Origins of blond hair.

March 6, 2006 2:11 PM

Why are so many Europeans blond(e)? Recent genetics research shows blond appeared only about 10,000 years ago, too quickly for normal natural evolution; an anthropologist has a suggestion why.
posted by stbalbach (75 comments total)

If you read to the end of The Times article, you'll also need to read this too.
posted by stbalbach at 2:12 PM on March 6, 2006

too quickly for normal natural evolution

What other kind is there?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:17 PM on March 6, 2006

According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.

That is some atrocious factchecking.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:19 PM on March 6, 2006

too quickly for normal natural evolution
What other kind is there?

Well, according to the article, the unusual kind:

According to the new research, if the changes had occurred by the usual processes of evolution, they would have taken about 850,000 years.

posted by stbalbach at 2:28 PM on March 6, 2006

More totally incompetent science reporting. Why do we keep letting our laymen journalists cover this stuff?

1. Selection of a trait for sexy reasons (as opposed to the trait being correlated with longer lifespan) is no less "natural" than any other aspect of evolution.

2. That WHO thing at the end.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:34 PM on March 6, 2006

Better reading: The abstract of the Frost paper
posted by rxrfrx at 2:36 PM on March 6, 2006

A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.

Uh, that's actualy an urban legend. I'm going to go ahead and disregard the rest of the article.
posted by delmoi at 2:36 PM on March 6, 2006

delmoi, stbalbach already pointed that out.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:36 PM on March 6, 2006

too quickly for normal natural evolution
What other kind is there?

Intelligent design? Meaning blondes would be considered superior by God or something...has anyone ever come up with that idea before?

Uh-oh.
posted by LionIndex at 2:38 PM on March 6, 2006

Here is the snopes page on that urban legend.
posted by delmoi at 2:39 PM on March 6, 2006

delmoi...

Check upthread.
posted by billysumday at 2:40 PM on March 6, 2006

yeah yeah yeah.
posted by delmoi at 2:40 PM on March 6, 2006

Well, according to the article, the unusual kind:
According to the new research, if the changes had occurred by the usual processes of evolution, they would have taken about 850,000 years.

How do they figure? What's the "normal" amount of selection pressure on hair color? How would they know? This is bad science or bad reporting or both.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:42 PM on March 6, 2006

What other kind (of evolution) is there?

Things like horizontal gene transfer are not normally considered "natural evolution": even though it does occur naturally, it doesn't fit with what's known as textbook evolution.

But I'm kind of blond so I might have it wrong. (I didn't read the article, I don't know if that was what they could be referring to here.)
posted by easternblot at 2:45 PM on March 6, 2006

So...Exogamy = teh hotness.

Great, thanks Frost. I guess I won’t try to figure out why I don’t want to sleep with my good looking cousin or women who look like her then. Anything else you want to do with research dollars? Something on pheromones on pubic hair leading to oral sex perhaps? WHO predicts oral sex will vanish by 2020 due to repeated shaving?

Y’know what creeps me out?
People with very light natural blond hair and really dark eyebrows.

...probably should have given time for folks to hazard a guess, but y’know I doubt the interest level was there as to what creeps me out.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:47 PM on March 6, 2006

Lighter hair colours, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding and numbers increased dramatically...

But why? Really, I don't think it explains it well at all. Am I supposed to just get that blondes are sexier? Is that unstated assumption what they are saying - that Rod Stewart was right all along?

SCIENCE!??!
posted by dash_slot- at 2:47 PM on March 6, 2006

Optimus, it's bad reporting. I've stopped trusting science-related articles in the popular press to tell me anything important, because they fuck it up more often than they accurately convey it.

From the paper (subscription required):

Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant
alleles? Harding et al. (2000) have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the
time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the
redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) has come to a
similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color
diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in
Europe for approximately 35,000 years.

Harding, R. M., Healy, E., Ray, A. J., Ellis, N. S., Flanagan, N., Todd, C., Dixon, C., Sajantila, A., Jackson, I. J.,
Birch-Machin, M. A., & Rees, J. L. (2000). Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. American
Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1351–1361.

Templeton, A. R. (2002). Out of Africa again and again. Nature, 416, 45–51.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:48 PM on March 6, 2006

Delmoi is alluding to this , I think.
posted by jepler at 2:49 PM on March 6, 2006

(gets ready to be crucified by the MF crowd)

Blonde genes spread so quickly because blondes are just loose.
posted by qvantamon at 2:50 PM on March 6, 2006

[removed a few flagged comments before noticing that this was not AskMetafilter. I'll try to get mathowie to put them back in. In the meantime I apologize. Please continue with the wisecracks.]
posted by jessamyn at 2:51 PM on March 6, 2006

I just don't think it stacks up. I disagree with the assumption that a relative scarcity of men led to increased sexual competition amongst women. Too many babes to choose from? Why pick just one, when good old-fashioned polygamy is such an attractive option?

Also, since when does rare genetic mutation = hawt? Women with three noses would 'stand out from their rivals' too, but that wouldn't necessarily have a positive impact on their chances of getting laid.
posted by Soulfather at 2:51 PM on March 6, 2006

But why? Really, I don't think it explains it well at all. Am I supposed to just get that blondes are sexier?

Not because of blondness, but because of rareness. The exotic factor is what made it sexy.
posted by stirfry at 2:53 PM on March 6, 2006

You removed my va va voom comment? You REMOVED it?

I was quoting SCIENCE!
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:56 PM on March 6, 2006

Blonde genes spread so quickly because blondes are just loose.
posted by qvantamon at 2:50 PM PST on March 6 [!]

No, blondes are just generally more attractive than their brown-haired, brown-eyed counterparts, and also much less hairy. :D
posted by nonmerci at 2:58 PM on March 6, 2006

How do they figure? What's the "normal" amount of selection pressure on hair color? How would they know? This is bad science or bad reporting or both.

It's probably bad reporting. Why don't you think people would know how long it would take for genes to change over time?
posted by delmoi at 3:07 PM on March 6, 2006

as far as "but why did they consider blonds sexier" it dosn't really matter, obviously someone thought the blonds were sexier, and we know that because there are so many.

There are other traits around the world that only make sense from a sexual-selection explanation, such as orange nipples.
posted by delmoi at 3:09 PM on March 6, 2006

“Also, since when does rare genetic mutation = hawt?”

Breeding outside your group favors having two non-identical copies of whatever gene.
It’s the opposite of incest. So you don’t get kids with three noses or whatever genetic troubles the Brits, French, et.al nobility (or whatever inbred group) was suffering.
Lotta different theories on exogamy. But the idea that one might find breeding outside the group as some sort of ingrained thing makes sense to me (although I’m not a biologist or geneticist - if you couldn’t tell from the technical terms: “thing” etc.)

And being blond is a pretty noticable “hey I’m different genetically!” kind of thing.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:10 PM on March 6, 2006

Smedleyman:

And what differentiates "oooh, genetically different... HAWT!" (blonde) from "oooh, genetically different... FREAK!" (3 noses)

or did cavemen just hit whatever freak they stumbled upon (the freakier the hotter), and let natural selection differentiate freak from hot?
posted by qvantamon at 3:14 PM on March 6, 2006

posted by Captaintripps at 3:15 PM on March 6, 2006

Much less hairy? I doubt that. I suspect the lighter hair is harder to see. Remember, chimps and humans generally have the same number of hairs per square inch of skin, but the hair on the chimps is thicker by far.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:17 PM on March 6, 2006

And being blond is a pretty noticable “hey I’m different genetically!” kind of thing.

Not in Finland it isn't. Which is why we tend to find dark hair to be exotic and more appealing. So the theory still holds true.

I'm still freakin' blonde, though. So, urban legend or not, ladies, I suggest you make the best of it and try to mate with us blondes so we don't die out. Ahem.

Exogamy is an interesting concept. I wonder if that would explain why I've never dated a Finnish person in my entire life...
posted by slimepuppy at 3:19 PM on March 6, 2006

I'm pretty sure that blondes actually have more hair, at least on their heads. They need it to match the same level of protection against the sun as brown hair.
posted by stopgap at 3:27 PM on March 6, 2006

stopgap:
blonde hair reflects sunlight, black hair absorbs it, so blonde should actually protect your head more than black, provided there's hair enough to cover the skin completely (which is usually true for women)

I think the main issue here is the opposite: blondes would need more hair in cold climates, because they would have to compensate for less sunlight absorption with more insulation.
posted by qvantamon at 3:33 PM on March 6, 2006

Not because of blondness, but because of rareness. The exotic factor is what made it sexy.
posted by stirfry at 10:53 PM GMT on March 6

as far as "but why did they consider blonds sexier" it dosn't really matter, obviously someone thought the blonds were sexier, and we know that because there are so many.posted by delmoi at 11:09 PM GMT on March 6

Different posters have different explanations for this...
posted by dash_slot- at 3:34 PM on March 6, 2006

Metafilter: Please continue with the wisecracks.

I'm amazed at how much this misses the point. Of course this is evolution. If this theory is correct, those with blond hair were more likely to produce children, just as those who were born with a mutation that protected them from a given disease rampant in the population were more likely to produce children. This is the heart of Natural Selection -- this is why peacocks have those huge tailfeathers. Looks sometimes count.

10000 years is at least 400 generations, and probably closer to 600 -- that's plenty of time for any successful genetic structure to progress through a population.
posted by eriko at 3:35 PM on March 6, 2006

I always thought the blonde thing was due to some early space-alien interference. Not that I mind.
posted by Wylie Kyoto at 3:45 PM on March 6, 2006

Mars needs blondes!
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:50 PM on March 6, 2006

Oddly enough, I have the opposite of Smedleyman's turnoff - dark hair and blonde eyebrows. Don't ask me. Frankly, my curtains don't match my carpet or my sash. Freaks of nature unite!
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on March 6, 2006

Perhaps the writer confused the World Health Organization with THE WHO. That would explain a lot.
posted by Cranberry at 4:58 PM on March 6, 2006

“And what differentiates "oooh, genetically different... HAWT!" (blonde) from "oooh, genetically different... FREAK!" (3 noses)”

Really, I have no clue. But I think the whole beauty = symmetry thing has some merit (posted on mefi a while back). So once you hit a certain level of symmetrical refinement (inviting face, great ass, great mother breasts, whatever) - nature is sitting there going: “Shit! Think of something else ...um ...er ...ok ...uh ...Color!”
And suddenly you have ornimental color variation in humans. Runs from parrots to peacocks, so why not some primates?

note: I don’t ‘know’ any of this. Just seems reasonable to assume mutation has to remain within the realm of acceptability and familiarity but reiterate accents conducive to breeding.
(Bit tautological there, but then so is ‘survival of the fittest’)

As I understand it, it’s a recessive gene. So it’s got a built in redundancy factor - too many blondes in the mix, and the brunettes look attractive, keeps the numbers down.

...so what about those redheads?
*eyes them suspiciously as witches*

We can afford some latitude in coloring and environmental adaptation. I’d go further and say it’s vital. A few million years from now and some three nosed hypercephalic human will sneeze off AIDS and be thankful his ancestors were “x”-ists and not the purple haired folks from Canadastanard* who were susceptible to it.

*the hollow earth cavern, not the moon.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:07 PM on March 6, 2006

*gets visited by blond MIBs*
Perhaps I’ve said too much about the future.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:09 PM on March 6, 2006

Why pick just one, when good old-fashioned polygamy is such an attractive option?

From the abstract:

..women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny.

posted by stbalbach at 5:15 PM on March 6, 2006

...so what about those redheads?
*eyes them suspiciously as witches*

I can't speak for the rest, but from experience I can say you're dead on here.
posted by mullingitover at 5:20 PM on March 6, 2006

That was a total flop of a science article. Oh well, at least it wasn't another link to New Scientist.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:38 PM on March 6, 2006

Stupid sexy redheads.
posted by lorrer at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2006

"Natural" selection and "sexual" selection are two different terms in evolutionary biology, the former dealing solely with mutations that affect the survival of the individual and its ability to reproduce, and the latter dealing with features that the mating partner finds "attractive". The relative importance of the two is not well-established (especially in humans), nor is the mechanism by which sexual selection operates. " They find it attractive" is really a label, not an explanation. The various sociobiological / evolutionary psychological explanations of "attractiveness" in humans range from being merely bad science to outright ludicrousness.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:12 PM on March 6, 2006

stbalbach, I was thinking along similar lines. Wouldn't more women and less men just = permiscuous men and less monogamy.
posted by shoepal at 6:19 PM on March 6, 2006

whoops. Forgot to spell check. Damn if I didn't butcher promiscuous.
posted by shoepal at 6:20 PM on March 6, 2006

If Mapping Human History is correct, and "white" (or better, "pale") skin evolved as a result of humans moving north out of Africa (a mutation of lighter skin allowed commensurate Vitamin D absorption from weaker sunlight via the reduction in melanin), how is blond hair not a part of that as well? Would there be selective pressure to mate with other (somewhat) blondies, or lighter-skinned possible mates, as your tribe moved north? Over a couple hundred generations maybe?
posted by rleamon at 6:55 PM on March 6, 2006

Wouldn't more women and less men just = permiscuous men and less monogamy.

My guess is woman are not looking for a promiscuous partner who will get them pregnant and leave them with no child support. I don't think the rules of the game (pre-abortion pre-birth control) change just because the ratio has changed.
posted by stbalbach at 7:43 PM on March 6, 2006

From the article...
"Film star blondes such as Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sharon Stone and Scarlett Johansson are held up as ideals of feminine allure."
Yes, but none of them are naturally blonde. What was the author's point here?
posted by turtlegirl at 7:45 PM on March 6, 2006

Blondes, meh. I grew up in Mormon country, almost every family had at least 3 blonde children so it's more offputting than anything for me.

Now where's the study about natural redheads? That is a scarce natural resource people!
posted by Talanvor at 7:55 PM on March 6, 2006

You removed my va va voom comment? You REMOVED it?

I was quoting SCIENCE!

Astro Zombie, I didn't want you to think no one had noticed and snorted at your comment. I did, and I'd do it again.
posted by vetiver at 8:41 PM on March 6, 2006

Don't ask me. Frankly, my curtains don't match my carpet or my sash.

sash?

Now where's the study about natural redheads? That is a scarce natural resource people!
posted by Talanvor at 9:55 PM CST on March 6 [!]

That's some research I'm willing to donate some funds to!
posted by Ynoxas at 9:20 PM on March 6, 2006

Pfft, blondes beat out fire crotch anyday!

(sorry, I had to)

Oh, and as a note, I meant 'much less hairy' in the all-over body sense, and it wasn't totally serious. :P
posted by nonmerci at 9:59 PM on March 6, 2006

"sash?"

Eyebrows.

"Now where's the study about natural redheads? That is a scarce natural resource people!"

Alas, it is likely I have taken myself out of the gene pool.
posted by kyrademon at 10:46 PM on March 6, 2006

Careful analysis over years of data has shown that I, for one, am attracted to the flashy dazzle of the blond hair. And I mean specifically, the reflection of the light.

However, further analysis has shown, beyond question, that I especially like blonds, brunettes, and redheads. However advanced years and a certain flashy-dazzle boy have reduced my research to academic only. I'm happy.
posted by Goofyy at 10:49 PM on March 6, 2006

Forgot to add: Thanks, Astro Zombie. That was a good laugh. I am fortunate to have read the quoted thread.
posted by Goofyy at 10:50 PM on March 6, 2006

I can't speak for the rest, but from experience I can say you're dead on here.

Mullingitover: My dating experience suggests likewise.

Why are there so many redheaded Wiccan girls?

Theory: Lots of redheads are Irish. Lots of Irish are Catholic. The Catholic church is the world's major recruiter for Wiccanism. Ergo, redheaded Wiccans.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:52 PM on March 6, 2006

In her book, The Survival of the Prettiest, Nancy Etcoff quotes research that states that blonde-haired, blue eyed people are shyer than dark-haired, darker-skinned people. The shyness is a by-product, according to Etcoff, of the physiological changes that took place as North-dwelling people developed blonde hair and blue eyes. I find this fascinating, and it may go a long way to explaining the conduct of the Timothy Treadwells of this world.
posted by Tarn at 10:58 PM on March 6, 2006

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that fair hair and skin has two evolutional explanations:
Creating pigment costs energy, so in locations where pigments are not needed due to low amounts of sunlight, natural selection favors those that use their energy for something else.
The other explanation is that fair skin/hair increases the amount of sunlight that reaches the skin, and thus the amount of vitamin D that is created in the skin. Vitamin D is especially important during pregnancy and infancy, so this rhymes with why females and children typically have fairer sking/hair.

All this is from the top of my head, so take it with a pinch of salt, and my sincerest apologies if someone else has already mentioned this but I simply cannot be bothered sifting through several screenfuls of "blondes are hawt!" tripe.
posted by spazzm at 11:32 PM on March 6, 2006

too quickly for normal natural evolution
What other kind is there?

Perhaps they meant "too quickly for natural selection" ie this is the result of sexual selection.

Must read on topic: The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller.
posted by missbossy at 2:23 AM on March 7, 2006

Are blondes really considered "exotic?" This concept never occurred to me. I though there were other looks that were considered much more "exotic" and therefore perhaps, even, more attractive.

Also, I believe blondes have more hair, it's just that a lot of them have very fine hair. Lots of strands but very fine strands.
posted by doublehelix at 3:50 AM on March 7, 2006

Creating pigment costs energy

In addition, I have encountered some suggestions that melanin (pigment) plays a part in the immune system: there may be more disease in our ancestral human heartlands in Africa than in colder Europe, so when the selection pressure for a strong immune system slackened on humans moving into Europe those investing strongly in melanin production were at a disadvantage. (I read this several years ago, so it may have been debunked by now.)
posted by alasdair at 4:36 AM on March 7, 2006

Theory: Lots of redheads are Irish. Lots of Irish are Catholic. The Catholic church is the world's major recruiter for Wiccanism. Ergo, redheaded Wiccans.

Say, that's a pretty good theory.
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:51 AM on March 7, 2006

I like blondes as well, but redheaded Wiccans pretty much trump everything else in my book.

This thread is hawt.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:32 AM on March 7, 2006

Dye Jobs:
I always wondered how our perceptions of people and their hair color would differ if we lived in a world where no one artificially colored their hair.

So many people dye their hair blonde, that I don't think we appreciate how rare natural blondes are. Many people dye their hair blonde for the aesthetic improvement, but at the same time are diluting the value of their blonde-ness by making it less rare.

I have friends and co-workers who I've known for years who have been coloring their hair blonde as long as I've known them. I have no idea what they look like with their natural hair color.

\\\Full disclosure: I am a natural blond but my kids won't be...
posted by Lord Kinbote at 6:33 AM on March 7, 2006

I hate it when articles say that something evolved to do something, especially like the example of women "evolving blonde hair to be more attractive." It makes it sound like they had a choice in the matter. "Blonde hair or fins... Hmm..." No, what happens is that the random mutation is seen as desirable, so it's encouraged in reproduction.
posted by klangklangston at 6:55 AM on March 7, 2006

Redheaded Irish Wiccans are hawt.
...bit too much Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks for me tho.

“Careful analysis over years of data has shown that I, for one, am attracted to the flashy dazzle of the blond hair.”

Yeah, me too. Odd. I dated nearly exclusively blondes for a long time. I wound up marrying an Asian woman. Go figure.

“I don't think we appreciate how rare natural blondes are”

HOW RARE ARE THEY!??

...oh, sorry, I thought it was a setup line for a joke. Yeah, I like when the carpet matches the drapes.

“Full disclosure: I am a natural blond but my kids won't be...”

Hey man, my dad lost a lot of money to the bookies when I came out white.

("Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space” = my fav. X-Files episode btw)

- What’s the deal with hairy men not being liked? Apart from having to clean the bathroom more often that is (which I do myself thank you). Some girls I’ve gone out with said they were initially turned off but came to appreciate the wonderment of Yeti.
I’dve thought hairy men would be attractive in a primative sorta way. Not so much I guess.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:56 AM on March 7, 2006

“No, what happens is that the random mutation is seen as desirable, so it's encouraged in reproduction.” -posted by klangklangston

Isn’t that tautological tho? (not that that would invalidate the reality of it - just trying to figure out how to wrap my head about the concept)
I mean I know dick about genetics, but that goes back to Soulfather’s ‘three noses’ comment. Why is the mutation hawt in the first place?
Vive la difference?
posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 AM on March 7, 2006

"According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202."

DIBS!
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 7:28 AM on March 7, 2006

Smedly— No, I was speaking to the teleological presentation of evolution, which I disagree with. I got no real insight on why blondes would be hotter, except that they would be pretty rare (thus, a man with a blonde wife would have status).
posted by klangklangston at 10:11 AM on March 7, 2006

shoepal writes "stbalbach, I was thinking along similar lines. Wouldn't more women and less men just = permiscuous men and less monogamy."

Sure, but remember it's a famine time relived only by hunting of large animals. The men will "donate" sperm to all the women they can, but scarcity will prevent them from sharing meat -- meat the growing children will need -- equally. So I suspect this also selects for attractive, unannoying children who aren't inhibited from stealing food from half-sibs.

Maybe that explains Europeans' genius for exploiting other peoples, but I doubt it.
posted by orthogonality at 10:37 AM on March 7, 2006

klangklangston writes "I got no real insight on why blondes would be hotter, except that they would be pretty rare"

Natural blondes don't stay blonde after bout age thirty. So blonde may be a Zahavi handicap signal for youth. Younger women, of course, have more potential child-bearing years, and will be more likely to live long enough to provide for their potential children.
posted by orthogonality at 10:41 AM on March 7, 2006

“No, I was speaking to the teleological presentation of evolution, which I disagree with” - posted by klangklangston

Clearly you failed to take into account my extreme lack of eruidition on the subject.
*smirk*
posted by Smedleyman at 12:45 PM on March 7, 2006