Ugliness evolutionary value, natural selection and aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

This is probably a bit harsh for many here, so I apologise if this is blunt and unkind.

The title pretty much sums up my question, which is:

does the fact that beauty increases a humans chance at reproducing, and aspies being slightly visually divergent, mean that nature is against some aspies breeding?

As an aside...some aspie genes seem to make an NT more attractive... than someone with too many NT genes. They look mean and unlovable to me, and are probably close to the bully archetype....

So if someone is too NT or too AS, they tend to be less attractive to me, and I think to others too, when I observe media images...

Are we conditioned to desire a model based on societies mores and proparganda? Is also the ideal look (based on mathematical formula of face dimensions) that is native to human attraction, is that very separate of media and public imagery.

Too me, those closest to the golden ratio, tend to have an AS/NT balanced neurotype

Link to the Golden Ratio of face dimensions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Last edited by Surfman on 19 Jul 2011, 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

it is not offensive to me. i consider it to be poppycock. i am not aware that there is such a thing as NT genes, or AS genes.

what i think you are proposing (not asking) is that AS= softness and lovability, and NT = harshness and shallowness and materialism, and you even consider there to be a specific gene for each.

even if this were true, what is to say that a person who has an even blend of "NT" and "AS" genes is not an ugly arse hole (worst combination of both your crudely gleaned worlds).

i do not feel offended.

I thought there was a genetic component?

i believe there is a genetic "component" to autism as there is a genetic "component" to each and every aspect of an organism (except for organelles etc), but "traits" are due to alleles (genetic variants).

and as for "NT's", i think they are the "typical" (or mean*) product of the human genome.

*not your meaning of "mean"

So when most others say genetic traits they are full of ****?

I thought this forum was for intelligent discussion?

i am not an authority on the matter.

Hans Asperger once described his oridgonal subjects as 'beautiful'. Other than potential hygene issues, I think it's safe to say that the Aspie population is, statistically, no uglier than the general population.

Seriously though, go to a Wallmart some time. Or mall. Lots and lots of people no uglier than the worst Aspies I've seen.

NT's are just better at lying to themselves about it. And thus they are confident.

I wish I was further to the mean

I should be freaking irresistible. Guess I disprove this theory.

If only huh?

The difficulty here is that I uniquely maintain a premise that AS genes are much more widespread within the general population than commonly believed by most

I often see HFA/NT hybrids when others just see NT.

Until I fall in line with the 'mean', or the mean changes its opinion, threads like this will be like seeds that fall on rocky ground, and/or are choked by weeds

It's not unique. A friend of mine just divided the two qualities into 'Alpha' and 'Beta'. I think it was a bit simple, but interesting.



Being something of a hybrid myself, my attitude to labels is a bit less comfortable, I prefer to see people as complex manifestations of many different things.



No idea what this means.

Last edited by Moog on 19 Jul 2011, 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

I meant that by the not so unique above mentioned premise, it is much like how the world is round, when everyone thought it flat

Until round earth theory becomes common knowledge, scientific enquiry is stifled by ignorance.

Many ignorance's are held by me, you and everyone

Many ignorances abound in relation to AS

So any foray into these areas will be choked by commonly held misconceptions, and no fertile ground exists for these new ideas to grow and thrive

Huh?
AS makes you physicallly ugly?
Never heard that before.




AS vs NT is about your thought processes and your behaviour.
Not about your looks- ie it doesnt effect your inherited physical features ( though people with AS may be prone to not comb their hair or tuck in their shirts as religiously as do NT's ).

So Im confused here.

If you're saying people on the spectrum lack the social skills to attraat mates because being on the spectrum effects thought and behavior- and the abilitity to pick up social cues and the like -then that makes perfect sense. But if you're saying having AS gives you ugly facial features then thats nonsense.

Surfman,

If you aren't already aware of it, some theorizing sees Spectrum people looking younger than average or having 'youthful' qualities longer/later than average, and sometimes thereby boosting reproductive success. This prolonged childlikeness -- not just in relation to the Autistic Spectrum, but other areas of analysis too -- is referred to as neoteny. I haven't been able to read much more about it, but you might want to take a look at http://www.neoteny.org/.

I hadn't heard about us looking less attractive than NTs.

From what I remember from some years ago, reading about the alleged ratios of attractiveness in humans, I'm not sure this applied to research regarding human faces [Maybe it did; it's been a while.], but even isolated South American Indian men, supposedly unexposed to First-World TV/movies/art, rated a "36-24-36" female most attractive, i.e., her waist about two-thirds the circumference of her hips. Supposedly this factoid (I mean the 2/3 thing) represented genetic fitness, general physical health, and ability to deliver and raise offspring to their own reproductive maturity.

---Pete

The concept of beauty is subjective and based on the individual. SOme like the overweight people, some prefer the extremely thin, other's like tons of make-up. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," not to mention that what you see isn't always what you get. We in the spectrum are only different neurologically, which may be due yours (and many others here) the assumption that we're not worthy in Darwinism. While some of these patterns can be seen, they dont apply to every scenario. Plenty of exceptions to every rule.

I don't think it is even clear how much of a genetic component there is to AS, or any ASD, and even less clear if any of these genes have any influence on physical traits.

Also, as far as people falling into this category or that, I tend to think of the human race as a spectrum (not just autism, in other words), with an infinite range of possible shades or hues. Every colour is just a bit different, and so is every individual.

As for your suggestion that "nature is against" us, I think that is a huge oversimplification. What makes an individual "most fit" to reproduce - in other words, what qualities will attract the most potential mates - changes with culture (not long ago, fat was equated with wealth, and the biggest men and women were seen as the most desirable, for example, in direct opposition to our current obsession with thinness) and with other factors in the environment. The wealthy and powerful men in the Roman Empire who attracted women did not always do as well when that Empire collapsed; other men with different traits were better able to survive, and many women flocked to those men. And, of course, we're talking statistical averages here; while it is true that on average the more wealth or the better looks in a conventional sense that you have, the more partners you'll attract, there are always individual exceptions. The results an individual gains from their basic geneset will also depend on the use to which they put the strengths they did inherit. There are so many factors, and nearly all of those factors can change (in my lifetime, every nerd and geek was a total outcast, where now many of them are seen as "cool") so quickly, that I just don't think simple statements like this have any practical meaning.

The only thing which might, partially, contain a grain of truth is this: those of us with AS do tend to produce a different impression on others than those who don't have AS. Our inability, or limited ability, to communicate non-verbally does influence their perception of us. But, again, this is not a clear cut gain or loss. One person might see us as cold and unreachable, another as unreadable and mysterious...

And all we can do about any of it is to understand, as well as we can, what it is we are working with, and then try to make the most of that. In the end, what does it matter if your name is Justin Bieber and millions of screaming girls want you (almost all of them too young for you to benefit from, except by draining their cash to use to your advantage), if you "only" have six interested women to choose from, or you can only find one person? What matters is that you find someone. Yes, that's hard. But if you presume that you've lost the game before you even start - then you have. The only way you will even have a chance of winning is to give it a shot. And if you're going to do that, then give it your best shot. Discover what your strengths are, and figure out how to use them to your best advantage - and to attract the attention of the sort of women who are going to be attracted to a guy with those strengths. (I'm assuming you're a straight guy here; if not, adjust my advice accordingly.)

AS or not, a geeky guy who likes to sit in front of his computer playing games or surfing the net isn't going to attract either a supermodel who likes to spend as much time as possible in nightclubs or an athletic girl who spends her spare time training for the Olympics. AS or not, a guy who plays football and watches football and seldom thinks of anything else isn't going to be very interesting to the girls in the literary society or the local Bible study. What is the point of this little bit of obvious advice? If you look for someone based on looks, you'll probably fail, because those looks tell you very little about whether or not they're your type in any other way. If you look based on shared interests, then at least you know that the people you meet are compatible with you in at least one way. And, eventually, among those who share an interest with you, you may find someone. But that will take time. I know it feels like forever. But the sooner you start, the sooner you finish.