Thread: What causes physical attraction?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist too make copies of our genes. We exist because our ancestors made copies of their genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.

That's all you can say.

You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.

Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.

I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.

If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already. You know, human nature... So where does human nature come from... Oh yeah, our instincts.

Think of pandas who won't fvck to save their species

Originally Posted by theMagician

Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.

No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.

I don't know if you know this or no,but when you mate and reproduce, both partners genes get passed, not an exact copy, duh. I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.

Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.

If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already.

That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.



Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.



That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".

BTw, this all theory, but it makes the most since. Survival and replication value is really about primal instincts; we don't go off survival and replication value in a realistic environment anymore (because modern life is more than just about surviving and having sex--see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), but they are the foundation of the attraction switches, as in, triggering an attraction switch inherently indicates that you do have higher survival and replication value. Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). This thread is about what causes attraction, therefor you must know where it comes from.
Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.

Originally Posted by theMagician

Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.

In most cases I doubt it happens subconsciously nor 'subliminally'. Consider this situation. A person designs and makes a clock to tell the time. But the clock itself isn't trying to tell the time, it works due to whatever internal mechanisms make it work. Similarly, evolution can be thought to have 'designed' male attraction to breasts to help with gene survival. But the reason males are attracted to breasts isn't because they're trying to help their genes survive. The phychological subconscious reason probably has nothing to do with survival.

The reason we exist is because we've undergone evolution and our species has survived, but that doesn't mean we have an inherent mission to survive. Only we can assign value to things and decide what our goals will be. Nothing else can assign value because everything else is mindless and physical. Just because we got here via evolution doesn't mean we should base our goals or morality off of it. That kind of thinking might lead a person to advocate eugenics.


(Unrelated to above)
I think I have a pretty good idea of what the average guy will find attractive in a girl, what I thought being confirmed by posts on this site, and I'm sad and happy to say that I don't fit the description. But it's alright, I would really rather not be a perfect sweet friendly anime-ish girl with no character flaws nor depth.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

(Unrelated to above)
I think I have a pretty good idea of what the average guy will find attractive in a girl, what I thought being confirmed by posts on this site, and I'm sad and happy to say that I don't fit the description. But it's alright, I would really rather not be a perfect sweet friendly anime-ish girl with no character flaws nor depth.

But you have boobs, right?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But you have boobs, right?

Honestly, what do you expect me to reply to this?

what? the anime-ish type is what the average guy finds attractive? huh...

Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?

Originally Posted by theMagician

Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?

Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."

So you are saying that survival of a species has to do with evolution, right?