Thread: What causes physical attraction?

Originally Posted by strael

if that's what you want to call it

and yes mow- avoiding people because they aren't physically attractive is shallow.

no it isn't, he has no obligation to get to know someone he doesn't like. Probably you'd feel offended if someone did that to you or a friend of yours.

I think it's worse to be cynical and show you are interested, the fake play will show soon or later, it's stupid to do something you don't like, unless you have an important personal reason, in his case I assume he doesn't mind.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I specifically said that I avoid sexually unattractive people, because they are repulsive to me. If you think that I am a jerk because of that, then you are wrong. There's no harm in avoiding someone. I am simply choosing who I interact with. And if you still think I am a jerk after taking that into consideration, then you probably just have personal issues with someone having high standards.

Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves

When it comes to what I'm attracted to, intellect is the big key for anything beyond superficial lusting. A strong-willed personality is important too. One girl I once knew had the personality of a sponge; she was so weak-willed that she seemingly had no personality of her own. It was quite pathetic really.

Looks aren't too important as long as someone is moderately attractive.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves

The same can be said when you avoid people who are very unlikeable. But I don't think many would make the claim that anyone is obliged to befriend them or spend time with them.

Originally Posted by MindGames

And by the way, I never said that I avoid people because their lack of physical attraction. I specifically said that I avoid sexually unattractive people, because they are repulsive to me.

first off, that means the same exact thing.
and yes, you did say it.

Originally Posted by MindGames

When I speak of somebody being 'ugly', I mean 'ugly' as in physically unattractive; repulsive."

It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have shallow standards), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person.

Originally Posted by mowglycdbno

it isn't, he has no obligation to get to know someone he doesn't like. Probably you'd feel offended if someone did that to you or a friend of yours.

I think it's worse to be cynical and show you are interested, the fake play will show soon or later, it's stupid to do something you don't like, unless you have an important personal reason, in his case I assume he doesn't mind.

I never said that he has an obligation to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.

Originally Posted by MindGames

In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.

You have every right to judge based on what you think is important in a person. if this must include being sexually attractive, wonderful, but just keep in mind that other people have every right to think what they want about this requirement of yours, and the judgements you make about people who do not fit your standard of physical attractiveness.

Originally Posted by strael

first off, that means the same exact thing.
and yes, you did say it.

It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have shallow standards), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person.



I never said that he has an obligation to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.

I see that you don't like his way, well he's honest and I do like that he says it, he can be proud of being that way if he wants, there's nothing wrong with being shallow.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The same can be said when you avoid people who are very unlikeable. But I don't think many would make the claim that anyone is obliged to befriend them or spend time with them.

Well if they are disliked only by whats on the outside, their physical appearance, thats kind of mean. If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside.
And feeling disliked by people because of their physical appearance can make them miserable.

If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside.

That's a fair point. But equally people can't really control their reactions either. If someone really is that repulsive for the sake of argument, I can't really blame a person who wishes to avoid that person to avoid experiencing those feelings.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Well if they are disliked only by whats on the outside, their physical appearance, thats kind of mean. If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside.
And feeling disliked by people because of their physical appearance can make them miserable.

What makes you think that people can control what they are "on the inside"? Can someone that's autistic control it?

Originally Posted by strael

first off, that means the same exact thing.
and yes, you did say it.

No, it doesn't. An average-looking girl lacks physical attraction, which I don't mind. An ugly girl is repulsive to me. In other words, her overall features are repulsive, disregarding sexual attraction. When I said unattractive, I meant it in the sense of a girl being ugly. Which should have been obvious anyway.

So no, I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by strael

It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have shallow standards), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person.

I dislike ugly people because I am repulsed by the way they look. If I dislike the way they look, I'm not going to be interested in them or their personality. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. (Not really.) I consider physical looks to be more important than personality much in the same way that you consider personality to be more important than physical looks. I'm not interested in your values, though, because I'm not you. And the fact that you're arguing with me about MY personal preferences tells me that you're the one with the problem here, since you're the one getting upset over something which is completely acceptable and, quite frankly, none of your business to fuss over in the first place.

Originally Posted by strael

I never said that he has an obligation to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.

Nope. I base my interactions with everyone based on many factors. And one of those factors is that I will not choose to interact with someone who I find repulsive. An average-looking girl's lack of attraction will not prompt me to avoid her, but I will avoid interacting with an ugly girl. Ugliness is a negative trait. And I have also found that ugly people generally have personalities that I don't like, which is part of my reasons for choosing not to interact with them.

It's human nature to judge people. I just take physical traits into more account than you do. I'm sure you judge people based on their personality. There is essentially no difference, no matter which traits you take into account when judging someone.

Originally Posted by strael

You have every right to judge based on what you think is important in a person. if this must include being sexually attractive, wonderful, but just keep in mind that other people have every right to think what they want about this requirement of yours, and the judgements you make about people who do not fit your standard of physical attractiveness.

Thank you for your input.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No I'm not saying that. What about my post would lead you to think that that's what I was saying?

this

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."

You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.

And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by theMagician

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

He can't, they're dead. :[

Originally Posted by GavinGill

He can't, they're dead. :[

Man that was a really sad statement. I wish dinosaurs were still around

Originally Posted by theMagician

this



You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.

No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.

And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct.

To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves.

Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."

Originally Posted by MindGames

In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.

Replace 'ugly people' with 'black people' or 'women' or 'homosexuals' and the issue is the same. Someone judges a certain group of humans who are born into that group to tend to share some negative trait. I don't necessarily think there's something wrong with you for choosing to avoid ugly people, but I dislke your choice and it seems rather mean to me. It's strange that you find that 'ugly people' tend to have bad personalities. Maybe it's because I don't interact with people often, but I haven't seen evidence of that in my own life. If anything, it seems attractive people tend to be more likely to have bad personalities, since people like them based on their looks already so they don't need to develop alluring personalities.

The issue reminds me of a few I've been thinking about recently. What would happen if we had good scientific evidence that black people really do tend to have below-average IQs? Or if it were to be realized that women tend to have lower iQs? That may already be true, although I think they purposely make IQ tests now to give equal balance to both of the genders' brain strengths. But maybe that's been done as an example of the fear of rational inequality I'm bringing up. There was some study I heard about a few months ago which actually concluded that 'attractive' people tend to have higher IQs than average people, and the results were pretty substantial. It was something like a difference of +11 IQ points for women and +13 for men. I have no idea how reliable that study was, someone can correct me if they know better. I guess I'm just saying that issues like these are difficult, figuring out we have rational reasons to believe people 'inferior' that's more than blind prejudice, when we're striving for equality. Are any real differences just going to be ignored, and should they be?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's strange that you find that 'ugly people' tend to have bad personalities. Maybe it's because I don't interact with people often, but I haven't seen evidence of that in my own life. If anything, it seems attractive people tend to be more likely to have bad personalities, since people like them based on their looks already so they don't need to develop alluring personalities.

I think personality doesn't have to do with physical appearance, so I'd preffer the good looking person.

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."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.




Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct.

To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves.

Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."

Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.

Originally Posted by theMagician

Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.

Please explain to me how "survival of the fit enough to survive" has anything to do with species.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I dislike ugly people because I am repulsed by the way they look. If I dislike the way they look, I'm not going to be interested in them or their personality. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. (Not really.) I consider physical looks to be more important than personality much in the same way that you consider personality to be more important than physical looks. I'm not interested in your values, though, because I'm not you. And the fact that you're arguing with me about MY personal preferences tells me that you're the one with the problem here, since you're the one getting upset over something which is completely acceptable and, quite frankly, none of your business to fuss over in the first place.

no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a discussion board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say.

Originally Posted by MindGames

There is essentially no difference, no matter which traits you take into account when judging someone.

there is a huge difference between judging someone based on looks vs judging based on personality as they are two entirely different aspects of a person, but whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by strael

no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a discussion board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say.

you have to note that when he says that he finds ugly people repulsive, he's not judging it's a personal observation of what happens to him while seeing someone he feels is ugly. I think he worded it wrong

Originally Posted by strael

no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a discussion board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say.

It's like when I got in an argument a few years ago with those people on that Men Are Better Than Women website. One of them finally said that his 'evidence' that women are inferior is his observations, that he's observed throughout his life that women tend to be stupid, that it's obvious to him that it's true. There isn't really anything else you can say to people like that. Observing the world is how we come to a lot our conclusions. Maybe they're seeing something you aren't, maybe they're being blind to reality, maybe he lives somewhere where he's only being exposed to certain types of people... I think it's mean too though and I don't see his reasons. It seems no better to me than avoiding someone of a particular race because you don't like them. But I doubt he isn't expecting people to reply and have problems with what he says.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's like when I got in an argument a few years ago with those people on that Men Are Better Than Women website. One of them finally said that his 'evidence' that women are inferior is his observations, that he's observed throughout his life that women tend to be stupid, that it's obvious to him that it's true. There isn't really anything else you can say to people like that. Observing the world is how we come to a lot our conclusions. Maybe they're seeing something you aren't, maybe they're being blind to reality, maybe he lives somewhere where he's only being exposed to certain types of people... I think it's mean too though and I don't see his reasons. It seems no better to me than avoiding someone of a particular race because you don't like them. But I doubt he isn't expecting people to reply and have problems with what he says.

He isn't making a generalization about an entire group of people though. He's just saying that if he sees someone whom he finds repulsive, he will tend to avoid them. It is absolutely nothing like saying that any specific group of humans is superior/inferior compared to other humans at all.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

He isn't making a generalization about an entire group of people though. He's just saying that if he sees someone whom he finds repulsive, he will tend to avoid them. It is absolutely nothing like saying that any specific group of humans is superior/inferior compared to other humans at all.

It's this quote I was thinking of:

In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.

But I don't think he asserted the generalization since then, and he does seem to be saying now that he just chooses to avoid them because he doesn't like their physical appearances, so you're probably right.

Originally Posted by MindGames

An average-looking girl's lack of attraction will not prompt me to avoid her, but I will avoid interacting with an ugly girl. Ugliness is a negative trait. And I have also found that ugly people generally have personalities that I don't like, which is part of my reasons for choosing not to interact with them.

^he has repeated the generalization. Roxxor, I have a hard time looking at this and thinking that he hasn't generalized a group of people(physically ugly) and attributed to them negative personality traits that may or may not be grounded in reality.

But dianeva is right, it is pointless arguing with someone like that.