 In the conceptualization stage, we mean that by definition. For instance, I'm not yet cognitively developed to be socialized due to exhibit those sex-specific preferences. So already that serves as a first name to the idea that it's all sort of arbitrary socialization. If you look at a disorder called congenital edging and hyperplasia, which is an endocrinological disorder that masculinizes little girls, what do you think happens to girls who suffer from that disorder, their total preferences become similar to those of lower boys, again suggesting that there might be a hormonal drivers to this particular consumer preference. Graces and blue monkeys exhibit roughly the same sex-specific preferences as infants, as human infants do. This is, by the way, my daughter, when she was set by age, and they're actually sitting out there that they can't come in because we have unruly children and they might cause a bit of, hi guys. And then there is also what's called a digit ratio. A digit ratio is the ratio of your index to ring finger that's a sexually dimorphic trait whereby men usually have longer ring fingers than index fingers, and women have the more similar event. Why is that relevant from a hormonal perspective? It turns out to be a cute marker of how much hormones you've been exposed to testosterone in particular in utero. So that's a few of the marker of masculinization. Well, the little boys who have more masculinized digit ratio have then more masculinized play behavior. So if you look at all this collection of findings, you come to the undeniable conclusion that of course culture matters and of course the environment matters, that certain biology also has to do something here. Now this is rather another difficult claim for people in this room to accept, but you really can't imagine in the social sciences how much hostility you receive for arguing that biology matters for anything short of your genitalia. Some of you may not know much about evolutionary psychology, so then the spend will be two, four minutes even with a very quick primer. You may know about evolutionary health, but then it's sort of about evolutionary psychology. So evolutionary psychology basically argues that the mind is a part of natural sexual selection, that's not very difficult to understand, it can't be that other organs are prone to these dual forces of evolution, that somehow evolution stops at the neck. The next one is really important, what's called the domain-specific view of the human mind. So evolution psychologists argue that our brains are an amalgamation of computational systems, each of which has evolved to serve a specific adaptive problem. Find mates, retain mate, invest in kin, and work predators, find nutritional food sources, invest in reciprocal ranges with friends. So each of these evolutionary and present problems would have led to specific computational systems in our brain. Learning culture and socialization, which is sort of a catch all explanations in the social sciences, you would spend very little. Why do women prefer tired men, or it's due to socialization? Why do men prefer younger women, it's due to socialization? The question that still makes to be asked is, why would socialization be of that form? Around the world across time periods. Of course, the mind is not an empty cell. And the next one, some of you may be familiar with it, this epistemological reference, others may not be, so then we spend a few minutes talking about it. So the important of proximate versus ultimate explanations, much of science operates at the proximate level. Nothing wrong with that. Most of our praises are run at the proximate level. The ultimate level there is the ultimate dimension, why? Proximate looks at the net, the high factors. Ultimate is, why would it have evolved to be of that form? So since we are here at an ancestral health conference, this is particularly, for example, pregnancy sickness, right? There are all sorts of proximate explanations or phenomena that I could study relating to pregnancy sickness. How do fluctuating rates of our women's home health levels affect the severity of her pregnancy sickness? That's a phenomenally appropriate proximate explanation or question to ask. The ultimate explanation is, why would women have evolved that physiological reality? And it turns out it happens during the first semester, during the period of organogenesis, where the fingers is developing its key organs. And so it's particularly important to do that period that a woman not be exposed to the intelligence through pathogens. And so the feelings of nausea, throwing up, aversion to a certain foods, attraction towards other types of foods, all of these realities are an adaptive solution to a very important evolutionary power. So it's not that the ultimate explanations surpass the proximate explanation, it's not superior, it's not ultimate in that sense, is that you need both levels of explanations to really understand the phenomena. And so I'll do it with my concern of the women in the world as I introduce these ultimate level of explanations to understand our concern against them. So let me give you some examples. First, I'm going to spend a minute or two putting out of the way. Some of you probably have heard that all evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of just, just so storytelling. If I'm up with some cute story and I'll be sure you can make everything fit to anything. Nothing can be further than the truth from the truth. The evidential threshold that the typical evolutionist goes through in testing the hypothesis is astonishingly higher than in other disciplines. So let me give you just one example. The idea that men have a worst-to-hit brochure preference of roughly 0.7, which can slightly change depending on the ecological niches. The traditional are out of us for that. It's been tested using line of figure joints in endless cultures. You could do a content analysis of Indian, African, Greek, Egyptian arts spanning several millennia and calculate the worst-to-hit ratio of the statues that are represented in those different arts. You could do FMRI studies to see which parts of women's brain that are the most dependent on which energies. Here's a study that I did a few years ago where I coded the list of a brochure that female escorts advertise online for their services. Your name is Jenny, I'm a 36, 24, 36, probably at least my phone number. Well, the internet of course affords you the possibility to collect data from many, many cultures very quickly. And so I think it was very unique, different cultures that had been content analyzed. By the way, the research assistants who have done the study for me is still in love with me for having given the opportunity to spend that summer searching for results during this. He recently actually sent me a first book friend request and trying to decide that I'm going to accept it or not. You could do pre- and post-operative analyses and usually the post-operative analysis are always trying to limit as closely as possible the cues of liberty and fertility. There's no culture where a woman goes in and says, please do a plastic surgery to make them look much older than I really am. Now, if that still hasn't convinced you, can you generally blind men, men who are born blind? So by definition, they could not have been socialized by the sexist Hollywood, by sexist or permedia. Yet, guess what, practically by touch, they arrive to the exact same preference of 0.7. So if you put all of these findings together, they'll be astonishing to argue that it's just a bunch of just so story telling that it's a bunch of nonsense. It's actually extraordinarily more rigorous than most other disciplines, certainly the behavioral sciences. So having that in that out of the way, so what I basically do in my work and I'll just spend the rest of today's talk doing is showing you how we could map much of consumer behavior onto one of four key behavioral modules, the survivor module, reproduction material selection, which relates to, for example, value of jump into a river to save your brothers, and with reciprocity, which relates to non-prove investments, while we're at jump into a river to save a friend or a stranger. And so I will give a few examples of consumer behaviors that map onto each of these different modules. So let's start with the first one, survivor. So the hummingbird has a metabolic rate such that he has to eat 1.5 to three times. It's value rate just to survive to the next day. Well, we don't have that metabolic rate, yet we still have the pensions to encourage on all of the input phase, right? And so here, of course, these are the, as most of you would understand, so I won't spend much time on them. And how does this sort of variety of the idea that there's so much different variety of foods that are preferred, manifest itself in peculiar ways, and perhaps we would consider irrational ways? If you take M&Ms of red color or fewer colors or M&Ms of multi-colors, you put the exact amount of M&Ms into those and we ask people to eat as much as they want from one or the other, they end up eating a lot more from the one that has multi-colored M&Ms. Live and die objectively, rationally, the colorant is older than the synthesis. It doesn't change in any way and there's some sort of experience, but it is stripping my visual system into holding more because I'm succumbing to the variety of effect. Similar principles are taken, one shaped pasta versus multi-shaped pasta, people will bulge a lot more in this often than the other one. So here's an example where in a sense, you are behaving quite rationally because it's true that when we shoot the structure, your courage and potential does end up effecting it. Of course, I don't spend much time on it because I think everybody in this room is familiar with the top 10 restaurants or what they have in common from a marketing perspective, since I am housed in a consumer building department, is that they're all doing them things very well and they offer us foods that are tasty and very fatty. And if you open the, if you open the McDonald's version that says all you can eat, the ass or celery, it's probably not going to work as well. Even if you have Justin Timberlake sitting in the top for the next 300 years, that's not going to work very well because it's not congruent with my above those spots. I think everybody in this room would agree with that. But the next slide is actually quite interesting because this slide talks about how cross-cultural differences might also be subsurface if you like within an evolutionary framework. So there's a field called, a ruling astronomy, yes, there is such a field, developed by Paul Sherman, a neuroscientist at Cornell, where he looked at how culinary traditions evolve in different cultures as an adaptation to the real biological problem. So if you're a cultural and psychological anthropologist, you would simply rather identify cross-cultural differences than illusions doing this way or the French do it that way. But as well, the important part of it is to study why these cultural differences would evolve. So it turns out that how much meat-based dishes there is in a culture, how much vegetable-based, how much spices we use, how much salt you consume, how much liquid we use, all turns out to be an adaptive solution to the real problem of how much pathogens there is in that local environment, that local niche. It's probably antimicrobial hypothesis. And so in cultures where there's a pathogenic density, you're going to have great abuse of spices. And even within one country, for example, in the U.S. or India or China, big countries, depending on whether you're North or South, the spice index, if you'd like, will shift accordingly. So here's an example of how you use evolutionary principles to not only explain human universals, but to also explain cross-cultural differences. Moving on very quickly to mating, second module. Does anybody know what is the species of bird? No bird? Sorry? No, thanks for the guess. So let's capmanic him. What he does very well is he dances to bless the ladies. And the one who dances the best and the like is the one who gets to mate with all the ladies. Now, of course, in the human context, we have an analogous behavior where males will also engage in similar behaviors, right? So these are called analogies or homologies, depending on, we don't have to go into it. Here's a satan buyer who creates this buyer, not for any functional purpose. He's not creating it because it's a nest or to protect its young. It's an artistic expression. Voila. Look what I've created for you. And if you think that I am artistic enough, then please mate with me. And of course, humans build these architectural structures also as sexual signals, right? You don't lose seven or three bedrooms unless you have that many people in the family. But bird doesn't serve as an honest signal of my social status. And so I'll discuss in a second a few examples of how we apply these principles from sexual selection and consumer behavior. Very quickly, these are some of the products that have been studied from an evolutionary perspective. If any of you are interested in hearing more about them, maybe you could intercept me a little bit at the conference. I probably don't have time to go through them, but for a few flowers, Jeffrey Lula, who's next, will probably talk about this study since he's the one who authored it. So I'll just watch your appetite by simply saying that there are quite a few products that have been now studied through an evolutionary lens, typically not by marketing scholars, but people in other disciplines. So let me discuss some of my own studies. So of course, here we've got the peacock, the proverbial example in sexual selection, but there are many other examples trying to impress the hand, she's the one that she's not interested in. So I took this idea and tried to see whether I could apply it in a consumer behavior context. Now, we all know just unusually that men have the intention to purchase luxury cars, at least those cars. There is no culture that's ever been public where women are more likely to engage in the behavior. Typically, for example, Ferrari owners are 99% male. Even though there are only this number of women who certainly don't have a girl with an entry, they certainly have the money. There are tons of women and billionaires women that can certainly go in and afford any of these cars, but they don't run up and they ask them why they can do that shit. And so one argument is that these cars serve as a form of pre-popping. And so taking this idea, I wanted to actually test the endocrine logically. I wanted to see, we know that when two males fight in many species, the one who wins has a rise in testosterone level. The one who loses has a drop in testosterone level. So taking this exact idea, I thought let's see if we could bring people into the lab and then have them drive a fancy push, not as you see in many psychology experiments, imagine yourself driving a Porsche. We actually rented a Porsche. And as some of you have seen some of my TED Talks, much remember, I mentioned that, but try to get a granting agency to rent you a Porsche for the weekend and you're saying, no, no, trust me, it's for scientific purposes. So we rented a Porsche and had this beaten up car and we had the same man drive both cars in one of two environments, either in a wrecking environment, everybody can see in downtown Montreal, or on the semi-deserted highway. And after each of the conditions, we collect the salivary assays to measure eventually the fluctuating roots of testosterone. I won't get into the whole story if you're interested, I could send you a copy of the paper, but you put young males in this car and basically the endocrinological system explodes. And it doesn't explode as some reviewers at one point had pointed out, or it's just because we're driving fast and so it's a form of excitement, which probably could be rid of the cortisol, but downtown Montreal, it's bumper to bumper. It's like a pump and bob. So we're certainly not driving fast, but you are infusing me immediately with very high social status my endocrinological system is going to respond accordingly. So this is one example of trying to marry endocrinology with concern and behavior. Now here's a study by some British colleagues where they had the same guy either sit in a four-fist or a Bentley and then the same women in the same two cars and it's opposite sex ratings. You asked men to rape the women. You asked women to rape the men. Well, men couldn't give a damn which car the woman was in. On the other hand, I'm looking at, I think I've got about 20 minutes left. On the other hand, this guy was very unattractive and this guy was as good looking as Brad Pitt. It's the exact same guy, right? And so again, the idea is that you associate cues of status to men that does a lot to how women perceive his morphology. So in a sense that's quite irrational because his face didn't change. So taking this idea a bit further, let me give you a background. This is a study that I'm currently working on with my former doctoral students. There's a study that was done in the late 60s where you had the same man come into a room, let's say like this room, and you introduce him in one of several ways. And condition one, he's a graduate student. In condition two, he's a lecturer. In condition three, he's a famous professor. Then he leaves and then the people are asked a whole bunch of questions about the guy, one of which is, how tall was the guy? What does status add height to you? This is why you all think I'm six foot five. So taking this idea, I thought, let's see if you could, in a sense replicate this by associating rather than academic titles to the same man, different parts of different status. So we developed an online reading profile, the exact same thing. This is my favorite possession that I own. This is my favorite possession that I own, some to pay out versus some expensive fish. And then we asked people, how far did you think he was and so on? Now interestingly, for men, what do you think, how did the rate, is that as a function of the two cars? He's shorter, he's shorter than them. Women learn 10 taller. Exactly what you'd expect, right? None of the other men who have high social status. In this case, they literally denigrate his morphology since we know that all of his equal taller guys are preferred than shorter guys. Luckily I was able to convince my wife that I could still be a good genetic prospect despite being five foot six. So this is exactly what this study find out. We'll go to the next one, but here we look at how attractive he is and so on. Well, for example, how many sexual partners you think he has, the guy who drives the push is perceived as a philander, you know, a guy who achieved a guy who had many partners and so on so forth. I wonder through all this, this study is still going with enough, but this shows you how, just associating the same guy to different products, people end up with completely different evaluations and attributions of him. Very, very quickly, this is a study done by a consulting firm where they counted the number of grand mentions in songs. Cultural products are a wonderful place to study the evolution of the human mind because they serve as fossils of the human mind, like literature, religious narrative, songs, surf opera themes. This is where all the juicy universal themes that we consistently find throughout history are to be found. And some of those are rather familiar because in a sense, especially in hip hop songs, all the political correctness is kind of taken away and only the raw expression is left. And so if you do a content analysis of grand mentions, hey girl, I've got the Maserati, come get with me, it's almost always men, never female singers who engage in that form of conspicuous consumption, and it's usually fancy luxury products just to kind of finish the more of a price. Just so that you don't think that it's only men who engage in sexual signaling, but I think you already know that, women too engage in sexual signaling, although they might use booth and queues to also ameliorate their loft in the multi market. So in the case of women, a study recently with one of my current doctoral students, by a science firm, where we looked at what happens to women's food consumption, which I won't talk about here, and beautification practices as a function of where they are in their menstrual cycles. The idea I believe of course that there are all sorts of hormonal cascades of hormones that wax and wane across the menstrual cycle, and these ultimately serve as adaptive solutions to impolitan problem problems, where probably everyone in this room can predict which part of the menstrual cycle do you think women are most likely to dress like this? When they're ovulating, right? When they're maxing their foot down, that's exactly what we want. What was particularly interesting about our study is that we actually found women for 35 contiguous days. Typically these types of studies are done at two-time periods, non-threat offers and a-threat offers, whereas we actually had built up on every single day. And while 35 days, the typical menstrual cycle length is about 28 days. So that going 35 days, you're strictly making sure that most hormonal to fit within that range. And so we got some really fantastic findings, which of course, women are able to tackle a genomic and an evolutionary perspective. Moving on, so I talked a bit about survival module, a bit about the main module. We now move on to the thin selection module and the reciprocity module. Gift given is a wonderful place where you could study these skin relationships and these reciprocal relationships, because those serve as a prototypical place where these investments are made. I invite you under both of them and hopefully you reciprocate and invite me online. So I'll go through these analysis with by the way, this is me, either just before getting circumcised or just after getting circumcised. I'm not sure which one it was. So let me discuss some difficult example. No, no, I started later. Let's go 10. So this is the first time that I've overcome the guy who was made up. Sorry about that. I'll try to discuss with this once more. So we did a study recently when we looked at gift-giving practices at Israeli governments. We wanted to look at specifically whether the genetic relevance between the giver and the recipients would determine the size of the gift. And then the second question, which I'll leave for a second. So hold on. So the first thing, by the way, in Israeli writing, typically, you prevent with toasters and coffee machines. Instead, they just give money. And so the bride and groom keep a list of who gives that. And so we actually had access to 30 of these lists. And so the analysis is based on that. So the first thing that we found is that this is a profession of genetic readiness. So for example, you and your siblings or you and your parents on average share 50% of your genes. This is you and your grandparents or your uncles and aunts. 25% of your genes. This is your first dozen. This is your second dozen. We're not going into too much details. The size of the bars, the monitors. People who are more close to you give you a bigger list than people who are further from you. You might say, okay, well, I could have probably predicted that without knowing anything about everything you shared with me and genetic readiness. Fair enough. The next finding, though, would have been a bit more difficult for you to predict. So if you look at your grandparents, I think Nassim thought I mentioned very quickly, or a grandma, for example. If you look at your grandparents on average, they all have the same genetic readiness to your 25% of your genes. But if you realize that it's not just genetic readiness that matters, but genetic assuredness, right? Then it changes the story. Your maternal grandmother is assured of her genetic readiness to you. There is no such thing as maternal uncertainty. Your paternal grandfather has two generations of paternity uncertainty. So we would expect the maternal grandmother to invest the most, but the paternal grandfather to invest the least, and the two other grandparents to be in the middle. And several studies across many cultures have exactly found that. So we took this idea and we said, well, let's see if it could get this matrilineal effect when it comes to just giving. And that's exactly what we got. The matrilineal side of the grazing room gave much, much larger gifts than the paternal father's side. That would have been more difficult for you to predict. Had you not been coming with them from the revolution? Let's move on very quickly. I always tell people that one of the things that I love about evolutionary theory is that it allows us to navigate through life and identify things that happen in our daily lives from an evolutionary lens. Let me give you one from my own personal life. My daughter is not here right now. This is the ultrasound of our daughter in utero during the first trimester. As most parents do, you typically put it up very proudly on your fridge to show that, hey, look, we're fertile. This is our first child. Now, of course, if you look at this energy, it could be that I'm an extraterrestrial. It could be an enneva. It could be a Joey. However, my mother-in-law stopped and restfully stated, oh my God, God, the baby looks exactly like you. He's got your profile. Now, why did I give this example? Because it actually demonstrates something fundamentally important. And that is, this is, if you like, the ancestral way of DNA paternity testing. This is the cultural way by which the mother's side of the family as well as the fears of the father that it is his child. But typically, this happens after you get birth. When the baby is born, then everybody says, especially the mother's side, oh my God, he looks exactly like you. Which objectively can be read. But this was the first time that I've demonstrated this in utero. And I always tell my daughter that I have permanently made her famous in the annals of science. I should probably write a one-page letter somewhere and publish it. I'll then go through the rest of this stuff here because I just was running out of time. Let me just really quickly go through a few other examples. So, the future discounted is something that actually, relative to rationality, that looks at whether you are a needle gratifier or if you're late, you learn to persecrate the rules. Do you want to receive $100 now or wait a week and receive $100 later? And that's correlated with the personality trait that we have, as I said, the needle gratifier or the rib gratifier. It turns out though that if you find people with certain biologically relevant cues, they will alter their behavior in terms of their intertemporal choice. So if you give people a sugaring jump or not, that changes what's called the random parameter will become their future ornamental because they actually have a satiety cue. So if you show a gorgeous woman, what do you think happens to their intertemporal discovery? They want it now, right? So one of the present forces in nature is a non-sexual drive. And so when you cue them with the photos of, you say you cue basically the Newton drive, they actually alter their intertemporal choice behavior. This doesn't apply if you put a gorgeous guy and show it to women. Women don't succumb to the same cues. Let me very, very quickly go over this. So this is actually my daughter, this is my son. So I'm going to go over this, this is one of my colleagues, that's a doctoral student, where we're looking at what happens if you find people with photos or even photos or sounds of babies laughing and crying, and how does that affect their constipation, their risk-taking and so on? And I said, look, who cares about babies? Why are you finding this? Well, we know that expectant fathers, when they're about to have a child, what do you think happens to their testosterone levels? It goes down. Now, why does that happen? To the extent that you have a different muscle a day, but now I have to stop thinking about it and actually shift my orientation to parenting, what I really want to do is to have reduced the number of drive, right? And the only way to do that is by reducing the testosterone. So here's an exact same idea. We thought that by simply timing people with photos of babies or sounds of babies, that would affect their risk-taking behavior, their constipation and so on. And the preliminary findings, we haven't got to finalize the studies or an other collective algorithm, but the preliminary stuff looks pretty good. So just to kind of let you know about that. I think I'm gonna have to skip this. How much time do you think I have left? Two minutes? Two minutes, okay. I'm gonna have to skip this, although it's fantastic, it goes with pornography and film competition. Ask me about it later at lunch. I might have to also skip this because we're running out of time. So maybe I have two slides left. I'm trying to go as quickly as I can, but I really would have left to start with those other slides. GBS, how then was a famous evolutionary scientist who not only was famous for science, but was an incredibly incredible guy because you have all these sarcastic clips and observations about building life. This is probably my favorite one of his. In part because it really captures my own scientific theory. So he said that when scientists are exposed to a new radical theory, and I think Nelson Tyler would appreciate this because he's certainly at times introduced ideas that a lot of people are hostile to. When scientists are exposed to a new idea, we'll go through four stages of acceptance. So stage one, this is the level. This is worthless nonsense. As the paradigm starts looking up steam, well, yeah, this is interesting, but I'd rather preserve some of you. As more evidence comes in for the paradigm, well, this is true, but who cares? This is largely unimpeded. And then when the paradigm got across fall, you get the emails that say, oh, I always thought your work was great, right? But I remember that eight years ago, you told me that my work was worthless nonsense, right? So I think that's really persistence. So in my case, the fact that I was introducing these biological principles of consumer behavior, at first was quite heretical, but now there's a group of really, really bright folks that are working on that intersection. And I think it would be long before this is basically normal science. Yes, of course, consumers are driven by evolutionary forces, what else could it be? So to conclude, I think the first speaker said that it's a requisite to always have Dubzansky, so he beat me to the punch, Dubzansky said, nothing in biology makes sense except for the light of evolution. And I propose that nothing in the CV, consumer behavior makes sense in light of evolution. I tried to contact my publishers to get them to bring some of the books that weren't quite receptive. Maybe you could edit that out of the pot. So there might be a few copies that I brought that were either personal copies of sand and so on. I hope that you'll check them out. Thank you so much for your attention.