July 27,
2003
Prime
Numbers: What Science
and Crime Have in Common
By NICHOLAS WADE
When Julius Caesar was
touring the Spanish city
of Cadiz in his early
30's, the ancient Roman
biographer Suetonius
reports, he came across
a statue of Alexander
the Great and wept
beside it. Alexander at
the same age had
conquered the known
world, while Caesar was
just a minor Roman
official, a source of
severe chagrin to the
ambitious future
autocrat.
It
must be almost equally
discouraging for
scientists to see the
graph that plots the age
at which eminent male
scientists make their
big discoveries. It
peaks at age 30 and then
plummets, giving
precious little time
after one's hard-earned
Ph.D. to get that
invitation from the
Nobel prize committee.
The productivity of jazz
musicians and painters
is also highest in their
mid-30's. And it's not
just creativity that
attains its zenith early
in the male career.
Crime, too, follows just
the same parabolic
curve.
Dr.
Satoshi Kanazawa, an
evolutionary
psychologist at the
London School of
Economics who has
studied these patterns
of male achievement,
believes he has the
explanation. Young men
in any profession are
driven to seek wealth
and prestige because
these attributes are
attractive to women.
Once men's urges to
start a family have been
satisfied, the
wellsprings of
productivity, whether in
science, art or crime,
run dry, Dr. Kanazawa
suggests.
In
support of his thesis,
published in the current
Journal of Research in
Personality, he notes
that marriage seems to
have a quenching effect
on both creativity and
crime. Scientists who
remain unmarried, he
says, reached their peak
of productivity at age
40, much later than the
wedded sort. Criminals,
too, retain their
productivity much longer
if unwed but tend to
hang up their crowbars
after marriage.
"Both crime and
genius are
manifestations of young
men's competitive
desires to gain access
to women's reproductive
resources," he
concludes.
Dr.
David M. Buss, an
evolutionary
psychologist at the
University of Texas at
Austin, said he agreed
with the general idea
that scientific
productivity, writing
and crime are all
activities driven by
men's pursuit of wealth
and status. But Dr.
Kanazawa's thesis, in
attributing everything
to a switching on and
off of some male
competitive drive, was a
"wild
oversimplification."
For one thing, men need
to command resources
after marriage as well
as before, or they will
find themselves
divorced. Indeed, income
in the United States
peaks around age 55 for
men, Dr. Buss said.
Evolutionary
psychology is the
attempt to relate human
behaviors to the
purposes for which they
evolved. Since
evolution's criterion
for success is getting
as many genes as
possible into the next
generation, it is
reasonable to seek to
understand human
behavior in terms of
reproductive advantage.
Dr.
Buss has shown that
women in many different
cultures are attracted
to men with money and
prestige.
"Scientific and
artistic endeavors are
male attempts to compete
for status and
resources, although I
don't think men
conceptualize it that
way," he said.
Evolution has built in a
drive for male
competitiveness and
status-seeking because
it is attractive to
women; there's no need
for the drive to be
conscious.
In his
recent book, "The
Mating Mind," Dr.
Geoffrey Miller argues
that intelligence and
creativity are the
product not of natural
selection, the struggle
for survival, but of
sexual selection, the
struggle for
reproductive advantage.
The peacock's tail, a
flamboyant example of
sexual selection, is a
costly encumbrance of no
help at all to physical
survival, but of great
value in seducing
peahens.
Sexual
selection tends to work
much faster than natural
selection and has a
tendency toward weird
excess because of a
runaway reinforcing
process — the peahens,
who favor long tails,
and the peacocks, who
have them, both have
more progeny, so in the
next generation even
longer tails are de
rigeur.
Dr.
Miller, an evolutionary
psychologist, , sees
human intelligence as
the weirdest excess of
all. We're far smarter
than was necessary for
just surviving in the
savannah, he says, and
our close cousins the
great apes never needed
to develop our kind of
intelligence. Therefore
intelligence and
creativity must be the
product of sexual
selection: women
preferred smarter men,
the better singers and
dancers and
spell-binders, and vice
versa.
If
Caesar had only known
that his desire to
emulate Alexander —
his spectacular conquest
of Gaul, his renowned
oratory, his elegant
military histories, his
provident reform of the
calendar — stemmed
from an unconscious
drive to bed more women,
would he not have wept
all the more?
|