Page 1 of 20 [ 308 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,883
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

24 Feb 2013, 2:45 pm

This video was posted by AsteroidNap in another thread:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]


While the video is sarcastic, how much truth does it hold?

NS: I hope you azbees don't take its exaggerated aspect seriously this time like some of you ridiculously did for the psycho-vid.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,131
Location: Scandinavia

24 Feb 2013, 3:17 pm

What precisely makes Greg more handsome than Frank?



Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,604

24 Feb 2013, 3:35 pm

Lol I loved that video! I'm surprised I missed that episode, I watch SNL almost every week. While like you said it is obviously over-exaggerated, I think it does still hold some truth. After all, it's only natural that women would be more receptive to someone who looks like Brad Pitt, as opposed to someone with a pot belly and grease stains on their shirt, men are the same way. I think that part of the problem though lies in the fact that the less-attractive will often get labelled as creepy, rather than simply unattractive, whereas the better looking can do the exact same things and be received positively. I've seen it in action myself, so you can't say it doesn't happen lol.



Esther
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,575
Location: Across the Border

24 Feb 2013, 3:40 pm

Where's the other vid, Boo?

Kurgan, am not sure if you're kidding or not.



bluerose
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 215
Location: The Baltics

24 Feb 2013, 3:43 pm

yeah, ppl with autism don't seem to get what NT's hold shush but is instinctive - good looks give instant rapport, something the uglier need to build up. the reason is evolutionary - good genes showing right on your face, people will assume your status is high.

good looking people get helped more, better grades, better looking babies get more attention from their mothers etc etc. infinite studies have been done on this and it has all been confirmed.

as with the subjective thing, sexual attraction is subjective, but not how attractive someone is.
meaning, someone might not be attractive to some, but on an instinctive level people can tell how attractive someone is in general.

women that aren't attracted to brad pitt can still tell brad pitt is goodlooking, like someone can tell if a song is played in tune even if they don't like the song.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,131
Location: Scandinavia

24 Feb 2013, 4:01 pm

Esther wrote:
Where's the other vid, Boo?

Kurgan, am not sure if you're kidding or not.


I'm not kidding. Apart from the fact that his mannerisms remind me of Mr. Bean and that he's older than Greg, I don't see why he's less attractive.



deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

24 Feb 2013, 4:14 pm

Oddly enough, attractive looks are only a downside for women who apply for traditionally masculine jobs or jobs where appearance isn't seen as being important for the job. But good looks help men in pretty much every job.


_________________
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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 Feb 2013, 4:17 pm

bluerose wrote:
yeah, ppl with autism don't seem to get what NT's hold shush but is instinctive - good looks give instant rapport, something the uglier need to build up. the reason is evolutionary - good genes showing right on your face, people will assume your status is high.

good looking people get helped more, better grades, better looking babies get more attention from their mothers etc etc. infinite studies have been done on this and it has all been confirmed.

as with the subjective thing, sexual attraction is subjective, but not how attractive someone is.
meaning, someone might not be attractive to some, but on an instinctive level people can tell how attractive someone is in general.

women that aren't attracted to brad pitt can still tell brad pitt is goodlooking, like someone can tell if a song is played in tune even if they don't like the song.


Ok then what is the definiton of 'attractive.' what is considered more attractive and less attractive...what standard does it go by? I don't know it seems like for that to work it would indicate anyone who's not physically deformed in some way or the victim of some terrible skin condition or something is 'attractive' genetically speaking or whatever.

Also have they ruled out things like social conditioning, or social expectations?



TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 644

24 Feb 2013, 4:18 pm

bluerose wrote:
women that aren't attracted to brad pitt can still tell brad pitt is goodlooking, like someone can tell if a song is played in tune even if they don't like the song.


In that case specific features of Brad Pitt's appearance should be objectively appealing, which raises the question what these features actually are. You'll find that a lack of one feature or another doesn't make a person unattractive.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,883
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

24 Feb 2013, 4:49 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
bluerose wrote:
yeah, ppl with autism don't seem to get what NT's hold shush but is instinctive - good looks give instant rapport, something the uglier need to build up. the reason is evolutionary - good genes showing right on your face, people will assume your status is high.

good looking people get helped more, better grades, better looking babies get more attention from their mothers etc etc. infinite studies have been done on this and it has all been confirmed.

as with the subjective thing, sexual attraction is subjective, but not how attractive someone is.
meaning, someone might not be attractive to some, but on an instinctive level people can tell how attractive someone is in general.

women that aren't attracted to brad pitt can still tell brad pitt is goodlooking, like someone can tell if a song is played in tune even if they don't like the song.


Ok then what is the definiton of 'attractive.' what is considered more attractive and less attractive...what standard does it go by? I don't know it seems like for that to work it would indicate anyone who's not physically deformed in some way or the victim of some terrible skin condition or something is 'attractive' genetically speaking or whatever.

Also have they ruled out things like social conditioning, or social expectations?


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.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 Feb 2013, 5:16 pm

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.



Yuugiri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,049
Location: Washington

24 Feb 2013, 5:56 pm

The halo effect in action.


_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,883
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

24 Feb 2013, 5:58 pm

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



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Feb 2013, 6:02 pm

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.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Yuugiri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,049
Location: Washington

24 Feb 2013, 6:04 pm

^ Looking at him now, I agree with you, hyperlexian. o_o;;


_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,056
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

24 Feb 2013, 6:07 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.


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