Beauty: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2 bytes removed ,  2 October 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
## Mathematical/geometric beauty such as symmetry, smoothness, elegance, or more generally, simplicity.
## Mathematical/geometric beauty such as symmetry, smoothness, elegance, or more generally, simplicity.
## Sexually dimorphic beauty, or arbitrary and even exaggerated body shapes, such as large female breasts or male penises, highly specific shapes of noses (e.g. upturned nose in females), i.e. [[Few millimeters of bone|few millimeters of bone]], dimples on back or cheeks, and also complex coloration patterns in birds. These kinds of beauty often cannot fully be explained by simplicity because they have seemingly unnecessary specificity or complexity. Either there are functional constraints or correlated characters<ref>Price T, Langen T. 1992. ''Evolution of correlated characters.'' [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236041 Abstract]]</ref> preventing a simpler shape, or [[Fisherian runaway|runaway sexual selection]] resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming sexually attractive. The relation to health only seems to be relevant for extreme cases like disfigurement, certain syndromes and contagious skin rashes and the like. Beauty and health are rather unrelated when disregarding these extremes,<ref>Scientific_Blackpill#Attractive_people_are_perceived_much_more_positively_than_they_really_are</ref> but slight fitness advantages could have still initiated runaway sexual selection which then lead to a narrowing and strengthening in preferences.
## Sexually dimorphic beauty, or arbitrary and even exaggerated body shapes, such as large female breasts or male penises, highly specific shapes of noses (e.g. upturned nose in females), i.e. [[Few millimeters of bone|few millimeters of bone]], dimples on back or cheeks, and also complex coloration patterns in birds. These kinds of beauty often cannot fully be explained by simplicity because they have seemingly unnecessary specificity or complexity. Either there are functional constraints or correlated characters<ref>Price T, Langen T. 1992. ''Evolution of correlated characters.'' [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236041 Abstract]]</ref> preventing a simpler shape, or [[Fisherian runaway|runaway sexual selection]] resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming sexually attractive. The relation to health only seems to be relevant for extreme cases like disfigurement, certain syndromes and contagious skin rashes and the like. Beauty and health are rather unrelated when disregarding these extremes,<ref>Scientific_Blackpill#Attractive_people_are_perceived_much_more_positively_than_they_really_are</ref> but slight fitness advantages could have still initiated runaway sexual selection which then lead to a narrowing and strengthening in preferences.
# Subjective beauty
# Subjective beauty: Individual preferences resulting from individual emotional experiences or variance in development of neuronal circuitry for inherited sexual preferences regarding objective beauty (see above) at individual level.  
## Individual preferences resulting from individual emotional experiences or variance in development of neuronal circuitry for inherited sexual preferences regarding objective beauty (see above) at individual level.  


Objective beauty is likely partly an innate preference of animals for simplicity and partly [[Sexual selection|sexually selected]], i.e. our ancestors tended to choose objectively beautiful mates and hence our species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. This was possibly reinforced, narrowed and possibly overcomplicated by feedback loops like [[Fisherian runaway]] or sensory bias.<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]]</ref> It is important to note that [[Scientific_Blackpill#Beauty_is_objective_and_measurable_in_the_brain|beauty is highly objective]] and [[truecels|very physically unattractive people]] are objectively unattractive because people [[Scientific_Blackpill#People_broadly_agree_on_who_is_good_looking_or_not.2C_and_it_affects_every_aspect_of_life|agree highly]] on them being unattractive.
Objective beauty is likely partly an innate preference of animals for simplicity and partly [[Sexual selection|sexually selected]], i.e. our ancestors tended to choose objectively beautiful mates and hence our species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. This was possibly reinforced, narrowed and possibly overcomplicated by feedback loops like [[Fisherian runaway]] or sensory bias.<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]]</ref> It is important to note that [[Scientific_Blackpill#Beauty_is_objective_and_measurable_in_the_brain|beauty is highly objective]] and [[truecels|very physically unattractive people]] are objectively unattractive because people [[Scientific_Blackpill#People_broadly_agree_on_who_is_good_looking_or_not.2C_and_it_affects_every_aspect_of_life|agree highly]] on them being unattractive.
17,538

edits

Navigation menu