Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Mark Changizi | October 2nd 2009 04:06 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Dear Hugh Hefner:

Ever wondered  why you’re rich?   Yes, yes, you’re a savvy businessman who succeeded where thousands have failed.   But there are deeper reasons underlying why your business model works at all. When one digs deeply enough one finds that color – yup, the stuff of rainbows and Crayola – is at the core of your success. Without hue, there’d be no Hugh.

To see why you should be giving thanks to the existence of color, let’s start with something closer to your home; nakedness.   Although mammals tend to be furry-faced, some of us primates had the chutzpah to lose the hair on our faces, and often on our rumps. And we humans are nearly naked all over, something you may have noticed.   If we humans weren’t so bare, we would probably not wear robes. And then there would be no reason to disrobe.

If there were no bare skin, there would  be no Hefner as we know it.

Now  let’s delve deeper and ask why some of us primates got bare in the first place. One feature that distinguishes the primates with bare faces from the furry-faced ones is color vision. The naked primates can see in color, but the furry-faced ones cannot.   Color goes with nudity. Why?

As I have argued in my research, our color vision is a distinctive kind of color vision, one that is specialized for detecting the color changes that happen in skin due to the physiological changes in blood (e.g., oxygenation). Most varieties of color vision – like that in birds, reptiles and bees – do not have this extraordinary capability. Our color vision is for seeing blushes, blanches, red rage, sexual engorgement and the many other skin color changes that occur as one’s emotion, mood, or physiology alters. Color is for seeing embarrassment, fear, anger, sexual excitement, and so on.

Our primate ancestors once had furry faces, and one was born with our style of color vision, able to detect the peculiar changes in our underlying blood physiology. Although the faces this ancestor looked at were  furry, some skin would have been visible, such as around the eyes, nostrils, lips and any lighter patches of fur. This ancestor would have been born an “empath,” able to see the moods of others. Color vision of this kind would thus spread over time.

And once it spread, animals could then have evolved to “purposely” signal colors indicating their mood, and then bare skin would have evolved to have more canvas for signaling. Many of our skin color changes are indeed “purposeful,” i.e., not simply inevitable consequences of our underlying physiological state. For example, Peter D. Drummond has shown  that peoples' faces blush more on the side which people can see.

You might be wondering  why, unlike the other primates who mainly have bare faces and rumps, we humans are so naked all over.  It might be that, although we don’t consciously notice it, we color signal over our entire canvas.  If all our bare spots are for color signalling (setting aside the palms and the bottoms of the feet) then we should not be naked in places that viewers would not tend to be able to see. 

Well, there are three places on the body that are difficult to observe; the top of the head, the underarms and the groin. And notice that, as expected if bare skin is for color signaling, these three spots are the universally furry spots on humans. 

The only complication here is that the groin does occasionally become dominated by bare skin rather than fur, namely when  the genitalia engorge. But at these times there is often another person involved in a behavior wherein the groin is, ahem, no longer difficult to see.

Bare skin really may be for looking at! And it is worth  looking at because it often signals something to the viewer. But the viewer can only see these signals if they have our special kind of color vision.

No color vision, no nakedness. No nakedness, no Hugh Hefner.

Or, no hue, no Hugh.

And now the real point of my writing: Because of the dependency of your enterprise on the evolution of color, it would only be natural to bring some diversity to those apocryphal parties at the mansion … by inviting an evolutionary neuroscientist.

Just have your people call my person.

Comments

Hank's picture
All this time I thought people read Playboy for the articles!  It turns out it was science all along.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I think Hugh is disgusting, but your title was so awesome that I had to read the article. It definitely "colored" my perception of Playboy. :)

I'll remember this next time I turn green with envy, or purple with...er..blue...orange?...hmm wait..shit.

aaanouel's picture
Totally apart of coloristic considerations in the article, much of us have admired Hugh's surroundings almost like a real life's hero since 60's.
But since 25 years ago, Hugh should have considerate to change or reinvent his own marketing image, and by these times it's really pathetic to try to keep on the same rancid and slimy old fashion image from 60's decade. Since much more than a decade Hugh's been certainly too aged and physically handicapped to make anyone believe he still can do anything with "it" or at least that he's still "on the mood" with "his girls".
Attraction power is the sum of a lot of factors specially having a lot of money and I applause him for the power he still owns, but he certainly doesn't need to play the old clown roll in a tasteless and endless joke. Playboy really doesn't need him anymore or at least, not in that way.

It's time for a well deserved retirement Grandpa Hugh.
P.D.: If they invite an evolutionary neuroscientist please add an architect to the party too.

Hank's picture
If they invite an evolutionary neuroscientist please add an architect to the party too.

Are you, by chance, an architect?    

I wonder if they give out press passes?  Because Mark has already made it clear that if it's a choice between me and any beautiful buxom blonde redhead brunette woman, I am out.

aaanouel's picture
Yes I am, but sorry, I can not get any press passes at all and if I could, let me make it also clear that if I'd have to choose between Kendra and any of you, you're all out. Haha!

I can see a couple of problems with this logic:

Firstly, as I understand it, the evidence points to humans evolving from Africa, and that whiter skin is a later mutation. There's much less chance to notice changes in skin colour when your skin is black. So by your logic, colour vision is more likely to have been after the white/yellow mutation. And yet people with black skin have colour vision.

Secondly, even if the colour vision mutation happened before the white/yellow mutation, the darker the skin, the less colour vision would be useful, according to your logic.

Is there any evidence to suggest that people with black skin have a higher rate of colour blindness than people with any other skin colour? And in particular that it's proportional to skin darkness?

Mark Changizi's picture
Thanks, JeffV for the comments, which are discussed in my book. In short, there's large variability in skin color across trichromatic primates, and, once one has adapted to the skin color of the conspecifics one is looking at, the color modulations do appear to be visible.  

If you have evidence showing that different races and/or species have different colour sensitivities in just those right areas to see the changes in their own skin, that'd be a good supporting argument that sight has evolved to take advantage of skin colour and visibility.

But to turn it around, and claim sight as the *cause* of the nakedness, is a stretch. Nakedness has such huge side-effects, on things like thermal regulation, sun protection, parasitism, water use, and so on, that to put it down to a single reason is, it seems to me, a little simplistic and naive. There are always multiple factors involved. Did signalling through hair erection fail when we developed an adipose fat layer, so we had to find another method? Were we in an environment (shrubbery and such) where only small patches of our skin might become visible? Are there body signals that we send by blood flow *that we do not simultaneously send through more significant body language* that can be conveyed only by seeing an entire naked body? Is there evidence that these signals predate nakedness, and so the need to have them seen caused that nakedness? I just have a really hard time thinking that subconscious signalling through blood flow is a significant evolutionary force.

There are a few other hypotheses that attempt to explain nakedness; heat regulation, semiaquaticness, parasite avoidance, sexual display. Mostly, they're... not appealing. I'm most inclined to go with the Aquatic Ape hypothesis, [[bias note: my gran wrote most of the books on the theory, but I tell myself I prefer the hypothesis because unlike the others, it explains *most* differences from the apes, instead of one or two]] - in which case, if nakedness is already established, and diving is common, it would be kind of handy to have the ability to see if your child, who is partially submerged and has been diving, is blue rather than red... but even then, I'd say that swimming is not nearly as powerful an evolutionary force on our eyes as, say, the ability to distinguish at a glance a ripe fruit from an unripe one, a hidden predator from its concealment, a bee from a beetle, someone from your tribe from strangers, or one member of your tribe from another member.

Mark Changizi's picture
Thanks for your comment, Dewi.  I don't need evidence "showing that different races and/or species have different colour sensitivities in just those right areas to see the changes in their own skin," because blood physiology (oxygenation and concentration) modulates in the same way no matter the baseline skin color.  Different baseline skin colors, indeed.  But the same blood physiology, which means the baseline spectrum modulates in the same spectral fashion no matter what the primate's baseline skin color is. ...and that means we primates want the same color sensitivities, no matter the baseline skin color.  This explains our peculiar variety of color vision, one that has very low variability across us Old World primates; this is something fruit has great trouble explaining (because primates have widely diverse diets), and is something that "predator reveal" cannot explain.

On the second point, I do, indeed, suggest that nakedness and color vision have co-evolved among us primates. The question is whether adding more complexity to the hypothesis -- e.g., that it is color-signaling AND thermal regulation -- provides any real extra explanatory power. 

On the aquatic ape argument, that's awesome: Elaine Morgan is your grandmother!

All the best, Mark (...and I go into this in much detail in Chapter 1 of The Vision Revolution, which I'm guessing you would really enjoy.)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.