shows result in crime - which may have appeared very convincing and scientific - but which in fact appears to be flawed, once we take a closer look at the facts. But then again, maybe even the new analysis is not final. For example, the new analysis discusses the fact that it is a long time between when most guns are sold and when the are recovered by law enforcement after being used in a crime. But isn't the more important statistic the time between sale and use? Moreover (as the authors of the new analysis are right to point out), it is entirely possible that a more fine-grained analysis, conducted with better data, might result in some correlation or other between gun shows and gun crime. After all, not all gun crimes are the same.

(To return to the first article - the link between economic dependence, testosterone, and competitive fitness is a rather tenuous and speculative one. DIY: How would we go about testing that?)

So consider this: the first article remarks, offhand, that a lot of young women, upon hearing that the .7 ratio was ideal, ran off to check their own measurements. Why would that be? Why is it so important, on a personal (rather than a policy, perhaps) level what people in general find attractive? (In other words, we have to be careful with what we believe, and also with how we respond to the "facts" or facts).