BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
That you think it is good looking is because Evolution has you thinking that. Had the dice fallen differently, Kirstie Alley would be the hottest thing in Hollywood...
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The attraction to good-looking people--Why the evolved preference?
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
That you think it is good looking is because Evolution has you thinking that. Had the dice fallen differently, Kirstie Alley would be the hottest thing in Hollywood...
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
"Good" health as an indicator of physical attractiveness?
In general, humans are bilaterally symmetrical. The left side pretty much looks like the right. We find this expected norm to be "attractive," or in some respects; healthy and beautiful.
When something deviates from the norm, a physical attribute might be construed as unattractive and/or unhealthy. Someone having their nose bent to one side would look out of the ordinary, which could be considered unattractive or unhealthy. But some might find that to be an attractive quirk.
But there may not be a correlation between "healthy" on the inside = physically attractive on the outside.
Yes, there is a relation between a healthy individual (diet, exercise, lack of disease, deformity, or degrading environmental factors) which can make one person appear more attractive than someone who has a less-healthy makeup. But appearances can be deceiving because there are so many factors to take in account.
The automobile as a manufactured example of bilaterally symmetrical attractiveness
I had a college design professor who made an observation in a (graphic/industrial) design studio class more twenty years ago, which holds true today. Goes something like this: people seem to be attracted to automobiles which are bilaterally symmetrical. Example, most cars have two headlights; one on the driver's side, and a second on the passenger side. If the goal of a "headlight" is to provide forward and peripheral illumination, why don't cars have just one light? The one light could be located off-center on either the driver side, or passenger side. One reason why we don't see too many cars designed having one, off-center light: it wouldn't look "normal," or "attractive" because the layout isn't bilaterally symmetrical.
UNLoVedRebel's avatar might be found attractive because of what seems to be bilaterally symmetrical facial features, and a clean and smooth complexion. But keep in mind that you not only see the face, but exposed neck- which might be considered a nonspecific erogenous zone; a characteristic which might be found attractive or enticing. It is not only a face we see in this example what was termed, attractive.
Miscellaneous:
Keep in mind the idiom, there's no accounting for taste. Personal preferences as to what appears attractive, sexy, or healthy can vary due to a person's learned life's experiences.
In general, humans are bilaterally symmetrical. The left side pretty much looks like the right. We find this expected norm to be "attractive," or in some respects; healthy and beautiful.
When something deviates from the norm, a physical attribute might be construed as unattractive and/or unhealthy. Someone having their nose bent to one side would look out of the ordinary, which could be considered unattractive or unhealthy. But some might find that to be an attractive quirk.
But there may not be a correlation between "healthy" on the inside = physically attractive on the outside.
Yes, there is a relation between a healthy individual (diet, exercise, lack of disease, deformity, or degrading environmental factors) which can make one person appear more attractive than someone who has a less-healthy makeup. But appearances can be deceiving because there are so many factors to take in account.
The automobile as a manufactured example of bilaterally symmetrical attractiveness
I had a college design professor who made an observation in a (graphic/industrial) design studio class more twenty years ago, which holds true today. Goes something like this: people seem to be attracted to automobiles which are bilaterally symmetrical. Example, most cars have two headlights; one on the driver's side, and a second on the passenger side. If the goal of a "headlight" is to provide forward and peripheral illumination, why don't cars have just one light? The one light could be located off-center on either the driver side, or passenger side. One reason why we don't see too many cars designed having one, off-center light: it wouldn't look "normal," or "attractive" because the layout isn't bilaterally symmetrical.
UNLoVedRebel's avatar might be found attractive because of what seems to be bilaterally symmetrical facial features, and a clean and smooth complexion. But keep in mind that you not only see the face, but exposed neck- which might be considered a nonspecific erogenous zone; a characteristic which might be found attractive or enticing. It is not only a face we see in this example what was termed, attractive.
Miscellaneous:
Keep in mind the idiom, there's no accounting for taste. Personal preferences as to what appears attractive, sexy, or healthy can vary due to a person's learned life's experiences.
SecularResponse
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I think our health is written all over us! Certain things like one eye being 1/2mm lower than the other can indicate something to our unconscious that we might not even be aware of...
Now that we have at least a superficial understanding of the cues that attract us to one another, we are busily hijacking the process through surgery, cosmetics, etc... but there is almost certainly more complex information available to our unconscious during what is arguably the most important decision of our existence. (maybe not arguably)
It should be pointed out that there is a huge difference between looking at a photo of a beautiful girl and being in the same room with her, talking with her, smelling her. There are likely myriad clues to the fitness of the potential mate that we are simply unaware of until we are in front of them. Even if the photo is accurate and unretouched, just being in her presence will yield valuable information...
Remember that it is our DNA that is doing the selecting here... we're just along for the ride!
Now that we have at least a superficial understanding of the cues that attract us to one another, we are busily hijacking the process through surgery, cosmetics, etc... but there is almost certainly more complex information available to our unconscious during what is arguably the most important decision of our existence. (maybe not arguably)
It should be pointed out that there is a huge difference between looking at a photo of a beautiful girl and being in the same room with her, talking with her, smelling her. There are likely myriad clues to the fitness of the potential mate that we are simply unaware of until we are in front of them. Even if the photo is accurate and unretouched, just being in her presence will yield valuable information...
Remember that it is our DNA that is doing the selecting here... we're just along for the ride!
Welcome to the forums! You made some good points about the validity of determining attractiveness based on a photo. It's fun to test but in the end we learn little to nothing about the real world. That's why psychologists are pretend scientists.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
UNLoVedRebel said:
As would I, which is why I didn’t actually expect to be able to find any information on such studies, but here is what a quick search did turn up.
A couple of articles on the similarities of human and primate facial recognition (including the similarity of brain regions involved)
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/facial.html
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=945
A paper on facial recognition in human mate selection.
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep02177194.pdf
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
What sheik ain’t chic? Who knows, in the zany world of fashion someone may start a sheik chic trend.
Like this.
No.
Her name is Debora Nascimento. I would tell you about her but you can do the research for yourself. Your eyes will thank you.
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
See, the coolest thing about being a skeptic is that it's actually good to be proven wrong.
Harleys are asymmetrical.
I find it curious how the genitals themselves often lack bilateral symmetry.
The face's balance lures us in. Then we want the weirdness of the sex organs.
Strange.
You'd think horny guys would go for a girl with the face of an aardvark if she had a perfectly symmetrical vagina.
I find it curious how the genitals themselves often lack bilateral symmetry.
The face's balance lures us in. Then we want the weirdness of the sex organs.
Strange.
You'd think horny guys would go for a girl with the face of an aardvark if she had a perfectly symmetrical vagina.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Whoa. Natalie Portman owes me, big time.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
A few assumptions here might be worth addressing.
First of all, if our idea of the beautiful or the suitable is indeed evolved, then it's likely based on overall likelihood of success, not individual cases. If health and fitness are on average more likely to be indicated by appearance, then we would evolve a preference for a certain appearance, even if it goes wrong quite often.
Reproductive success also may depend not only on the ability of the parent to raise offspring, but on the ability of the offspring to find subsequent mates. If that's the case, a stupid and short lived parent who produces beautiful offspring might well have the ultimate advantage over a fit and smart parent who produces ugly offspring who cannot find mates. Reproductive success may not require longevity.
Of course it's an assumption that our ideas of beauty are biological at all. One could, for instance, dig out old Thorstein Veblen and come up with a counter-argument that what we see as beautiful in women now is not only socially derived, but perversely so.
Finally, there's the assumption that the less attractive woman will not find a mate, because the other one has been favored. But once the most attractive have been chosen, many matings are still to occur. If that were not the case you'd expect the population to evolve toward people whose appearance matches the supposed ideals, while those who do not dwindle away. I suspect that this is not quite the case, and that we humans, while we may still drool over the juicy tarts, do also occasionally choose our potential mates for reasons more rational, as well as more adaptive than looks alone, even if some of those reasons involve compromise, loneliness and desperation.
First of all, if our idea of the beautiful or the suitable is indeed evolved, then it's likely based on overall likelihood of success, not individual cases. If health and fitness are on average more likely to be indicated by appearance, then we would evolve a preference for a certain appearance, even if it goes wrong quite often.
Reproductive success also may depend not only on the ability of the parent to raise offspring, but on the ability of the offspring to find subsequent mates. If that's the case, a stupid and short lived parent who produces beautiful offspring might well have the ultimate advantage over a fit and smart parent who produces ugly offspring who cannot find mates. Reproductive success may not require longevity.
Of course it's an assumption that our ideas of beauty are biological at all. One could, for instance, dig out old Thorstein Veblen and come up with a counter-argument that what we see as beautiful in women now is not only socially derived, but perversely so.
Finally, there's the assumption that the less attractive woman will not find a mate, because the other one has been favored. But once the most attractive have been chosen, many matings are still to occur. If that were not the case you'd expect the population to evolve toward people whose appearance matches the supposed ideals, while those who do not dwindle away. I suspect that this is not quite the case, and that we humans, while we may still drool over the juicy tarts, do also occasionally choose our potential mates for reasons more rational, as well as more adaptive than looks alone, even if some of those reasons involve compromise, loneliness and desperation.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
The drive is to reproduce. Diversity is key to our survival. There are some basics to "attractiveness", but we have also evolved to partner and raise children past infancy. Some people are more picky than others, and what one person finds attractive, another may not, but the most successful reproducers stick around together long enough to produce offspring and then support the offspring so they then go on to produce offspring.
There are two mating patterns among humans. The kind that hop in the sack long enough to get someone pregnant, and the kind that shop around for a life-long mate.
There are guys with 5 kids with 5 different women, and don't support any of them. Those kids grow up and pretty much repeat the pattern, not having the resources from this style of "parenting" to change things. They may have one kid each of their own. 5 for 5.
Then there are guys with 5 kids with one woman. They grow up all educated and able to afford 5 kids each too. 25 for 5! Much better!
Attractiveness is only one of the variables. It will get you attention, but maybe not the 25 for 5 in the long run. Intelligence, the ability to stick with one person, and being able to communicate and work together for the long run will pay off with more successful offspring in the future. It takes some intelligence to find a mate you can partner with for the long run, right? Weighing choices, keeping it in your pants long enough to find a good looking smart mate that you are compatible with, looking for more than looks, etc. It takes work, while one night in the sack sure doesn't.
So yeah, you can be dumb as a stump and awesome looking and still get offspring out of the deal, but in the long run and overall looks aren't all that matters.
There are two mating patterns among humans. The kind that hop in the sack long enough to get someone pregnant, and the kind that shop around for a life-long mate.
There are guys with 5 kids with 5 different women, and don't support any of them. Those kids grow up and pretty much repeat the pattern, not having the resources from this style of "parenting" to change things. They may have one kid each of their own. 5 for 5.
Then there are guys with 5 kids with one woman. They grow up all educated and able to afford 5 kids each too. 25 for 5! Much better!
Attractiveness is only one of the variables. It will get you attention, but maybe not the 25 for 5 in the long run. Intelligence, the ability to stick with one person, and being able to communicate and work together for the long run will pay off with more successful offspring in the future. It takes some intelligence to find a mate you can partner with for the long run, right? Weighing choices, keeping it in your pants long enough to find a good looking smart mate that you are compatible with, looking for more than looks, etc. It takes work, while one night in the sack sure doesn't.
So yeah, you can be dumb as a stump and awesome looking and still get offspring out of the deal, but in the long run and overall looks aren't all that matters.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
This is an awesome rundown on "desire" and human mating strategies, plus some stuff on what has been discussed in this thread already:
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/14203
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/14203
I discussed Buss in my Wilt Chamberlain thread, which was actually a serious thread.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
Not ALL psychologists are pretend scientists. Some actually do use the tools of science. That entire field is improving all the time, just like other fields involved in science based medicine. I get my back up when people trash psychology and psychiatrity since my life would not be the same without them, or my son's.
Morrigan
Crone of War
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,262
Nah, not for me. Villains who look like that are still hot in my eyes. >_> It's definitely the long hair, in my case.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,034
I am one of the only females I know that is attracted almost exclusively to long-haired males with facial hair* (unless they're fat). I wonder why that is... are there any evolutionary advantages to having long hair and facial hair?
Among celebrities, the best examples I can think of are, say, these guys. Seeing the same actors but with short hair and/or clean-shaven does absolutely nothing for me. I don't think they're ugly, I just find them... very bland, I guess.
* My preference generally goes like this: long hair + facial hair > long hair + clean shaven > short hair + facial hair > short hair + clean shaven.
There are, of course, exceptions; for example, I find Kiefer Sutherland very attractive even when short-haired and clean-shaven (though I prefer him with the long hair and beard ^^).
(Very) luckily for me, my wife was/is also attracted to long haired, beardy blokes - though the long hair bit is by far the stronger preference. Unfortunately for me, MPB has set in and, as long hair looks ridiculous with a bald spot, I now have short hair. Still got the goatee though!
Are you trying to say this man isn't the object of every woman's desire?That sucks. Bald + goatee can look pretty cool though, not as good as long hair but way better than the dreaded skullet.