Comments on: Deeper Voice = More Children?

by: seth

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:35:58 +0000

“Chicks dig deep voices” is a different category of explanation. Such explanations are called “proximate” while evolutionary explanations are called “ultimate”. Weird terminology, but you get the point.

by: Mark Liberman

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:27:55 +0000

I should have said, _some_ females somewhat prefer baritones. The shape of individual preference functions and the distribution of such preferences in the female population are both largely unknown.

There might also be other maladaptive effects of whatever combination of higher testosterone levels and greater sensitivity to testosterone during adolescent growth is responsible for larger larynx size and lower pitch.

by: Mark Liberman

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:19:24 +0000

Apicella et al. don’t discuss the question, but I expect that they would favor the view that this sexual dimorphism is roughly in equilibrium, and has been for a long time.

Why don’t male voices go on getting deeper and deeper? Perhaps females somewhat prefer baritones to basses; perhaps larger larynx size carries increasing selective disadvantages of other kinds, having to do with the mechanics of breathing and swallowing. Both ideas are plausible.

Meanwhile, I’ll send you a .pdf of the article.

by: Tom

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:17:14 +0000

How about #5) Chicks dig deep voices.

Or was that included in #2>

by: Tom Myers

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:11:18 +0000

I have two thoughts about this selective advantage…first, it could still be that the relationship is non-causal, in the sense that gene G being selected for causes phenotypical effects P1 and P2, where P1 is being selected for and P2 is lower masculine voice. I don’t see that this possibility has been eliminated by the discussion I see so far.
Second, I would point to a zoologist’s book about communication with dogs:

Dogs and humans share an interpretation of high and low sounds (as do many other mammals)…Simply saying a signal in a lower voice than before can make the difference between your dog’s ignoring you or obeying…I know I’m not the only woman whose voice tends to rise just when I most need it to carry authority: Some men, on the other hand, need to practice using a higher voice to praise or encourage their dogs. Almost every training class has at least one guy’s guy who shouts out “Good dog” in a voice that stops all the dogs and usually half the humans…high sounds are associated with excitement, immaturity, or fear, while lower sounds are associated with authority, threat, or aggression…practice saying “No!” or “Stay” in a low voice rather than a loud one and letting your voice rise when you call “Come”…[pp 62-3]

It seems likely to me that the selective advantage was already present among our shared ancestors with chimps and gorillas, but became more important simply because human signaling became more verbal. (But it’s still a Just-So story; I don’t have further testing in mind at the moment.)