Behavioral Ecology Blog

Here is the intro to an old essay by Geoffrey Miller, on why we buy the crap we do.

At the top of Sennheiser’s range is the “Orpheus Set”, stereo headphones that retail for 9,652 pounds. They are good headphones no doubt, well-reviewed and finely crafted. But to most ears, they deliver a sound quality not greatly superior to a pair of 25-pound Vivanco SR250s, which have received several ‘best value’ awards. As an evolutionary psychologist confronting contemporary human culture, I wonder this: why would evolution produce a species of anthropoid ape that feels it simply must have the Sennheisers, when the Vivancos would stimulate its ears just as well?

The standard Darwinian account of consumerism is that natural selection shaped us to have certain preferences and desires, which free markets fulfil by providing various goods and services. For example, sugars were rare and nutritionally valuable in Pleistocene Africa, so we evolved a taste for sweets, which chocolate and cola manufacturers now fulfil, or perhaps exploit. This cloying theory can explain many features of many products, as cultural adaptations to our evolved preferences. On these grounds, it seems to give the Darwinian seal of approval to free-market consumerism.

However, this evolved-preferences theory can’t explain the Sennheiser Effect. The nominal function of stereo headphones is to deliver a private soundscape, an acoustic virtual reality. We might expect headphones to be judged and priced in proportion to their sound quality. But they are not. The marketing folks at Sennheiser know that Orpheus Sets are bought mainly by rich men, young or middle-aged, who are on the mating market, openly or tacitly. Their 400-fold greater cost than the Vivancos is a courtship premium. While the Vivancos are merely good headphones, the Sennheisers are peacock’s tails and nightingale’s songs. Buyers of top-of-the-range products understand that their price is a benefit, not a cost. It keeps poorer buyers from owning the same product, thereby making the product a reliable indicator of their possessor’s wealth and taste. We want the Sennheisers not for the sounds they make in our heads, but for the impressions they make in the heads of others.

It’s worth a read, really. It’s a nice review of one application of modern behavioral ecology to human behavior.

One thing he does not explicitly touch on in his essay is the idea that men are much more likely to participate in such displays- If you think about it, that makes sense. Men are trying to woo choosy females, whose decisions are based on resources, rather that something inherently biological. The female (humans included) are drawn in by resources that they can convert in to babies (men with fancy cars, designed cloths, big houses likely possess adequate resources). Men on the other hand, look for signs of fecundity- i.e. youth, symmetry, and other physical attributes. This being said, men are the ones who are likely to benefit from displays of resources. Sound about right- here is an experiment….

1. Go to someplace where there are both people walking around and driving.
2. Make it a nice day (who wants to stand around in the rain anyway)
3. Count the number of convertibles.
4. Count the number of cars playing loud music
5. Count the number of people dressed in 1/2 shirts.

I can with 99% security predict that:

1. the majority of convertibles and cars with loud music will be driven by men. (they are showing they they have resources and can provide)
2. The majority of people wearing 1/2 shirts will be women. (Showing their fecundity, youthfulness)

Get it?