The attraction to good-looking people--Why the evolved preference?

[Baylor]

Why did humans evolve such a huge preference for physical attractiveness? Some theories make sense to a certain degree but fall short. For example, physical attractiveness might an indicator of health and good genes, but can facial features always tell who has the best lungs, kidneys, intelligence...etc.?

Take two 20 year old females. Girl A has a history of chronic health problems and has a subnormal IQ but has the same facial features as the girl on my avatar - big eyes, symmetrical face, full lips. Girls B hasn't had a history of serious health problems in her life and has near genius level IQ but has Meg Griffin-type facial features-- pudgy, square face, small, squinty eyes, small lips. Assuming both girls have the same body type (~5'5" 115 lbs., athletic) Girl A will always be selected as the better mate. Why did humans evolve such a preference for girl A's facial features even though they aren't the best indicator of health or good genes?

 

[Myriad]

In the absence of modern health care and sanitation, it would be very unlikely for Girl A to have a history of chronic health problems and still have the facial features of the girl in your avatar. I think that probably has something to do with it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[drkitten]

Take two 20 year old females. Girl A has a history of chronic health problems and has a subnormal IQ but has the same facial features as the girl on my avatar - big eyes, symmetrical face, full lips.

As was said, girls with chronic health problems don't typically have the same facial features. Think, for example, about the damage that most diseases (from smallpox to acne) will do to the skin....

Beyond this, girls with chronic health problems will not be able to feed themselves as well, which will (again) be reflected in things like skin and hair complexion.

 

[Baylor]

In the absence of modern health care and sanitation, it would be very unlikely for Girl A to have a history of chronic health problems and still have the facial features of the girl in your avatar. I think that probably has something to do with it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Could be. I'm going by anecdotal evidence. Like I knew a very attractive girl who had multiple heart surgeries and other health problems. I didn't see any evidence of poor health in her facial features. Maybe "chronic health problems" was a bad choice of words. I'm no doctor.

 

[fuelair]

Why did humans evolve such a huge preference for physical attractiveness? Some theories make sense to a certain degree but fall short. For example, physical attractiveness might an indicator of health and good genes, but can facial features always tell who has the best lungs, kidneys, intelligence...etc.?

Take two 20 year old females. Girl A has a history of chronic health problems and has a subnormal IQ but has the same facial features as the girl on my avatar - big eyes, symmetrical face, full lips. Girls B hasn't had a history of serious health problems in her life and has near genius level IQ but has Meg Griffin-type facial features-- pudgy, square face, small, squinty eyes, small lips. Assuming both girls have the same body type (~5'5" 115 lbs., athletic) Girl A will always be selected as the better mate. Why did humans evolve such a preference for girl A's facial features even though they aren't the best indicator of health or good genes?

Health is the key - we cannot actually determine it, but appearance gives a reasonable chance of indicating it - and is a better fast way than most. And, Girl A won't always win - she just has a bit better initial pull - some of us prefer the intelligent..

And, why do babies look like they do - to generate love, attention, protection.

Survival/Darwin at work.

 

[drkitten]

Could be. I'm going by anecdotal evidence. Like I knew a very attractive girl who had multiple heart surgeries and other health problems.

She would have almost certainly be dead long ago, then, in the absence of modern medicine. Evolution would have given up on her without regard to her facial features. Dead people don't breed

 

[Dunstan]

Could be. I'm going by anecdotal evidence. Like I knew a very attractive girl who had multiple heart surgeries and other health problems. I didn't see any evidence of poor health in her facial features. Maybe "chronic health problems" was a bad choice of words. I'm no doctor.

Remember, too, that something doesn't have to have a perfect 1.0 correlation to generate selection pressure. So the physical qualities we deem "attractive" can still have an evolutionary basis even if they don't "always" indicate good health and/or are not the "best" indicators of health.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All those 'signs of healthy people' hypotheses are overrated in my opinion. They are logical hypotheses, but that's all they are. They are not proved hypotheses.

If you think about it, either we had no preference at all originally, in which case the healthy mates were more successful. In other words success drove selection preferences. Or we had a preference first that then drove natural selection. And that could be as much something which arose randomly and was successful for any number of reasons, or it could be the direct selection benefit as is typically hypothesized.

In most bird species, the male is flashy. Flashy isn't necessarily an indication of health. While the Peahen's preference drives selection, the Peacock's tail feathers make the bird more at risk from predators.

I do think there is something more substantial to the hypothesis that we are attracted to mates at the age when reproduction is at its peak. So I think that hypothesis does explain an attraction to younger people rather than aged persons

But a Barbie Doll figure is not a sign of health. And some cultures, including the culture from a hundred years ago were not so attracted to thin women. An attraction to muscles on a guy and female breasts might be more the result of natural selection on the basis of implying health.

I think mate selection might be a bit more complex than can be explained by the over simplistic hypothesis, all the things we are attracted to signify reproductive health.

 

[The Man]

I think sociology or culture plays a critical role in attractiveness, as Skeptic Ginger mentions. Even more so in cultures where deliberate body modification has become a standard of attractiveness. Much as Dustan notes what is found attractive isn’t always an indication of good health but sometimes just status, fertility (and survivability of offspring) even just endurance and perhaps the commitment to social norms. Indeed just going by the aspect of facial features (as mentioned in the OP) as may often be the case in our modern culture often becomes an aspect of status itself. The “trophy wife” and “boy toy” are classic examples of that particular attractiveness, of one, being a sign of status for the other.

 

[Staropeace]

I remember when I was a psych major covering theory that basically stated that good symetrical features are what folks use to determine good looks...that is how we judge it..bilateral perfection or something to that effect. I even remember that there were studies carried on whereby young babies responded more quickly to a "pretty" face. Doesnt sound fair but I guess it is human nature.

 

[Wowbagger]

Sexual selection can form in similar ways as "snowballs". An initially small change in fitness gets magnified over a few generations. Life forms that are attracted to those changes are likely to breed offspring that are a little more attracted to those changes.

The "look of health" is one ingredient, but the "snowball effect" could blow it out of proportion, so that it's no longer only about health.

Sometimes someone with one set of genes will recognize someone with similar sets - referred to as the "green beard effect" - and, this also becomes an ingredient in attraction.

In most bird species, the male is flashy. Flashy isn't necessarily an indication of health. While the Peahen's preference drives selection, the Peacock's tail feathers make the bird more at risk from predators.

In a way, the flashy bird is flaunting itself. "Hey, look at me! I'm such a strong bird, I can risk attracting a predator, with no worries!!"

At least that's how it might have begun. Other factors, and "snowballs" get in there, and make it a little more complicated. But, you get the idea.

There were a few times in human history where "looking sick" was considered attractive. The idea was that "any old fool can put effort into looking good. But, I'm such an important person, I can afford to look rather pale and sickly, and people would still find me attractive!", etc.

I am willing to bet it will happen again.

 

[Scott Haley]

I just saw an ad for a TV show in which they asked women about their standards of beauty. In an African country, the women said that fat is beautiful. The very fat women that are the epitome of beauty in that land are not beautiful to my eyes.

In England centuries ago, the word "fair" meant "beautiful" and also meant that a lady had especially white skin. Peasant women had to work out in the sun and only upper class women could stay inside, and do other things to lighten their skin, like bathing in mare's milk. Today in England, the young white women go to tanning booths.

On "Family Guy," Meg is repulsive to most people, but she's attractive to some people, including Mexicans, her lesbian friend, and Adam West.

 

[Staropeace]

During the victorian age...a Lord Byron look was considered sexy. Folks with consumption..tuberculios..made for a lovely looking corpse,I s'pect.

 

[Trent Wray]

Remember that show "The Pick Up Artist?" with the douche/tool Mystery? He wrote this "book" LOL called the Venusian Arts or something. My wife and I read some of it and I took it to work (I work with women) and we tore that thing apart. It had some interesting ideas/points though ...

I could be totally generalizing, but I think we generally want something equal to or better than how we view ourselves . And so someone usually won't go "below" themselves, and usually won't be confident enough to "go to high" either. But charisma can offset looks, as can intelligence and other things like that. So can "hotness". But each has their purpose. You're probably not going to have a one nighter with someone simply because they are charismatic. You might, but you're more likely to have it with the hot chick/dude.

But for long term goals, you might look for different aspects to the "package."

 

[The Man]

During the victorian age...a Lord Byron look was considered sexy. Folks with consumption..tuberculios..made for a lovely looking corpse,I s'pect.

Much like the “heroin sheik” of the 90’s (if I recall).

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Yes, the Byronic ideal was sort of like the "heroin chic" that was big--and is not entirely gone--from fashion models: overly thin; overly pale; hollows under the eyes.

Don't forget, either, that the 'ideal' of beauty is getting more standardized due to the spread of TV and magazines with certain kinds of faces featured,as well as certain body types clad a certain way.

The overall attraction to facial symmetry is possibly due to the likelihood that that indicates adequate nutrition and not being attacked, falling, or otherwise failing to prosper while growing up. Any biological component of attraction, however, tends to be overwhelmed by personal context and experience. So while it affects how people rate a photo as attractive, it doesn't necessarily predicate whom someone chooses to breed with.

The most attractive person in the room is generally the person whose body language mirrors yours, which is a trans-cultural indication of attraction. Someone who is interested in you has a giant leg up over someone who is 'classically' good looking but is uninterested. Also, the person inside rapidly overtakes the package as far as pair-bonding is concerned. For example, I have a tendency to look twice at tall, fair-skinned blonds with blue eyes, longer faces, and controlled mouths--Hugh Laurie, anyone? and my ex--but I am happily married to a man of middle height who is has AmerInd in his coloring and cheekbones. He makes me very happy, and that has made me aware of every gorgeous thing about him.

Just my thoughts, MK

PS I personally don't find most Hollywood 'handsome' and 'beautiful' people to be all that good looking; I find them forgetable and bland. I doubt I would have found Hugh Laurie nearly so attractive at age 26; or, had he not been playing the thorny, brilliant and acidly playful Greg House.

 

[Delvo]

And, why do babies look like they do

I think that that is an important point/question, because I think it's more closely related to the OP's topic than most people would expect.

All social animals must have some means of identifying and determining some basic information about other members of their own species, so that they can then enact the appropriate responses. Something has to convey what the other member's gender is, what his/her age is, and maybe in certain cases something else as well such as stage of reproductive cycle or affiliation with some large clan-like group.

In most mammals, the way a lot of this intra-species information is conveyed is chemically. But, compared to most other mammals, a lot of our sense of smell is gone and we have better sight. So it makes sense to shift over to sending & receiving such information in a medium that our sensory systems are better at, and to shift away from doing it in a medium that we aren't so good at.

 

[The Man]

Yes, the Byronic ideal was sort of like the "heroin chic" that was big--and is not entirely gone--from fashion models: overly thin; overly pale; hollows under the eyes.

Oops, guess that’s why I couldn’t find a reference, my usually crappy lexicon (not to mention fashion) skills.

Someone who is interested in you has a giant leg up over someone who is 'classically' good looking but is uninterested.

Another statement I certainly won’t dispute.

--Hugh Laurie, anyone?

Ever watch him in the Black Adder series? Hilarious, humor certainly attracts me.

 

[Baylor]

...snip...

In most bird species, the male is flashy. Flashy isn't necessarily an indication of health. While the Peahen's preference drives selection, the Peacock's tail feathers make the bird more at risk from predators.

...snip...

I'm not up to date on the literature but I've never come across evidence that suggests that non-human primates place a significant role on facial features when selecting a mate. I could be wrong but it seems they place more emphasis on strength, skills, status, communication and emphathy than physical attractiveness/health cues determined by facial features. Maybe someone knowledgeable in non-human primates can weigh in.

 

[Trent Wray]

I'm not up to date on the literature but I've never come across evidence that suggests that non-human primates place a significant role on facial features when selecting a mate. I could be wrong but it seems they place more emphasis on strength, skills, status, communication and emphathy than physical attractiveness/health cues determined by facial features. Maybe someone knowledgeable in non-human primates can weigh in.

Hot:

Not Hot:

The answer no one wanted: