Printable View
Ugly people doesn't specifically define a group of persons. It's a highly subjective word. What is ugly for one person may not be for the next, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by strael
Also perhaps he finds people terrible personalities ugly, thus making it seem that most ugly people he meets have awful personalities.
I still believe that it is completely fine to avoid people I don't like because of their physical ugliness. Everyone who is against my personal preferences simply cites their own, such as thinking that personality is more important than physical attraction (or ugliness for the purpose of this discussion). That's just looking at another facet of them and judging their personality instead of their physical properties. What's the difference? There is no difference, since you are still judging that person. You're just judging another aspect of them based on your own personal preferences. So if I choose to judge someone based on their physical aspect of being ugly, it's no different from judging them based on their bad personality. Same shit, different smell.
Also, I'm just avoiding people. It's not like I'm pointing at them and laughing. They don't miss out on anything but a little conversation. Ugly people still have ugly friends, and they seem fine to me. (Not that it concerns me. It's their life to live, not mine.)
I really don't see why avoiding people because of how they look is any different than avoid people because they have bad social skills. Nobody seems to find the latter to be shallow and pretty much everybody does it. They both lead to people feeling rejected by their society and so are both vicious things to do. The difference is that most people don't reject people so completely because of how they look so 'ugly' people can still feel like they're part of society.
It's likely been said before, but here's my info: sexual attraction is due to culture, instinct, and personal psychology. Big boobs, bums, and hips are all signs of fertility, and thus they are often seen as sexy. Society can condition someone to feel one way or another sexually. Finally, personal psychology leads to fetishes and personal taste (e.g., I like tall girls, but my friend likes short girls).
What are your views on the gender-specific aspects of sexual attraction?
Well this has always been an odd subject for me. I doubt many believe me, but I'm not even sure of how much I pay attention to the physical features of even the people I know and see all the time. Sometimes I do wonder if I have mild facial recognition problems as I never could describe details of even people I have known for years. I swear I never look quite the same twice any time I look in a mirror as well.
I remember someone asking me how tan my friend was once, only to guess horribly off. Said friend is a heck of a lot more tan than I ever noticed apparently. I will remember more stand out traits, like a booming voice that makes your eardrums vibrate at any level, strong or offensive odors, giant beard, really fat, really skinny, etc. Though these traits usually accompany a memorable personality, for better or for worse.
I'd be one of the worst people to bear witness to what some suspect looked like. You'd likely get more useful info from a blind man, given how acute others senses tend to get to compensate. That's an interesting thought, what's physically attractive to someone blind from birth or even blind later in life? Sight is only one of the 5 physical senses, after all.
The thing about beauty and the mainstream of sexiness is that it ends up being so superficial and over the top that it's nauseating. If it were up to me, cosmetics and any kind of cosmetic surgery would be outlawed, period, no ifs ands or buts. I hate the polished up look of 'beauty' and ideas of who finds what attractive. What I call the "soulless doll look" is downright terrifying, especially if accompanied by an act of stupidity to seem 'cute'. Celebrity anything is a far removed world I could care less about.
Honestly, all of my friends that I have gotten to know, basically anyone who made it past being an acquaintance, I first met overhearing them in some conversation of interest or through another friend who I met in such a circumstance. I never thought about it until recent years, but when I get to talking with someone, I get into this focus of the conversation, general atmosphere, and personality of the people participating. This is what I'll remember most afterwards.
After walking away, I'll be damned if I could even halfway accurately describe what anyone I was just talking with looked like at all, but I could tell you all about what we talked about and did. If you aren't very interesting and we have little to nothing in common, you could be the spitting image of "beauty" and I'd still soon forget everything about you afterwards. If I saw you again after that and if anyone said anything, it'd be you who remembers me, putting me in one of those awkward "do I know this person?" situations.
Looks like Aquanina :lol:, a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman
There are several important factors when it comes to evaluating physical attractiveness. In general both sexes look for signs that the partner has good genes. In addition, males look for signs of fertility and females often looks for signs of stability and dependability, though these aren't physical.
The symmetry of a person is therefore important. This is not just limited to the face. Symmetry is a sign of good genes, as genetic errors will often produce unsymmetrical results.
Another important feature is how "average" the face is. Studies have shown that if you merge several pictures of attractive females (or males) together to produce an average face, the outcome will be prettier than the faces that makes it up.
In males, typical "masculine" characteristics can be important. Because these masculine characteristics signify a high level of testosterone, and because testosterone adversely affects the immune system, it's assumed a masculine guy must be robust (that is, have good genes) to live to the age where he's a possible mating partner.
As previously stated are signs of fertility important in females. This includes obvious things like youth and supple breasts. However the hip-to-waist ratio of women has also been shown to be important. Depictions of pretty women ranging from ancient cave paintings and statutes to modern beauties all tend to have generally the same hip-to-waist ratio. Whether a girl is skinny or well-rounded does not have as much to say, as long as it does not deviate too far from a normal. I believe this attention to hip-to-waist ratio is attributed to it being a sign of fertility.
When you know someone, what you think of them will affect how physically attractive you find them. That is to say that a person you like will seem more physically attractive, and a person you don't like will seem less physically attractive.
All the above is based on information contained in the book How the mind works, with the exception of the last paragraph, which I have from the book No two alike.
It is of course general, so exceptions can and will be found. Much of it also happens with the concious mind happily unaware of it.
Holy fuck it's khh. Welcome back, mate!
ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
i think it is all about chemicals in the brain...
http://orlyowl.tripod.com/sitebuilde...tures/orly.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by dreamquotes
I've actually seen several different studies on this. Some theories:
Pheromones, meaning the smell of different people (though sweat or whatever). When they asked women to smell sweaty T shirts worn by different men, one of the men being their brother, women consistently rated their brother's scent the worst. This suggests that may be some kind of biological mechanism which makes us less attracted to those with very similar genes to ourselves, thus preventing inbreeding, and instead makes us more attracted to those very genetically different than ourselves, thus promoting diversity and further evolution.
Another I'm sure everyone knows about is symmetry. The more symmetrical someone's face is, the more attractive we may find them. This is thought to be because symmetry may have an unconscious link for us to health. Health, ability to produce healthy offspring and pass on desirable traits is a main part of this. For example, why are taller men more popular with women? Because the taller someone is, and this is a generalization, the stronger they have a potential to be. A women, speaking in pre-historic terms, wants a tall strong man who can protect her and her offspring from attackers. On the subject of health, we also favor people with clear skin, bright eyes, etc because we see them as more likely to survive and as having good qualities to pass on to our children.
Women with big hips? It's thought that a small waist and big hips represent a woman more able to easily have children, which is appealing to pre-historic men. Also I've read somewhere there a full butt represents fertility in the male mind, and that because the cleavage of big breasts look very similar to a woman's butt, these are also considered attractive.
Also, some women may prefer men with somewhat feminine features because they see the more feminine man as more nurturing and more likely to stay with her and take care of their offspring. I've also read somewhere that less attractive men and women will tend to go for other men/women around the same level of attractiveness as themselves. May be that they see others as out of their league/below them, or perhaps they can relate more to the less attractive man/woman. Not sure.
These are all things I've read on the subject, so feel free to dispute them. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points myself, and I don't have the sources seeing as this is just random knowledge I've gathered over time, so it's not unlikely that the information could be wrong. This is all just on a purely biological level, though. Beyond that, I would say it's not only appearance that is important. It may sound like I'm just trying to be PC, but I personally would never go for someone attractive if they were a jerk, whereas I actually can develop crushes on guys I don't normally find attractive if I like their personalities.
I think that it's a really complex mixture of factors, biological, physical, mental, social and sometimes pure luck. I doubt science will ever produce an exact formula to attraction, but there are definitely some hints in biology and psychology. :P
Sex mangnets, big freaking sex magnets.
Yeah, I've also read this. And it makes sense if you think about it evolutionary. Even if you can't get the top notch "merchandise", it's still better to get something than to get nothing. There it would make sense if a system evolved that made us more likely to focus our energy on wooing potential matches, and not spend it all running after those we'd have no shot at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Not sure if this has been brought up before but is it possible that the ability to recognize beauty is innate? I remember reading an article about how babies prefer to look at attractive faces. Im not really trying to argue for the existence of a platonic form of beauty but I think it is very interesting that babies can decipher between pictures of attractive faces in contrast to unattractive faces. They showed alot more attention to the pictures of attractive faces despite race or gender(of the babies and the pictures).
I am aware that beauty is subjective, I personally find an intelligent, articulate girl to be more desirable than a girl who resembles a barbie doll. But on the other hand I think most people KNOW an attractive face from an unattractive one so it is possible that beauty is objective. No one watches the sunrise with a feeling of disgust, I think most people can recognize the beauty in that. But I guess that is getting of topic since beauty in general is not the same as physical attractiveness but oh well.
I guess it depends what 'objective' means. I bet there is at least one person in the world who genuinely finds sunrises repulsive. Does objective mean that it's true independent of what anyone thinks, or that it's true for almost every person? Now that I write it out, it's obviously the latter. I've read about the study too. There are obviously certain characteristics (and usually those characteristics fall under the category of 'normal') that the human brain is programmed to find attractive. It applies to all humans, except for maybe some few people whose brains have developed abnormally for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Whaaat? I would say it's obviously the former o.oQuote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I mean, most people think Hitler was a bad person. But it's still subjective. If it's possible to disagree, then it's subjective. If just 1 person disagrees, it's subjective. Hell, even if nobody disagrees, it's still subjective.
We can't have true objectivity. We can say that Hitler caused the death of many people, and that is probably true and objective. But maybe it isn't. Probably, but maybe not. Maybe he was just a scapegoat in some wicked, intricate conspiracy.
Point is, there is an objective truth somewhere: Either he did it, or he did not. However, we can never know. And that's not just for this example.
Yeah, but normal does not equal objective. Whatever anyone likes or dislikes is subjective. I bet we can all agree that torture is not a very pleasing sensation, but it's still subjective. If someone had a brain that had developed abnormally and actually liked being tortured then lo and behold, he would have a different opinion. The fact that he can have a different opinion makes it subjective.Quote:
There are obviously certain characteristics (and usually those characteristics fall under the category of 'normal') that the human brain is programmed to find attractive. It applies to all humans, except for maybe some few people whose brains have developed abnormally for whatever reason.
In fact, the first description you made of objectivity is what I think is the definition. An objective truth means something that is true regardless of what anyone thinks. The latter is just a whole shit load of people who agree on a certain subject... Hmm. I like how the last word in that sentence.. Never mind.
Objective >> Object. That's how you know what it means. It means based in reality and not of thought (subject). I'm sure there's a better explanation if you look up the etymology but that's good enough.
Just remember object is like, a table, and subject is like the person viewing it.
I agree with everything you've said and that's how I've always understood the word 'objective' too. But I have heard people use the word to mean "true for almost every person". That is literally the first time I've used it in that way myself, and usually don't like when people do. But since it seemed stormcrow was using it in that way, I thought maybe it isn't that uncommon, and that in the context (of stormcrow's comment) the latter definition would have to be applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I meant objective as in a reality independent of the mind. I probably should have just said "the ability to recognize beauty is innate and not arbitrary."
Ah, I get ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I had that discussion in class with my teacher as well. We were discussing the word "truth", and the discussion was quite annoying... My teacher was arguing that truth is simply what the majority of people agree is the truth, which I just think is plain wrong.
And they let such morons teach. All your teacher said was that the absolute is relative. How in the hell can anyone teach when they cannot even think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true when by some means of measure no difference is found in the results. (i.e. same is not different)
More to the real point, there are only two primitive abstractions, neither can be defined, but can be descibed such that one is not the other, the boundary is not the difference in the boundary, the point is that which has no part, etc.
same and is not different.
Listing synonyms for the same concept, and the denial of predication are not definitions, they are, however, descriptions. Descriptions can only lead one to a source of abstraction, they cannot make the abstraction for someone. The inability to make the abstraction denotes a dysfunctional acquisition system of an organism. Plato called that mind asleep, Aristotle a veggie, Scripture the dead. Biological definition, dysfunctional, or dead. Me, those people who tend to get pissed at me the most.
The argument makes some sense with the word "knowledge". Since almost anyone who's thought about it will agree that you can't know anything with 100% certainty (apart from perhaps "I think therefore I am" and "there is an experience of ______", etc), but the term 'know' technically means "to know with 100% certainty". If you recognize that, then the term "know" becomes useless in everyday life. Anyone who has thought about it can't use the term without lying. So people start saying that "knowledge" means "close to 100% certainty". I'm not sure what to think about it.