|
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote:Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth. Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs). This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun  ) Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
and pale skin makes u less attractive simply because a more tanned skin colour gives you a better natural and healthier look, because you look like you work and do stuff outside.
|
Women that like men with money are much more superficial than men are. Sure men are attracted to good looks, but some women are attracted to good looks AND money. They're lazy want to leech off the success of a man. If you want a good lifestyle, put the effort in to get a good job to support it - just like men have to. It's one thing to be attracted to a man that is passionate about his career and has a drive to be successful in life. It's another thing to be attracted to a guy for his money.
|
can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right.
+ Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
+ Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so.
|
On March 05 2013 21:45 docvoc wrote:
This thread has been simply about the biological side of all this, but I'm very sure when I say that there is more to look at than just biological. A lot of the biological look we have is circumstancial, and neglects other sides of why money is attractive. The biological side seems to be very popular here, but cognitive reasons and cultural (societal too) reasons also have an enormous effect. For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money). Furthermore, from a cognitive standpoint, there are other reasons to be attached to a male that makes money, such as percieved ability or other things that women find attractive in men. This isn't all about ensuring off spring, and, in a lot of cases for attractiveness, what humans find attractive has changed so immensely from the times that the biological ideas make sense that I don't know if we make more of them than we should.
Money is hardly the only thing women are attracted to. I don't think anyone here was arguing that. And the rational reasons for choosing someone with money should be obvious  . As I said earlier, the brain subconsciously treats money like food, so this trend applies to societies that don't have money, since they must have resources of some kind. What you say about perceived ability is true, but women almost universally prefer men who appear to have the ability to gather resources, protect her, and/or provide good genetic material. Our vastly changed environment has only superficially changed what people seem to prefer.
You're also right that this isn't about ensuring offspring. It never is. It's about what makes people happy, and thanks to evolution, people who find happiness in anything detrimental to their fertility rate are selected against, reducing both genetic predilections towards counter-reproductive behavior and the environmental effect of parents who could educe such behaviors out of their offspring.
If you have the time you should read my post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17929274
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote:can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors. if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time. everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)" my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing. + Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that  )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
|
On March 06 2013 05:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote:can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors. if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time. everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)" my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing. + Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so. The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that ) Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors. And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires. DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain.
fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example.
- as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs.
- as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one.
a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes:
+ Show Spoiler +The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be.
how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses.
"The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist).
oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
|
I like having money so I don't see why a woman wouldn't like it.especially cause a lot of women don't want a career, they want to be home makers. those types of women will like to know that they can stay at home and still have a comfortable lifestyle.
|
I think the problem is when the women only like the money rather than the man. If she likes the man because he is successful that is different than disliking him but tolerating him for the money.
|
On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role.
In the end it's about power dynamics.
no i want a pretty woman because ugly isn't nice to look at but pretty is. fuck other guys and what they think. if I think she's hot than I don't care what anyone else thinks about it.
|
On March 06 2013 20:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 05:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote:can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors. if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time. everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)" my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing. + Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so. The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that ) Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors. And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires. DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture. the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one. a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be. how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist). oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme.
I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge.
Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures.
That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so...
I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense.
On March 06 2013 21:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role.
In the end it's about power dynamics. no i want a pretty woman because ugly isn't nice to look at but pretty is. fuck other guys and what they think. if I think she's hot than I don't care what anyone else thinks about it.
Magpie's argument (the first one) is pretty common, but thoroughly invalid because it doesn't address what makes someone pretty. The definition of pretty/attractive itself dismantles that argument.
|
On March 07 2013 07:49 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 20:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 06 2013 05:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote:can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors. if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time. everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)" my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing. + Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so. The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that ) Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors. And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires. DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture. the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one. a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be. how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist). oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly. Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme. I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge. Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures. That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so... I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense.
- you said brain affects symmetry, i said it doesn't. let's leave it at that.
- good DNA -> symmetry -> pretty, bad DNA -> asymmetry -> ugly
a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry would also ruin the DNA apparently; which, in turn, would make you unfit for evolution. go figure.
there is a whole cult full of miths surrounding pretty/beautifull people. now, i'm not saying that pretty doesn't exist, i'm just saying that it doesn't mean much at all.
95% - 98% of our DNA is identical with ape DNA. can you find 1.618 in apes?, as far as proportion go. (and nope, you don't get to say that the golden ratio is in those other 2% - 5% )
(the premise is: 1.618 is hard coded in the DNA else there would be no way for us, humans, to recognize it, to like it, to strive to achieve it)
|
On March 06 2013 00:22 xgtx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote:Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth. Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs). This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun ) Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time. and pale skin makes u less attractive simply because a more tanned skin colour gives you a better natural and healthier look, because you look like you work and do stuff outside.
This is something I always found funny, personally.
Tanned skin = baked and destroyed cells != healthy.
The look of a "healthy tan" is impossible. Of course I know what you mean, but it's cute to me that people might actually think that any sort of a tan is actually healthy.
|
On March 07 2013 15:08 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 07:49 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 06 2013 20:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 06 2013 05:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote:can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors. if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time. everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)" my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing. + Show Spoiler +btw, i'm pretty. my DNA told me so. The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that ) Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors. And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires. DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture. the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one. a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be. how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist). oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly. Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme. I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge. Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures. That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so... I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense. - you said brain affects symmetry, i said it doesn't. let's leave it at that. - good DNA -> symmetry -> pretty, bad DNA -> asymmetry -> ugly a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry would also ruin the DNA apparently; which, in turn, would make you unfit for evolution. go figure. there is a whole cult full of miths surrounding pretty/beautifull people. now, i'm not saying that pretty doesn't exist, i'm just saying that it doesn't mean much at all. 95% - 98% of our DNA is identical with ape DNA. can you find 1.618 in apes?, as far as proportion go. (and nope, you don't get to say that the golden ratio is in those other 2% - 5% ) (the premise is: 1.618 is hard coded in the DNA else there would be no way for us, humans, to recognize it, to like it, to strive to achieve it)
Being hammered in the head does not alter the DNA they would contribute to reproduction. If it kills the person, it does not mean they are unfit for evolution, it just makes them unlucky. If being struck in the head with a hammer was a common occurrence, then the people most likely to avoid it or survive the impact would be considered more "fit", but that doesn't mean that they will survive such an event. Having something bad happen to you does not by any means demonstrate that you are unfit.
97% of our genes are shared with mice, so if such a small portion of our DNA can make us that different, how does your argument show anything? We only have about 300 genes that mice don't. Much of our shared DNA is inactive, but I think in discussing our differences we lose sight of how much we have in common. The reason we can distinguish between so many human faces, for example, is because we are programmed to do so. Look at a herd of sheep and they all look pretty much the same because we aren't programmed to distinguish sheep.
I never discussed the golden ratio, but here are some links with info about the golden ratio's appearance in nature:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/fibonacci-nature1.htm
http://www.goldennumber.net/nature/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12539-010-0022-0
The golden ratio can apparently be applied to just about any animal.
|
a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry ... no one talked about killing someone. it just just a gross exaggeration since the whole post was rather sarcastic.
from your links:+ Show Spoiler + The Golden Ratio in Nature
You won't find Fibonacci numbers everywhere in the natural world -- many plants and animals express different number sequences. And just because a series of numbers can be applied to an object, that doesn't necessarily imply there's any correlation between figures and reality. As with numerological superstitions such as famous people dying in sets of three, sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.
|
Disregarding that individuals are individuals and so have individual preferences; and accepting that the general pattern described in the OP is true:
I agree. People sometimes try to twist it into having cultural explanations. Such as claiming obesity was attractive because it implied wealth. I think such arguments are completely off the mark. They always explain themselves in the last part of the sentence. In the previous example, wealth was the attractive quality - not obesity. I agree that people can be attracted immensly by symbols. That is, you may find yourself attracted to someone because they are wearing a particular outfit that has some meaning to you.
But men's attractiveness towards females has been studied. And the results are not surprising. There's a good article on wikipedia about this. I encourage everyone to give it a read.
Basic conclusion and agreement with OP: what's called superficiality has a, somewhat, simple biological basis and no one is really to blame. If I could chose however, I would prefer to get rid of it. I think it creates a lot more problems than it gives pleasure...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
