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.