What is ugly?

[Wool]

Now. What is ugly? Simple question. What do you think should be counted as ''ugly''? Is there anything ugly? If you come up with a answer, look from the answers perspective and think a little before posting. Im pretty sure there have been such questions before but.. i was not able to find any threads. It was just a little thing i wanted to post.. nothing special.

[Xei]

Never really understood the point in the philosophy of aesthetics. People make quite a fuss about it. But it seems kinda clear to me. The words beauty and ugliness are defined ostensively (like all atomic words), and we are biologically wired up to be able to spot the pattern (for various reasons, one of the most obvious being sex and natural selection). If you are looking for an objective, inherent, a priori answer about beauty or ugliness, it doesn't exist. Proboscis monkeys think that other proboscis monkeys are beautiful.

[DrunkenArse]

With regards to sexual selection, I don't think it's hard wired into our brain. Notions of beauty have changed too much from culture to culture and time to time for me to accept that.

[Descensus]

Mona Lisa is ugly.

[Xei]

Maybe Mona Lisa was ugly? With regards to sexual selection, I don't think it's hard wired into our brain. Notions of beauty have changed too much from culture to culture and time to time for me to accept that. That flies in the face of plenty of empirical evidence in psychology... I would hope for slightly more clear argumentation from you than 'there is lots of cultural variation therefore it is entirely cultural variation', unless I misunderstood what you're saying. Some things are cultural of course, but there are some inherent universals too. For example, it is experimentally verified that newborn babies prefer faces which are the averages of lots of faces; appreciation of the human face is hence hardwired to a significant extent. Also, traits like waist to hip ratio and high cheekbones for women, unblemished skin, and symmetry have been found without exception to be attractive in every culture. An edifying quote from Stephen Pinker: "the mind cannot be a blank slate because blank slates don't do anything". There must be some biological basis in the first place for establishing what is attractive, otherwise we'd end up being just as attracted to lumps of clay as to humans. I myself have actually been very surprised by the number of inherent traits there are within our brains. Things like loss aversion (irrationally overestimating the negative value of a loss), revulsion towards sibling sex, Piaget's stages of children's mental development, fear of snakes; these are just a small sample of the distinct functions inherent to humans. It bemuses me how so few genes are able to do such specific things; I mean, how on Earth does a snakes-are-bad protein work? Maybe DuB can help explain that a bit. But it's simply what the evidence shows. Pretty much all of it was presented to me in this great lecture series, Yale's introductory psychology course: Introduction to Psychology | Yale Psychology Lecture

[DrunkenArse]

For example, it is experimentally verified that newborn babies prefer faces which are the averages of lots of faces; appreciation of the human face is hence hardwired to a significant extent. Prefer is not the same as 'find beautiful'. There are some things that I prefer and others that I find beautiful and the two do not always go hand in hand. Sometimes, ugly is beautiful. But I suppose I was just reacting to the inference that some things are hardwired so therefore they all are. I don't actually see that in re-reading your post but it did seem to be just under the surface, though possibly not in your mind.

[Descensus]

Maybe Mona Lisa was ugly? Mona Lisa, as she exists now (in the painting), is ugly (to me, I mean). Wasn't she supposed to be the epitome of beauty when the painting was made or something?

[Solarflare]

You want ugly? Unpleasant or repulsive, esp. in appearance: "she thought she was ugly and fat". (of a situation or mood) Involving or likely to involve violence or other unpleasantness: "the mood in the room turned ugly". This is what ugly is.

[Original Poster]

I mostly consider ugly to be dissonance, but I know it's a lot deeper than that. For instance, I'm currently living at my dad's and the bathroom is right next to my room and the walls are paper thin and he takes like 7 shits a day. I am being driven insane by the sounds of his bowel movements. It's gotten to the point where I'll try anything just so I don't have to go home and wake up in my bed to the sound of his morning shit. It's the most awful way to wake up, and it ruins my dream recall. It takes like 20 minutes to recover from the sound. It's giving me post traumatic stress disorder. Can I explain why the sound is so repulsive? Why I can't just accept the noise and let it go? No. I can't. No explanation you come up with can touch the awful disgust I feel when I hear the noise. It's like... beyond finding something unappealing. It literally makes me feel capable of going on a killing spree. It's deteriorating my rational mind. It is driving me toward either panic or catatonia. Another example is this girl I know. She's overweight, like really overweight. Like gross. Also her face is covered in zits, like a billion of them. And I didn't mind cause a person is a person, I don't look at people's physical appearance when I decide if they're worth being friends. But then she started flirting with me and I wanted to throw up. Like... even thinking about it makes me gag and lose my appetite. Ugh... *shivers* So ugly is definitely a real thing. No question. It's certainly experientially dependent, I'm sure there are plenty of people that would love to bang that girl and could not care less about having to listen to someone take a shit. But I'm not one of them. I find the experiences to be rather traumatizing. And they're harmless experiences. They provide no threat to my life, and serve no rational evolutionary benefit. Well, being repulsed by the advances of an undesirable mate certainly does but there's no reason why you should feel yourself suddenly capable of becoming an MK-Ultra Assassin by being exposed to the sound of bowel movements. It's just a horrible way to start your day.

[IndieAnthias]

Also, traits like waist to hip ratio and high cheekbones for women, unblemished skin, and symmetry have been found without exception to be attractive in every culture I know of one study that contradicts this, only because I just happen to have recently covered this in evo. psych. It demonstrates plasticity in waist-to-hip ratio preference and our ability to put this into ecological context. tl;dnr: If food is scarce, fat = healthy. If food is plentiful, fat = unhealthy. Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.004 : Evolution and Human Behavior | ScienceDirect.com On another note, I kind of like the concept behind confrontational art. People joke about it when they hear that an artist took a shit in a jar and tied it to a dead monkey's head, called it art, and got a public endowment. But I think art is more fundamentally about communication than a search for beauty. Maybe 'search for beauty' art and 'confrontational' are are the 2 main genres, but they're both secondary functions to communication.

[ThePreserver]

Mona Lisa is ugly. It's because the model who Da Vinci used to paint her was his male assistant and lover, according to many art historians. A male-faced woman isn't often considered "beautiful."

[Bimpo]

To me, an ugly person means a person you don't want to reproduce with. Here are some facts, we have the two MOST basic needs in life which is to survive (eat, sleep etc) and to reproduce. We want to reproduce because that is just how nature made us, I mean if we didn't want to reproduce there wouldn't be 7 billiion people living right now. Now who do we usually reproduce with? Well that is basically the one who seems to be the most useful/healthy man/women you will meet. For women they would want to mate with someone who has a high value (such as rich, strong, etc.) Have you ever wondered why a super ugly rock star is really really really sexy to the eyes of women? Or how about a fat slob, who is a billionaire able to get 2 models as wives? Yes, it is their values that make them really attractive.. this is why some nice guys fail, they become so nice to women that the woman thinks they have a higher value than the man which makes them think that they are not a suitable mate. Men are actually really lucky for this because our looks do not matter (to some extent), pick up artists "abuse" this system in some way and are able to influence women into loving them. But obviously some men are just so attractive that they don't even need to show higher values because they already look like suitable mates. So I am going to conclude with this Men are attractive as long as they have a higher value than the female counter part, in today's society this can mean, being rich, a celebrity, a model, a really smart guy, the alpha in the group, etc. So to female's eye even if they do not know this, the ugliest man can be the most suitable mate. Ugly = Not suitable mate But for just plain physical attraction though I would say the same as the others has said, assymetry is ugly to our brain, but everyone in the world has one, some people are just super duper lucky. Men's view is more on the physical side of women, but all men likes every average women anyway (exaggerated but true).

[DrunkenArse]

Glad this thread got bumped. I hadn't been able to find it. For example, it is experimentally verified that newborn babies prefer faces which are the averages of lots of faces; appreciation of the human face is hence hardwired to a significant extent. I have a hard time accepting this as posed. In particular, it's not necessarily evidence of appreciation for certain features being preferred. It could just as well be evidence for an algorithm that determines what is to be liked. I'd like to know how many faces these babies had been exposed to and if there was any racial variation. Do children of Japanese descent prefer faces that are Japanese faces averaged together? If that is the case then if a Japanese infant is only exposed to Caucasians, will they still prefer the Japanese face or will they prefer a Caucasian one? I would say that it supports an algorithm if one can change it environmentally. This is what I would expect but I could of course be wrong. If I am wrong and the actual features are hardwired in, then what is the evolutionary advantage of this?

[TheForgotten]

Glad this thread got bumped. I hadn't been able to find it. I have a hard time accepting this as posed. In particular, it's not necessarily evidence of appreciation for certain features being preferred. It could just as well be evidence for an algorithm that determines what is to be liked. I'd like to know how many faces these babies had been exposed to and if there was any racial variation. Do children of Japanese descent prefer faces that are Japanese faces averaged together? If that is the case then if a Japanese infant is only exposed to Caucasians, will they still prefer the Japanese face or will they prefer a Caucasian one? I would say that it supports an algorithm if one can change it environmentally. This is what I would expect but I could of course be wrong. If I am wrong and the actual features are hardwired in, then what is the evolutionary advantage of this? I've seen a few studies where the basis of beauty, and thus higher odds of acceptance by infants is based on facial symmetry. I would give you the names of the studies but I don't have them nor am I willing to spend time finding them XD so take it for what it's worth but keep in mind, the basic foundation of beauty is symmetry... has something to do with signaling healthy reproductive genes.

[DrunkenArse]

I guess that that makes sense then. The two results fit together nicely as it seems plain that averaging a lot of faces together would make a symmetric looking face. One would need to test if there was a significant difference in response between naturally symmetric faces and averaged faces to say for sure that babies like averaged faces better than average faces for some reason other than symmetry. It would also be cool to check averages of faces that are symmetric (symmetric in averaging) but significantly abnormal in some uniform way (small chin or big forehead, say) to see if there is any ingrained bias for or against anything more than asymmetry.

[Xei]

Average features aren't attractive because of their symmetry; at least, not solely. They're attractive just because they're average. It's very easy to work this out... just cover up one half of this picture with your hand. You won't suddenly become totally nonplussed as to whether it's attractive or not. Spoiler for Composite face: In particular, it's not necessarily evidence of appreciation for certain features being preferred. It could just as well be evidence for an algorithm that determines what is to be liked. I'd like to know how many faces these babies had been exposed to and if there was any racial variation. There don't tend to be many faces floating around in the womb... Do children of Japanese descent prefer faces that are Japanese faces averaged together? If that is the case then if a Japanese infant is only exposed to Caucasians, will they still prefer the Japanese face or will they prefer a Caucasian one? Don't know. I would say that it supports an algorithm if one can change it environmentally. This is what I would expect but I could of course be wrong. If I am wrong and the actual features are hardwired in, then what is the evolutionary advantage of this? I don't really know what you mean by algorithm. It sounds like you are talking about adaptive algorithms specifically; a hardwired algorithm is still an algorithm. Obviously it is an evolutionary advantage to be attracted to typical human features; a human that is attracted to typical squirrel faces does not have many offspring. It is really not surprising at all that attractive features are hardwired. In fact it is totally obvious that it couldn't be otherwise when you reflect upon the animal kingdom. Averageness also shows a lack of mutations. Finally, not all features are 'evolutionary advantages' in the sense of fitness anyway; see birds of paradise, peacock tails, narwhal tusks, lion manes... this is generally called 'ornamentation' and isn't fully understood, but a convincing explanation is Fisherian runaway.

[Wolfwood]

Damn, if only I could find all the papers on this - had a class centered around faces. To sum, however: A beautiful face was considered to be so irrespective of the age, gender, sexual preference, race, and culture of the observer. That is to say, a beautiful face is essentially hard-wired into the brain, it's not 'in the eye of the beholder'. These papers focused on faces alone with no makeup, no hair present. In general, those faces with low fluctuating asymmetry were found most attractive, and, surprisingly, the faces that most correlated with a conglomerate average face, were as equally attractive. They found... 'that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became. That is so say, average = attractive. Following the average principle, ugliness would then be defined by extreme deviation away from the average looking face, and then would also have high fluctuating asymmetry. So far as sexual selection goes in animals, this is most certainly the case - it is known as Koinophilia (deviation from average = poor sexual selection), and evidently has a role in humans too, given the evidence on average faces. Strictly speaking then, if isolated, ugliness can be defined; however, such data does not consider the effect of makeup, hairstyles, current 'fashion' (and differing tastes of fashion), fame, skill set, wealth, and one's physical body on this conclusion. Nonetheless, I'd bet that those who have fashion, harstyles, makeup style, and physical bodies adhering to the average of their culture (or some other 'group'), will be found, in general, to be more attractive than extremes (those who don't fit the group). I think this has some credibility: Some guy dressed in 70's gear, head to toe, around a group of women that average in their dress sense to contemporary style, will find this man less appealing (deviation from average). On the contrary, if this man went to a concert with an assortment of 70's acts, he'd be far more appealing (adherence to average). The moral: guys, don't try to make yourself stand out too much with hair/clothes. Though if you're lucky with your gamble, there might be one person in the crowd who shares your 'group', and does find you attractive. Ergo, do you want to appeal to a large set of the opposite sex, or a specific, smaller set? ^_^ (And yes, I focused on the aesthetics at the end and disregarded wealth, fame, skill set - someone else can cover those).

[Wolfwood]

Finally, not all features are 'evolutionary advantages' in the sense of fitness anyway; see birds of paradise, peacock tails, narwhal tusks, lion manes... this is generally called 'ornamentation' and isn't fully understood, but a convincing explanation is Fisherian runaway. Yes, this is what I came to believe. If a soldier ran out of cover, onto the front lines, absolutely lacking camouflage, sporting a ludicrous hairstyle combined with a bandanna, and then was mostly 'naked', topless and yet manages to survive, it would then suggest he possesses some superior quality facilitating his survival, i.e., this man is Rambo. That is intriguing though, and may explain, with other variables, why Johnny Depp is admired more so than other celebrity males - he has 'survived' celebrity culture with his whacky deviation from the average.

[Ish]

Something that isn't aesthetically pleasing...

[melanieb]

What is ugly? Ugly is not a person's face. Ugly is not a person's weight, or the sounds they make when they shit, or even something that isn't aesthetically pleasing. Ugly is a feeling inside the observer. Ugly is the blackened part of a person's inner thoughts that allows them to ascribe the word 'ugly' to any person or object, regardless of any other qualities it may have. Ugly is a manifestation of pain, bitterness, and sorrow, after pouring lemon juice and salt in every wound a person has experienced. Ugly is a stain on the soul which can not be scrubbed out. Ugly is the inner demon that allows one human to kill another human simply because they don't think the same way. Ugly is what happens when people close off their mind to the perspectives of others while shoving their own viewpoints down the throats of anyone nearby. Ugly is the glance that turns away from other people who are clearly suffering or in need of help. Ugly is the blanket we wrap around ourselves when we pat ourselves on the back for throwing a dime to the honeless man on the corner. Ugly is the face we show when we judge the people we pass by the color of their skin, and not by the qualities they possess or the hard work they put in each day just to scrounge a living. Ugly is the fence we put up to keep "undesirable" people out, while we pretend to be secure in our homes or our lands. In simple words, ugly is me.

[TheForgotten]

You just took the thread to an entirely different place, Melanie.

[Wolfwood]

What is ugly? Ugly is not a person's face. Ugly is not a person's weight, or the sounds they make when they shit, or even something that isn't aesthetically pleasing. Ugly is a feeling inside the observer. Ugly is the blackened part of a person's inner thoughts that allows them to ascribe the word 'ugly' to any person or object, regardless of any other qualities it may have. Ugly is a manifestation of pain, bitterness, and sorrow, after pouring lemon juice and salt in every wound a person has experienced. Ugly is a stain on the soul which can not be scrubbed out. Ugly is the inner demon that allows one human to kill another human simply because they don't think the same way. Ugly is what happens when people close off their mind to the perspectives of others while shoving their own viewpoints down the throats of anyone nearby. Ugly is the glance that turns away from other people who are clearly suffering or in need of help. Ugly is the blanket we wrap around ourselves when we pat ourselves on the back for throwing a dime to the honeless man on the corner. Ugly is the face we show when we judge the people we pass by the color of their skin, and not by the qualities they possess or the hard work they put in each day just to scrounge a living. Ugly is the fence we put up to keep "undesirable" people out, while we pretend to be secure in our homes or our lands. In simple words, ugly is me. lol, I like that. It's similar to this: Isaac glanced into the sky, and caught a glimpse of a star shoot across the sky, he exclaimed to a sage: "I saw a star move across the sky". The sage, unimpressed with this observation, said: "It was not the star that moved, but your mind". That is to say, what we see is through a coloured lens; a projection of our own beliefs taint or enliven the objects of perception. And quite simply, what we perceive is a subjective model that sits betwixt ourselves and reality - not reality itself. Still, there seems to be more consensus between masses of people to what is considered ugly, than there is consensus to what is considered beautiful. And there's a strange phenomenon where if you ask a person: "Is this woman/man attractive?", they are less likely to say yes, and will start to criticize parts of the man/woman. However, when not directly asked, the same man/woman can be found attractive. So do people just flat out lie when put on the spot about this?

[Caenis]

A beautiful face was considered to be so irrespective of the age, gender, sexual preference, race, and culture of the observer. That is to say, a beautiful face is essentially hard-wired into the brain, it's not 'in the eye of the beholder'. These papers focused on faces alone with no makeup, no hair present. In general, those faces with low fluctuating asymmetry were found most attractive, and, surprisingly, the faces that most correlated with a conglomerate average face, were as equally attractive. They found... 'that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became. That is so say, average = attractive. Following the average principle, ugliness would then be defined by extreme deviation away from the average looking face, and then would also have high fluctuating asymmetry. So far as sexual selection goes in animals, this is most certainly the case - it is known as Koinophilia (deviation from average = poor sexual selection), and evidently has a role in humans too, given the evidence on average faces. I'll have to look this up at some point, sounds cool. Anyone that qualifies as beautiful would just be the epitome of average. Still, there seems to be more consensus between masses of people to what is considered ugly, than there is consensus to what is considered beautiful. And there's a strange phenomenon where if you ask a person: "Is this woman/man attractive?", they are less likely to say yes, and will start to criticize parts of the man/woman. However, when not directly asked, the same man/woman can be found attractive. So do people just flat out lie when put on the spot about this? I don't think that people lie. If you ask an individual "Is this woman/man attractive?" then that implies that the asker believes that the person in question is attractive. Some individuals that answer the question might feel threatened, and look for flaws to lower the credibility of the person in question. Others might attempt to counterbalance the positive question with negative answers: "Yeah, she/he is okay, BUT...." Personally, if a person displays an object or performance in a positive light, I will take that as a challenge to find the flaws. If someone talks about something negatively, I will look for the positives. I've noticed that when some people cast insults, they often focus on physical qualities, even if the original offending quality is a character quirk. It suggests that character quirks--or deviations from the norm--would be more admissible if the deviant was more physically average. More emphasis seems to be placed on physical appearance--or status, as Wolfwood and Bimpo pointed out--than one's personality and behavior. Which matters more to humans: physical beauty or a beautiful mentality? Physical beauty would produce genetically sound babies, but a beautiful mentality would presumably provide greater security. Security meaning loyalty, happiness, trust--the means to secure a good life in the long term. Security should win hands down, but if it did, why would people still focus so much on physical traits?

[Wolfwood]

I'll have to look this up at some point, sounds cool. Anyone that qualifies as beautiful would just be the epitome of average. I don't think that people lie. If you ask an individual "Is this woman/man attractive?" then that implies that the asker believes that the person in question is attractive. Some individuals that answer the question might feel threatened, and look for flaws to lower the credibility of the person in question. Others might attempt to counterbalance the positive question with negative answers: "Yeah, she/he is okay, BUT...." You think X is attractive? X is attractive, isn't he/she? And that is what I refer to: the implication that the asker finds X attractive (let's say an 8/10) shouldn't serve as a cue to distance oneself from the asker, and thereby criticise X's looks (let's say by giving them 3/10). Such that if one had not been asked (if one viewed X spontaneously) one would rate X around 7-8/10. I can't help but feel that the person down rating X's looks is trying to suggest that their own 'preferences' are high so as to not be on the same level as the asker. I don't understand the dishonesty. As if people are scared to admit what they like for fear of judgement. Meh, I'm oversimplifying the matter here, but I think you get the gist. I've noticed that when some people cast insults, they often focus on physical qualities, even if the original offending quality is a character quirk. It suggests that character quirks--or deviations from the norm--would be more admissible if the deviant was more physically average. More emphasis seems to be placed on physical appearance--or status, as Wolfwood and Bimpo pointed out--than one's personality and behavior. With regards to physical appearance, one must not forget that there is also natural emphasis on visibility compared to 'apparent invisibility'. It'd follow that people tend to insult that which is most visible, and usually this would be one's physical appearance (if something is relatively bad). Of course, if someone exhibits a ridiculous display of idiocy, then this 'apparent invisible' trait is clearly emphasised and visible....not by the insulter, but the one being insulted. In general though, an element of what one can plainly see will be the object of insult. Which matters more to humans: physical beauty or a beautiful mentality? Physical beauty would produce genetically sound babies, but a beautiful mentality would presumably provide greater security. Security meaning loyalty, happiness, trust--the means to secure a good life in the long term. Security should win hands down, but if it did, why would people still focus so much on physical traits? Heh, I know there were quite a few papers on that with regards to women. And what you say above was not far off from the conclusions - women were shown pictures of faces that had been previously determined either masculine or feminine...(feminine/masculine was determined by jaw line, cheek bones, skull size, and general facial structure. That is to say, by feminine face, it did not imply that the man 'looked camp'). 1. A man who was rated highly masculine and attractive would be less trusted by women, in that they would place little faith in that man's ability for long-term commitment, security, and even compassion. 2. A feminine man who was rated attractive was seen to be trustworthy, security providing, and compassionate. 3. The amusing finding was that whether a woman found the feminine man or masculine man just plainly sexually attractive correlated with the time of the month that the women were asked, i.e., their menstrual cycle. The more fertile they were, the more attractive feminine men were. The less fertile, the more masculine men were. 4. Women also tended to rate the masculine men as more 'extroverted' and the feminine men as 'introverted'. Thus, this apparent divide of trust might be a personality trait, and not a physical trait. That is, that lack of trust, long-term commitment etc applies to how they view extroversion, not masculinity/femininity. It's quite interesting, however, that there's a cyclical change of attraction (for whatever reason). It can be said that it implies: if a woman just wants sex, she'll find masculine, extroverted men most attractive. If she wants security, compassion, long-term, e.g., a family, she'll find feminine, introverted men most attractive. So without reference to a 'beautiful mentality', one's trustworthiness, security, ability for compassion etc has already been decided by your physical appearance lol. As previously said, this is mere appearance of the face, and doesn't include height, body weight, and mental traits. It's more complex. ^_^

[Wolfwood]

It bemuses me how so few genes are able to do such specific things; I mean, how on Earth does a snakes-are-bad protein work? I think there were a few contemporary studies on this....I don't know the specifics, but it was something along the lines of basic pattern encoding. They demonstrated this by measuring physiological response of youngsters to very basic line patterns that resembled snakes or spiders, and found it correlated with actual snakes and spiders. Hmm, I can't remember if they also measured neural response - but a protein that encodes a basic population neural response could be responsible, in theory.