The effect of looks
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
24 Feb 2013, 6:09 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't think Brad Pitt is goodlooking. i could not pick someone with his features out of a lineup as an example of someone who is goodlooking. the idea that it is universal or objective is utter bollocks. many women might find him attractive, but that doesn't mean that all women do.
No one said that all women find him attractive.
Quote:
many women might find him attractive
That was the point.
many women from many cultures find him attractive, hence why beauty standards seem to be universal, by universal we means it represents the majority.
24 Feb 2013, 6:12 pm
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't think Brad Pitt is goodlooking. i could not pick someone with his features out of a lineup as an example of someone who is goodlooking. the idea that it is universal or objective is utter bollocks. many women might find him attractive, but that doesn't mean that all women do.
Thing is you won't find the whole package ideal, but if we take the list of top 100 men and then separate them into bullet points more than likely you'll find very obvious trends they all or for the most part share. Hence there is an almost universal basis for what is Attractive
if you take the current idols at the top of their game, they look completely different to each other. facial proportions, symmetry/asymmetry, scarring/clear skin, whatever - it's all over the map. there are no trends to indicate that they would be attractive based on their features alone. which does make me wonder if it is based on more than just their features, actually. many of the popular stars are facially not so different from many regular people, the only difference is that they are famous for their work. so i think stars are actually bad examples of pure attractiveness, because as soon as we see them at work, it's no longer based on just looks.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
24 Feb 2013, 6:14 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't think Brad Pitt is goodlooking. i could not pick someone with his features out of a lineup as an example of someone who is goodlooking. the idea that it is universal or objective is utter bollocks. many women might find him attractive, but that doesn't mean that all women do.
No one said that all women find him attractive.
Quote:
many women might find him attractive
That was the point.
many women from many cultures find him attractive, hence why beauty standards seem to be universal, by universal we means it represents the majority.
universal means everybody, not just a majority. and like i said, the stars don't have similarities to each other, which would be a prerequisite to a universal attractiveness.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
24 Feb 2013, 6:23 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't think Brad Pitt is goodlooking. i could not pick someone with his features out of a lineup as an example of someone who is goodlooking. the idea that it is universal or objective is utter bollocks. many women might find him attractive, but that doesn't mean that all women do.
Thing is you won't find the whole package ideal, but if we take the list of top 100 men and then separate them into bullet points more than likely you'll find very obvious trends they all or for the most part share. Hence there is an almost universal basis for what is Attractive
if you take the current idols at the top of their game, they look completely different to each other. facial proportions, symmetry/asymmetry, scarring/clear skin, whatever - it's all over the map. there are no trends to indicate that they would be attractive based on their features alone. which does make me wonder if it is based on more than just their features, actually. many of the popular stars are facially not so different from many regular people, the only difference is that they are famous for their work. so i think stars are actually bad examples of pure attractiveness, because as soon as we see them at work, it's no longer based on just looks.
You limit your basis on too little. This isn't a face only game, and even in face only they all have very similar traits. Its more a surprise when someone is different.
24 Feb 2013, 6:24 pm
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i don't think Brad Pitt is goodlooking. i could not pick someone with his features out of a lineup as an example of someone who is goodlooking. the idea that it is universal or objective is utter bollocks. many women might find him attractive, but that doesn't mean that all women do.
Thing is you won't find the whole package ideal, but if we take the list of top 100 men and then separate them into bullet points more than likely you'll find very obvious trends they all or for the most part share. Hence there is an almost universal basis for what is Attractive
if you take the current idols at the top of their game, they look completely different to each other. facial proportions, symmetry/asymmetry, scarring/clear skin, whatever - it's all over the map. there are no trends to indicate that they would be attractive based on their features alone. which does make me wonder if it is based on more than just their features, actually. many of the popular stars are facially not so different from many regular people, the only difference is that they are famous for their work. so i think stars are actually bad examples of pure attractiveness, because as soon as we see them at work, it's no longer based on just looks.
You limit your basis on too little. This isn't a face only game, and even in face only they all have very similar traits. Its more a surprise when someone is different.
no, they don't have similar traits - they are very different. and physically they vary quite a lot as well. that is my point.
EDIT: i think that movie stars are bad examples as their looks are sort of created by the industry. they are promoted heavily and we see them quite a lot in action so there is an exposure effect. but if we met someone on the street who looked identical to them i don't think they would be considered quite as attractive at a glance because they are not put on a pedestal by the industry. actors don't lways necessarily have raw material over and above any decent or nice looking person. you will note the large number of them who confess to a lack of dating success in high school or college, yet suddenly people found them attractive when they were famous.... funny how that changed.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Last edited by hyperlexian on 24 Feb 2013, 6:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
24 Feb 2013, 6:40 pm
as to the OP's question, i do think that people who are perceived as goodlooking by their peers can be can sometimes get a social "free pass" to some degree. HOWEVER, conversely... personality strongly affects just how attractive people are perceived to be. it is not a purely physical judgement. studies have shown that we change our judgement of how attractive people are according to how they come across to us socially. this can be based on social status but also on personality traits like agreeableness or kindness. here is one study:
Quote:
Again, a description of two group members will help to make the results of this study more vivid and intuitive. One was a woman whose physical attractiveness was rated as roughly average during the first day of class but who proved to be lazy and uncooperative, according to the instructors and as observed directly by KMK. Not only was she disliked by her classmates, but her physical attractiveness rating declined from a mean of 5.07 to a mean of 4.14 by the end of the study. Another was a woman whose physical attractiveness was rated
as below average during the first day of class but who became a popular and hardworking member of the group. Not only was she well liked, but her physical attractiveness rating increased from a mean of 3.25 to a mean of 7.00 by the end of the study.
...
Our studies were designed to address two shortcomings in the literature on physical attractiveness: (1) a relative paucity of studies that examine the effects of both nonphysical and physical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness and (2) a relative paucity of studies that involve people who actually know each other. All three studies demonstrate that nonphysical factors have a very potent effect on the perception of physical attractiveness, which can persist for decades in the case of the middle-aged participants of our yearbook study.
as below average during the first day of class but who became a popular and hardworking member of the group. Not only was she well liked, but her physical attractiveness rating increased from a mean of 3.25 to a mean of 7.00 by the end of the study.
...
Our studies were designed to address two shortcomings in the literature on physical attractiveness: (1) a relative paucity of studies that examine the effects of both nonphysical and physical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness and (2) a relative paucity of studies that involve people who actually know each other. All three studies demonstrate that nonphysical factors have a very potent effect on the perception of physical attractiveness, which can persist for decades in the case of the middle-aged participants of our yearbook study.
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilso ... /DSW13.pdf
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Last edited by hyperlexian on 25 Feb 2013, 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
24 Feb 2013, 7:02 pm
Everyone judges people at first glance. This is why people take care of their appearance and watch their behaviour when meeting someone important.
I think that being attractive helps for first impressions, but then when you get to know the person more, looks matter less. Other qualities become more important.
Some people place more importance on first impressions than other people. Some people are willing to give second chances for a good impression.
Also, I believe that other things can give a good impression, like a similar interest, a joke, an unusual circumstance, or similar friends.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 109 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Feb 2013, 7:17 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I agree with bluerose, there's usually a consensus on what's attractive or not.
Sweetleaf, there are certain physical characteristics, that makes someone physically more attractive than another for the opposite sex, there are tons of studies on that matter.
I've read a study which I can't find anymore; they send a college girl to throw books on the floor (pretending it's accidentally) and count the number of male who rush to help her picking up the books - the physically appealing girl always scored a significant higher count than the unappealing girl.
Yes my question would be what these physical characteristics are, and how universal they really are...I imagine it can vary by culture some, but I could be wrong. The reason I'd still say its subjective is because I doubt every male has the same idea of what is attractive, I mean sure I can think of some basic things that may be rather universal but a lot of it does seem to come down to personal preference....I am certainly curious what the characteristics are.
They are basically universal - attractiveness is more genetically-wired and objective than what most people are willing to admit. A study showed that babies gaze upon pretty faces more than non-pretty faces.
As for your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_a ... activeness
I don't consider wikipedia to be a very good source of accurate information, and I question the accuracy of some of the 'studies' it mentions. That said it just seems to indicate further that it is subjective and there are some basic traits that are more universally attractive but it doesn't go into much of anything specific and it doesn't apply in all cases. For instance some females are more attracted to guys with a more feminine facial structure than masculine.
_________________
We won't go back.
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
24 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I agree with bluerose, there's usually a consensus on what's attractive or not.
Sweetleaf, there are certain physical characteristics, that makes someone physically more attractive than another for the opposite sex, there are tons of studies on that matter.
I've read a study which I can't find anymore; they send a college girl to throw books on the floor (pretending it's accidentally) and count the number of male who rush to help her picking up the books - the physically appealing girl always scored a significant higher count than the unappealing girl.
Yes my question would be what these physical characteristics are, and how universal they really are...I imagine it can vary by culture some, but I could be wrong. The reason I'd still say its subjective is because I doubt every male has the same idea of what is attractive, I mean sure I can think of some basic things that may be rather universal but a lot of it does seem to come down to personal preference....I am certainly curious what the characteristics are.
They are basically universal - attractiveness is more genetically-wired and objective than what most people are willing to admit. A study showed that babies gaze upon pretty faces more than non-pretty faces.
As for your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_a ... activeness
I don't consider wikipedia to be a very good source of accurate information, and I question the accuracy of some of the 'studies' it mentions. That said it just seems to indicate further that it is subjective and there are some basic traits that are more universally attractive but it doesn't go into much of anything specific and it doesn't apply in all cases. For instance some females are more attracted to guys with a more feminine facial structure than masculine.
There's only 204 sources listed, it must all be made up.
You and hyper are still ignoring everything. We haven't said that its impossible for someone to have different tastes, we've said that many people have similar tastes, to the point you can say that x, y and z are things you need to fit most peoples criteria of attractive.
25 Feb 2013, 5:28 am
this thread demonstrates why ppl with autism have so many difficulties in general - questioning what is attractive and why people perceive that is like questioning what are good social skills, what is a good character etc..
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
25 Feb 2013, 5:31 am
MXH wrote:
There's only 204 sources listed, it must all be made up.
You and hyper are still ignoring everything. We haven't said that its impossible for someone to have different tastes, we've said that many people have similar tastes, to the point you can say that x, y and z are things you need to fit most peoples criteria of attractive.
You and hyper are still ignoring everything. We haven't said that its impossible for someone to have different tastes, we've said that many people have similar tastes, to the point you can say that x, y and z are things you need to fit most peoples criteria of attractive.
i don't think it necessarily means much in a person's life - mileage varies really. i mean, has it meant much in your life that people consider you goodlooking? has it opened doors for you? i think sometimes it does make a difference and sometimes it doesn't, and it is too complicated to figure out on an individual basis most of the time.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
25 Feb 2013, 5:56 am
I laugh when I hear people saying that Wikipedia isn't a good source of info, snobbish much? Still stuck in the Encarta and Britannica era?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
25 Feb 2013, 6:05 am
bluerose wrote:
this thread demonstrates why ppl with autism have so many difficulties in general - questioning what is attractive and why people perceive that is like questioning what are good social skills, what is a good character etc..
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
Agreed.
The size of the mascara industry proves that long dark thick lashes are are seen as attractive, even if there are a few people who find no eyelashes attractive.
There are 6+ billon ppl on th earth. Ur not gonna find somthing that *every* person finds attractive. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that are attractive to a large percentage. And that's what you guys are missing w/ ur all or nothing thinking.
_________________
"Be kind to one another" -Ellen Degeneres
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
25 Feb 2013, 6:07 am
metaldanielle wrote:
bluerose wrote:
this thread demonstrates why ppl with autism have so many difficulties in general - questioning what is attractive and why people perceive that is like questioning what are good social skills, what is a good character etc..
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
Agreed.
The size of the mascara industry proves that long dark thick lashes are are seen as attractive, even if there are a few people who find no eyelashes attractive.
There are 6+ billon ppl on th earth. Ur not gonna find somthing that *every* person finds attractive. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that are attractive to a large percentage. And that's what you guys are missing w/ ur all or nothing thinking.
Yup, exactly, but hyper is clinging on the very definition of universal.
FINE! it's not universal but there are common consensus(es) on what is attractive; and what is not.
For instance, most men find fatness is unattractive (consensus 1), few do (consensus 2). The media however often show the majority case.
25 Feb 2013, 6:22 am
metaldanielle wrote:
bluerose wrote:
this thread demonstrates why ppl with autism have so many difficulties in general - questioning what is attractive and why people perceive that is like questioning what are good social skills, what is a good character etc..
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
people will have a consensus on who is the good character and who is the bad character, and people will have a consensus on who is the most generally physically attractive and who the least. just because a very literal, concrete brain cannot comprehend the abstract concept doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't mean it's not instinctive.
i mean, BABIES recognize it, how can you possibly deny that kind of hardwiring?
Agreed.
The size of the mascara industry proves that long dark thick lashes are are seen as attractive, even if there are a few people who find no eyelashes attractive.
There are 6+ billon ppl on th earth. Ur not gonna find somthing that *every* person finds attractive. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that are attractive to a large percentage. And that's what you guys are missing w/ ur all or nothing thinking.
really? because women from some ethnic groups have sparser lashes yet they were not considered historically less attractive by men in their own groups. the demand for thicker lashes was artificially created by the cosmetics industry.
if there isn't something that everyone finds attractive, or even something that most people find attractive, then it isn't something that is going to confer an advantage to that person. considering that a person's level of attractiveness even shifts according to how they are viewed within a social context, that advantage is even less solid.
speaking of "all of nothing thinking", if people actually took the time to read my posts instead of assuming i am saying something, they would see that i have never denied that attractiveness can confer benefits to people. i just think that the benefits are overstated, that movie stars are bad examples of attractiveness, that attractiveness is based on more than just physical features, and attractiveness is also strongly affected by socio-cultural background.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
25 Feb 2013, 6:32 am
hyperlexian wrote:
really? because women from some ethnic groups have sparser lashes yet they were not considered historically less attractive by men in their own groups. the demand for thicker lashes was artificially created by the cosmetics industry.
if there isn't something that everyone finds attractive, or even something that most people find attractive, then it isn't something that is going to confer an advantage to that person. considering that a person's level of attractiveness even shifts according to how they are viewed within a social context, that advantage is even less solid.
speaking of "all of nothing thinking", if people actually took the time to read my posts instead of assuming i am saying something, they would see that i have never denied that attractiveness can confer benefits to people. i just think that the benefits are overstated, that movie stars are bad examples of attractiveness, that attractiveness is based on more than just physical features, and attractiveness is also strongly affected by socio-cultural background.
if there isn't something that everyone finds attractive, or even something that most people find attractive, then it isn't something that is going to confer an advantage to that person. considering that a person's level of attractiveness even shifts according to how they are viewed within a social context, that advantage is even less solid.
speaking of "all of nothing thinking", if people actually took the time to read my posts instead of assuming i am saying something, they would see that i have never denied that attractiveness can confer benefits to people. i just think that the benefits are overstated, that movie stars are bad examples of attractiveness, that attractiveness is based on more than just physical features, and attractiveness is also strongly affected by socio-cultural background.
Hold onto your butts ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to somewhat agree with The Oculus here. Back in the day chicks that were larger than life were considered ATTRACTIVE (consider, for example, Reuben's infatuation with them) because back in the day it meant they were rich enough to afford lots of food. Even 15 years ago grown men that looked like they still hadn't hit puberty weren't hot, but look at all the sparkly vampires and Biebers out there nowadays.
That said, there is most definitely a genetic component to what is considered attractive as well. Having clear, healthy skin is ALMOST universally attractive (We don't want our favorite mod having an apoplexy here do we?), I haven't ever met a person who admitted to thinking acne was hot. Having symmetrical features is another such trait.
