| Do you have an natural concept of what people are considered beautiful? |
| Yes |
|
58% |
[ 36 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 26 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 62 |
|
Verdandi
Miss Kitty Fantastico
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Posts: 10197
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| OJani wrote: |
I'm really not sure but I think most people are attracted to the same kind of beauty and that beauty becomes consequently popular. If you are not among those, you can still learn it, but it won't be 'natural'. I may be wrong, as according to certain notions only a minority finds popular beauty naturally attractive, the rest follows the trend. I don't know. |
But different cultures various cultures at different times have different beauty standards, sometimes very different beauty standards, from what modern western civilization is accustomed to. I am dubious that there is a hardwired or "naturally selected" standard of beauty that humans just know, given the wide variety of human appearances.
| Quote: | | There could be at least two explanations why I don't find popular or generally accepted beauty attractive in most cases. 1. My view is autistic, so I don't like such things as heavy makeup and nail art, as they mean nothing to me, only they seem artificial and unnatural to me. 2. Due to my social anxiety I simply despise too attractive people as a defense mechanism (defends the ego). |
I like nail art, although I don't actually wear any. A friend of mine who is also on the spectrum has some really nice nail art right now. I'm actually fairly good at applying makeup, although I don't wear it very often. Actually, I really like the looks of many body modifications (tattoos and piercings primarily) and have had a few piercings, although they're all healed over now. I also spent a year with my hair dyed pink. Even with all that, I am not particularly concerned with looking attractive or feminine, except when I want to be femme, but that's another thing entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TallyMan
Rebooting
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Posts: 36591
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | I am dubious that there is a hardwired or "naturally selected" standard of beauty that humans just know, given the wide variety of human appearances. |
From what I've read there is a hardwired standard of beauty within many (all?) species of animals. Regarding humans, women are considered facially the most attractive who have a specific ratio of distance between the eyes, nose and mouth. The thing I never realised until recently is that apparently this "beautiful ratio" is in fact the average ratio of distances between these facial features. So those women who are considered beautiful are in fact the most average looking! 
I can see why such a hardwired preference arises in evolution. Those women who are the most normal looking are possibly more likely to be healthy and likely to be genetically good to breed with, so males are drawn to them. Even animals have preferences for the opposite sex based on various hardwired features such as colour of their plumage and ability to dance or do various other social rituals that indicate they are fit and healthy.
In evolution "beauty" is simply a label attached to what is considered positive traits in an animal/human regarding their desirability as a mate for producing healthy and successful offspring.
_________________
- signature - |
|
| Back to top |
|
OJani
a brat
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 2320
Location: Budapest, Hungary, Europe
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: |
But different cultures various cultures at different times have different beauty standards, sometimes very different beauty standards, from what modern western civilization is accustomed to. I am dubious that there is a hardwired or "naturally selected" standard of beauty that humans just know, given the wide variety of human appearances. |
This supports the idea that beauty is a culturally learned phenomenon, at least in large part what we see as most praised and appreciated at a given time and place. I could imagine that some people learn it without realizing its external nature. According to Ian Ford, we might call it a part of the 'belief web' that defines culture.
| Verdandi wrote: |
I like nail art, although I don't actually wear any. A friend of mine who is also on the spectrum has some really nice nail art right now. I'm actually fairly good at applying makeup, although I don't wear it very often. Actually, I really like the looks of many body modifications (tattoos and piercings primarily) and have had a few piercings, although they're all healed over now. I also spent a year with my hair dyed pink. Even with all that, I am not particularly concerned with looking attractive or feminine, except when I want to be femme, but that's another thing entirely. |
Well, I don't like any of those. I don't want to generalize, a little makeup (or hair dye) is ok in my opinion, or even desirable, but it appears to me that most (or at least many) people are on the same opinion here on WP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Blindspot149
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 08, 2009
Posts: 2516
Location: Aspergers Quadrant, INTJ, AQ 45/50
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no idea what this question is asking 
_________________
Now then, tell me. What did Miggs say to you? Multiple Miggs in the next cell. He hissed at you. What did he say?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Verdandi
Miss Kitty Fantastico
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Posts: 10197
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TallyMan wrote: | | Verdandi wrote: | | I am dubious that there is a hardwired or "naturally selected" standard of beauty that humans just know, given the wide variety of human appearances. |
From what I've read there is a hardwired standard of beauty within many (all?) species of animals. Regarding humans, women are considered facially the most attractive who have a specific ratio of distance between the eyes, nose and mouth. The thing I never realised until recently is that apparently this "beautiful ratio" is in fact the average ratio of distances between these facial features. So those women who are considered beautiful are in fact the most average looking!
I can see why such a hardwired preference arises in evolution. Those women who are the most normal looking are possibly more likely to be healthy and likely to be genetically good to breed with, so males are drawn to them. Even animals have preferences for the opposite sex based on various hardwired features such as colour of their plumage and ability to dance or do various other social rituals that indicate they are fit and healthy.
In evolution "beauty" is simply a label attached to what is considered positive traits in an animal/human regarding their desirability as a mate for producing healthy and successful offspring. |
I am dubious about what I have read regarding hardwired standards because they seem to focus on women, and focus on justifying modern beauty standards (such as evolutionary psychology that claims that humans are hardwired to find lighter skin more attractive).
And, there have been significant differences in beauty standards over time, with fairly distinct variations in builds and such.
I am also dubious about assigning so much telos to evolution. Evolution is not a force, nor a decision maker. Evolution is an outcome. You can certainly breed for certain appearances (hence domestic animal breeds), but I do not think that physical attractiveness necessarily reflects suitability as a mate.
Any explanation of a sense of beauty would have to account for Angelina Jolie and Sarah Baartman. As well as the diversity in male appearance (since mating is not strictly about men choosing women). |
|
| Back to top |
|
FMX
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 17, 2012
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess it's asking whether you can look at a person and "just know", instantly, that they're beautiful (or not), as opposed to learning what others consider to be beautiful and applying those criteria to the person to determine whether they're supposed to be beautiful. I definitely have such a concept (though it's quite rare for me to see someone who meets my standards of "beautiful") and I'm actually very surprised that 50% of the voters said "no". |
|
| Back to top |
|
DogsWithoutHorses
mockingbyrd
Joined: Apr 06, 2012
Posts: 1145
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | TallyMan wrote: | | Verdandi wrote: | | I am dubious that there is a hardwired or "naturally selected" standard of beauty that humans just know, given the wide variety of human appearances. |
From what I've read there is a hardwired standard of beauty within many (all?) species of animals. Regarding humans, women are considered facially the most attractive who have a specific ratio of distance between the eyes, nose and mouth. The thing I never realised until recently is that apparently this "beautiful ratio" is in fact the average ratio of distances between these facial features. So those women who are considered beautiful are in fact the most average looking!
I can see why such a hardwired preference arises in evolution. Those women who are the most normal looking are possibly more likely to be healthy and likely to be genetically good to breed with, so males are drawn to them. Even animals have preferences for the opposite sex based on various hardwired features such as colour of their plumage and ability to dance or do various other social rituals that indicate they are fit and healthy.
In evolution "beauty" is simply a label attached to what is considered positive traits in an animal/human regarding their desirability as a mate for producing healthy and successful offspring. |
I am dubious about what I have read regarding hardwired standards because they seem to focus on women, and focus on justifying modern beauty standards (such as evolutionary psychology that claims that humans are hardwired to find lighter skin more attractive).
And, there have been significant differences in beauty standards over time, with fairly distinct variations in builds and such.
I am also dubious about assigning so much telos to evolution. Evolution is not a force, nor a decision maker. Evolution is an outcome. You can certainly breed for certain appearances (hence domestic animal breeds), but I do not think that physical attractiveness necessarily reflects suitability as a mate.
Any explanation of a sense of beauty would have to account for Angelina Jolie and Sarah Baartman. As well as the diversity in male appearance (since mating is not strictly about men choosing women). |
ding ding ding we have a winner
_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don’t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Verdandi
Miss Kitty Fantastico
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Posts: 10197
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OJani wrote: |
This supports the idea that beauty is a culturally learned phenomenon, at least in large part what we see as most praised and appreciated at a given time and place. I could imagine that some people learn it without realizing its external nature. According to Ian Ford, we might call it a part of the 'belief web' that defines culture. |
So you are saying people learn it implicitly rather than explicitly?
| Ojani wrote: |
Well, I don't like any of those. I don't want to generalize, a little makeup (or hair dye) is ok in my opinion, or even desirable, but it appears to me that most (or at least many) people are on the same opinion here on WP. |
Does it matter how many people share a particular opinion? Or is this in reference to it being an autistic thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Verdandi
Miss Kitty Fantastico
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Posts: 10197
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, Tallyman - I had not read that thing about the ratio between eyes, nose, and mouth. Do you have a reference for it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
OJani
a brat
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 2320
Location: Budapest, Hungary, Europe
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | OJani wrote: |
This supports the idea that beauty is a culturally learned phenomenon, at least in large part what we see as most praised and appreciated at a given time and place. I could imagine that some people learn it without realizing its external nature. According to Ian Ford, we might call it a part of the 'belief web' that defines culture. |
So you are saying people learn it implicitly rather than explicitly? |
I guess so.
| Verdandi wrote: | | Ojani wrote: |
Well, I don't like any of those. I don't want to generalize, a little makeup (or hair dye) is ok in my opinion, or even desirable, but it appears to me that most (or at least many) people are on the same opinion here on WP. |
Does it matter how many people share a particular opinion? Or is this in reference to it being an autistic thing? |
Basically not, though it would be easier for me if more people would share my taste and opinion, as there would be more to choose from. And yes, I think it could be an autistic thing as well (just like not giving in to fashion), but like I said, not a general rule. I only expect a higher proportion of people on the spectrum share my attitude.
So, all in all, I guess this sums it up:
1. Biological or intrinsic traits of beauty. This could be a set of traits that comply with "specific ratios and distances", and those sets could vary widely from one ideal to another, but all having the same intrinsic value. Variety makes humanity stronger, at least to a degree, everyone would agree (I presume).
2. Culturally defined traits of beauty. Being part of the "belief web" (Ian Ford, A Field Guide To Earthlings), human interactions define them over time, and as such, wild variations can be expected between different cultures and periods of time.
3. On the individual level, everyone has an own sense of what beauty is. Biological variations as per the 1st point plus cultural variations as per the 2nd point. Add to this the effect of low self-esteem and social anxiety and the resulting defense-mechanism I previously mentioned, so an individual might claim (without actually intentionally lying) that she/he likes a different set of traits that the beauty per the 1st point, especially after being in a relationship for some time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
TallyMan
Rebooting
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Posts: 36591
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | Oh, Tallyman - I had not read that thing about the ratio between eyes, nose, and mouth. Do you have a reference for it? |
It is referred to as the "Golden ratio". A quick Google brings up lots of hits:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=beauty+golden+ratio&btnG=Search&hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&gbv=1
People having the golden ratio are consciously seen as beautiful. The subconscious principle at work is evaluating someone as a desirable mate for breeding purposes. It is easy to see why this evolutionary principle has evolved. The two prime instincts of humans (and all other animals) is to (a) survive and (b) to reproduce. Evolution has given us the drive to prefer those mates who are likely to lead to healthy and successful offspring. Since beauty simply indicates the person is genetically average i.e. 'normal' they are more likely to be genetically good for having 'normal' offspring. People who we find ugly we also find undesirable as mates. The more ugly they are the less desirable they are and it may indicate their genetics are "inferior" from a survival of the fittest angle. It is natures way of driving us to seek good couplings.
An interesting experiment was done some time ago (I've forgotten the reference to it) where a large group of men and women were put into a hall and given the instruction to mingle (but not talk) and to pick by mutual agreement the member of the opposite sex who they found the most desirable as a mate. Purely for experimental purposes - it wasn't some sort of quick dating - everyone went their separate ways after the experiment. Anyway the result was that the men and women who were the most beautiful / handsome (based on the golden rule of beauty) picked each other and those that were less attractive based on the golden rule ended up with each other. Ugly men were rejected by beautiful women and ugly women were rejected by handsome men. It was an example of evolutionary natural selection at work. If your face matches the golden rule you get the upper hand in picking a mate.
_________________
- signature -
Last edited by TallyMan on Wed May 09, 2012 12:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Rasta is about freedom and the living God
![]()
Joined: Jun 19, 2008
Posts: 7998
Location: Babylon
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't consider people to be beautiful. To me, they are all rather ugly and grotesque but I do love beautiful surroundings. I like fresh paint, wall paper, stuff like that. Certain things put my mind at rest.
_________________
JUST LET THE GUY BE FROM K PAX!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Yoshie777
Paragon
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Age: 25
Posts: 2545
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Based on experience, I think beauty begins on the inside. On the outside, things aren't always what they seem and sometimes, one may look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside, they are ugly.
Now, I also know that when it comes to beauty, I have certain apprehensions about who is beautiful and who isn't. However, it's not my place to judge.
_________________
Joshua
We all deal with problems and strife, but it's how we deal with them that makes all the difference in the world.
"You are no accident!"
-Rick Warren |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamthealien
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 01, 2012
Age: 46
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beauty?
I have been told I am Beautiful. Everyday by my NT partner. It is Sweet but subjective.
I find people like Johnny Depp and Adrian Brody (back in the day) attractive. But when it comes to my experience, I have always said.....
"If you can't get in my head, You aint gettin' in my pants"
As an Aspi, I realize this is an impossible task for most.
BEAUTY is inside. All else fades!
_________________
The knowledge of how to see the characteristics of others avails man nothing in respect of his greatest need, - Himself.
-Anis Ahmad ibn El-Alawi-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Blindspot149
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 08, 2009
Posts: 2516
Location: Aspergers Quadrant, INTJ, AQ 45/50
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FMX wrote: | | I guess it's asking whether you can look at a person and "just know", instantly, that they're beautiful (or not), as opposed to learning what others consider to be beautiful and applying those criteria to the person to determine whether they're supposed to be beautiful. I definitely have such a concept (though it's quite rare for me to see someone who meets my standards of "beautiful") and I'm actually very surprised that 50% of the voters said "no". |
Ah!
I couldn't give a ***t what others consider to 'be beautiful' so I guess my answer is yes.
I really can't imagine a sane person looking to others for guidance about what constitutes beauty in another human!
What a sad state to be in 
_________________
Now then, tell me. What did Miggs say to you? Multiple Miggs in the next cell. He hissed at you. What did he say?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
