Three articles for this last installment from 2008, though two are from The Economist, both of which are related to human sexuality in some way. The last one is speculation about a device that could one day be used to let someone see what another person is dreaming about.

The first article from The Economist covers a paper by Rosalind Arden of King’s College, London and her colleagues on correlations between genetic fitness, general intelligence and, of all things, sperm quality, in human males. Researchers have recently discovered that general intelligence is correlated with many aspects of an individual’s health including his or her lifespan. This is unsurprising, because it can be expected that people who are more intelligent might take extra care to live healthier lives, but evolutionary psychologists are also interested in the idea that intelligence is a manifestation of a general, genetically-based healthiness which is attractive to the opposite sex. They believe that humans evolved general intelligence above and beyond its usefulness in everyday life as part of a genetics arms race to attract mates, in the same way that male peacocks have evolved elaborate tails.

To test whether or not there are any correlations between general intelligence and genetic fitness on a physiological level, Ms. Arden analyzed recorded statistics from extensive mental and physical examinations performed on American soldiers in 1985, specifically the 425 cases who had contributed semen samples as part of the tests. She found that the measured intelligence levels of these men did indeed correlate with all three aspects of sperm quality that were measured: sperm count, concentration and motility (basically how energetically the sperm moved). Moreover, other variables such as obesity, smoking, drinking or drug use, did not alter the results.

Aside from any other philosophical considerations, this result surely goes against conventional wisdom and popular expectations. Who would have guessed that smarts went together with sexual fertility in men? Revenge of the nerds indeed.

The second article examines perfumes for men, or to use the term that makes the product more socially acceptable to macho males, deodorants. Such products are marketed as aids that can help men become more attractive to members of the opposite sex, typically by implying that they include pheromones that can subconsciously arouse sexual desire in the women who smell them. To test whether or not they work and find out how they work if they do at all, Craig Roberts of the University of Liverpool and his colleagues set up an experiment whereby male volunteers were given an aerosol spray to use on themselves and to study the reactions of women afterwards.

Half of the male volunteers were given a spray that contained a commercially available fragrance while the other half were given an aerosol spray that looked identical but lacked the active ingredients. Of course, the male users could smell for themselves if the aerosol had a scent, but they had no way of knowing what the point of the experiment was or that there were two different types of sprays. Various psychological tests were then performed, but the most interesting result was obtained when women were shown video clips of these men and asked to rate them in terms of attractiveness. It was found that the women did indeed find the men who had used the real aerosols to be more attractive than the control group even though they were only observing them on a video screen and could not actually smell the perfume.

It turns out that this is because the most important effect the perfume had was boosting the confidence of the men who used them. Those who were given the real aerosol could smell the fragrance on their own bodies and acted more confidently as a result and the women who watched them on video could detect the difference in their demeanour and bearing. Women who were only shown still photos instead of videos could not detect any difference between the two groups of men, proving that it was movement and bearing that made the difference and not physical looks.

My conclusion? These products are worth your money only because you think that they’re worth your money.

Finally, the last article was something I noticed in another blog, Mero Guff. The original article was published in the Daily Telegraph and its title certainly looked intriguing, “Scientists develop software that can map dreams”. The truth turns out to be a lot less impressive than advertised because the only thing going on is speculation that technology used to visualize what someone is seeing might one day be adapted to work on dreams and of course, anything that can be shown on a video screen can be recorded.

Since the attempt focuses on electrical signals sent into the brain’s visual cortex from the retinas, I have my doubts that this would work on dreams. This is because I suspect that we don’t really “see” images when we dream but instead merely impose an interpretation as we regain consciousness on what happens in the brain while we’re dreaming. Still, if this technology does come to fruition in some form, it would be highly entertaining to say the least.