Idealized Beauty

[Kumquat]

Also because I have long arms and a narrow torso. I use my ability to reach things at a great distance to make fun of my short friends.

I hate people like you.

[ecnarf]

I hate people who can sit in bus seats without having to pull their knees up just so they can fit. Or who don't run the risk of smashing their heads against those overhead bars as they stand up. Or who have never known what it's like to smash your head on the ceiling as you walk down stairs, or against the ceiling of a van as you enter without bending over enough.

 

It's a fair trade. You short folk should really stop being so god damned uppity, because tall people don't have to grab things from high shelves for you, you know.

[heyrabbit]

the fascinating thing about the subjectivity of beauty is that YOU are the subject and basis for your ideal beauty that you long for. everyone's inherently attracted to themselves. (proportions of the face, features etc)

[ecnarf]

Bullshit, son. John Q. Fatass doesn't lust for Rosie O'Donnell because she has the same proportions.

[heyrabbit]

that's because they're competition. both competing for the skinny black dude

 

and fatness usually isn't hereditary, at least that's my impression

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

For the most part, no. Nonetheless, Scarlett is fucking smoking regardless of your genetic makeup. The whole "you're attracted to yourself" at a basic genetic level comes across as nothing more than pseudoscientific new age psychological crap.

[Prometheon]

Wouldn't that be evolutionarily maladaptive since it encourages inbreeding? (or at least mating with those who have a low amount of genetic variance in relation to you)

Edited May 22, 2007 by Prometheon

[heyrabbit]

that's evolution man, get dawkins' selfish gene. every genes purpose is to fuck itself and propagate itself

 

scarlett creeps me out. she had a disproportionate head

 

theat was for ecnarf. but yeah, it's not really that maladaptive because natural selection takes care of incest progeny. plus, people tend to not screw their families. and I don't think the chances are very high that the children would be fucked up if you procreated with your cousin

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Ravenous megin-sane]

i've never dated someone who looked remotely like me.

they're all like.. exact opposites almost

[ecnarf]

I haven't read the Selfish Gene yet but something tells me that Dawkins does not posit the theory of wanting to fuck those with similar "proportions" or what have you. Sexual selection for expression of certain phenotypes exists but I have no idea about selection for those with YOUR phenotypes, specifically.

 

Besides that, what of genes that aren't visually expressed?

Edited May 22, 2007 by ecnarf

[heyrabbit]

we naturally do not want to fuck apes. in the same respect we naturally prefer certain people over other people. nobody ever thinks they look like their partner. but i see a similarity between owen and meg

 

it's not only for mating, but people are attracted to any object that's like themselves. it sounds silly, but people with round heads wear round bags, or necklaces, earrings etc. square shaped people oftne prefer square items. the same goes for color,texture etc. it's a selective recreation of themselves, art etc. that's what personal style is, art, music, painting, anything

 

 

as far as genes that aren't expressed, I'm not sure. but I guess freud had the answer to that. the answer probably lies in the fact that girls are attracted to men who're like their fathers, and boys to their mothers etc

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Prometheon]

Yeah but selection for those phenotypes are often universally beneficial (such as bright plumage (which is an indicator of nutrition and lutein content), musculature, etc.)

 

I don't see how things like that are related to "going for people who look like you." How does having an affinity for items shaped like certain aspects of your body demonstrate a mate preferance for the same?

 

Note that I'm not saying you're wrong or that I don't believe you; I'm just curious/skeptical.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Prometheon

[Ravenous megin-sane]

but i see a similarity between owen and meg

i don't.

 

 

eight

[heyrabbit]

well if youre attracted to your own shapes, angles, and proportions, then you'll look for that in ppl. I haven't read about this. it's just something I've heard about and noticed. it's just apparent to me.

 

and there have been studies done where people are shown a selection of photos of ppl of the opposite sex, one of which is themselves transfigured slightly to look like a girl/boy. the result was that people chose themselves more often than not

 

meg, I noticed yours and owens eyes rae both similar in width. not surprisingly eyes are considered one of the most attractive features

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Prometheon]

Interesting. I'm looking over my behavioral genetics notes from earlier this year and this is of some relevance to the discussion:

 

-Leks are traditional display areas where males congregate to defend small territories and display for females. A human example is a bar or club. Females visit these sites to find a male to mate with. However, most males will not have success, so why Lek? Hotspot model: leks form around areas of high female traffic. Hotshot model: leks form around one dominant individual. The most valid model is probably female-preference: being able to evaluate many males simultaneously reduces time exposed to danger. Correlation between lek size and number of females visiting it.

-kin-selection model: animals often lek with their kin, thereby assuring that some of their genetic material is passed on in the form of nieces and nephews. Seen in peacocks.

-lek paradox: if most females make with males with a certain trait, the trait

[ecnarf]

we naturally do not want to fuck apes. in the same respect we naturally prefer certain people over other people. nobody ever thinks they look like their partner. but i see a similarity between owen and meg

 

it's not only for mating, but people are attracted to any object that's like themselves. it sounds silly, but people with round heads wear round bags, or necklaces, earrings etc. square shaped people oftne prefer square items. the same goes for color,texture etc. it's a selective recreation of themselves, art etc. that's what personal style is, art, music, painting, anything

 

 

as far as genes that aren't expressed, I'm not sure. but I guess freud had the answer to that. the answer probably lies in the fact that girls are attracted to men who're like their fathers, and boys to their mothers etc

Of course you don't want to fuck apes. Some people, however, do. The whole not wanting to fuck another species thing is an important part of the process of speciation. Technically speaking, we shouldn't want to fuck women who are infertile or on birth control or while wearing condoms (err), but we do anyways. It's kind of an evolutionary byproduct. That doesn't indicate a genetic tendency to fuck those with similar phenotypes.

 

Besides that, Freud's conjectures about being attracted to your parents aren't accepted by serious psychologists anymore. And with respect to Owen whose psychology program involves real science, there is much of psychology (esp. 19th century psychology) that isn't actually science or scientific. An oedipus complex will not account for wanting to fuck those with a certain blood type, or for someone who isn't a carrier of a genetic disorder. Nor will simple genetics for having a certain hair or eye colour carry a genetic disposition to fuckign someone with that same hair or eye colour.

 

Just because DNA exists doesn't mean it controls every aspect of our being. There is evidence that DNA is extremely powerful in shaping who we are; there is also evidence that the social environment in which you are brought up is also extremely powerful. At this point, attempting to explain something as complex and poorly understood as specific sexual tendences purely in terms of genes or genetic selection is a bullshit conjecture not supported by evidence.

 

well if youre attracted to your own shapes, angles, and proportions, then you'll look for that in ppl. I haven't read about this. it's just something I've heard about and noticed. it's just apparent to me.

 

and there have been studies done where people are shown a selection of photos of ppl of the opposite sex, one of which is themselves transfigured slightly to look like a girl/boy. the result was that people chose themselves more often than not

 

meg, I noticed yours and owens eyes rae both similar in width. not surprisingly eyes are considered one of the most attractive features

 

One of the basic tenets of science is that ANECDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE. Having heard a certain hypothesis, odds are you will look for evidence to support it, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. You take Meg and Owen's eyes; the odds that it happens to be a coincidence is through the fucking roof. What are the odds that any two people have similar "eye width"? To get a proper analysis, you have to randomly select couples, measure their respective eye width, and look for a correlation. You have to randomly select individuals, measure their eye width, have them look at pictures of people with various eye widths, and have those people rate the attractiveness of the faces. To control, you would have to digitally manipulate the images to alter eye width while keeping other features similar. And so on and so forth. THAT is science. Dawkins has written at length about the process on more than one occasion.

Edited May 22, 2007 by ecnarf

[Prometheon]

Well said Adam.

 

Something else to chew on: There is often little 'logic' in sexual selection when compard to natural selection (which always operates strictly on survival of the fittest principles.) There is a lot of subterfuge going on here, such as many birds eating feces with no nutritional value but high in a substance that intensifies plumage color (which is sexually selected for.) They are engaging in a time consuming behavior in order to 'trick' females into thinking they are better foragers than they actually are.

 

An argument can be made about western society; there IS no natural selection. People aren't dying out becuase they are not 'fit' enough; nearly everyone can mate and have kids if they are so inclined. What is strange about this is that IQ is still on the rise. I realize that this is drifting away from the topic of this uh...topic so I'll cut this off here, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

Edit about eyes: People are attracted to larger eyes. It's hypothesized that this is because large eyes make you look younger and more 'honest.' Women use makeup as an artifice effect in an effort to make their eyes look bigger. (This isn't very scientific, I'm just throwing it out there. It was from one of my unsciency psych classes. Man I hate those.)

Edited May 22, 2007 by Prometheon

[ecnarf]

Edit about eyes: People are attracted to larger eyes. It's hypothesized that this is because large eyes make you look younger and more 'honest.' Women use makeup as an artifice effect in an effort to make their eyes look bigger. (This isn't very scientific, I'm just throwing it out there. It was from one of my unsciency psych classes. Man I hate those.)

Remembering back to section from Dawkins' God Delusion (or was it Climbing Mount Improbable?) it's been shown that people are... drawn (I hesitate to say "attracted") to babylike features. For example, cats have faces that are proportionally similar to those of infants. People could have a genetic disposition to be attracted to such features because it provides a biological basis for caring for your kids. A caveman would be likely to take care of his kids if he found them aesthetically pleasing, which means they would be more likely to survive beyond infancy and propagate those genes.

 

Of course, what with crazy cat ladies, what once might have been an advantage sure has backfired.

[heyrabbit]

LOL. I never claimed to be any kind of authority on the subject, but I don't need your approval to philosophize about my observations.

 

also, theories are born from conjecture

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

Oh, yes you do.

[Prometheon]

You are entirely right. The big 3 are eye size, "babyfacedness" and facial symmetry.

[ecnarf]

You are entirely right. The big 3 are eye size, "babyfacedness" and facial symmetry.

Ah, the things we learn from the Discovery Channel.

 

The symmetry thing is pretty popular around the animal kingdom. Flies have been found to exhibit the same behaviour.

[heyrabbit]

You are entirely right. The big 3 are eye size, "babyfacedness" and facial symmetry.

that;s why denzel washington is so sexy

 

to say taht there's no natural selection is to say that there's no evolution. and I don't think you're one of those people

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

Where did either of us say there was no natural selection?

[heyrabbit]

Where did either of us say there was no natural selection?

An argument can be made about western society; there IS no natural selection. People aren't dying out becuase they are not 'fit' enough; nearly everyone can mate and have kids if they are so inclined. What is strange about this is that IQ is still on the rise. I realize that this is drifting away from the topic of this uh...topic so I'll cut this off here, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

although I'm sure owen "believes" in evolition. he couldn't not

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit