Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Beauty: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Evolution of beauty
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Objective beauty has likely mostly evolved by a preference for simplicity (aesthetic sexual selection) which is common to many higher animals.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> This means members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. | Objective beauty has likely mostly evolved by a preference for simplicity (aesthetic sexual selection) which is common to many higher animals.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> This means members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. | ||
Complex ornament and [[few millimeters of bone]] likely cannot entirely be explained by mathematical simplicity because they are unnecessary specific and complex. The simplest nose shape would be simply two nostrils as found in some apes, after all. | Some simple and elegant body shapes may however not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience favoring simple shapes. Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction. | ||
Either there are functional constraints<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 feedback loops in sexual selection such as [[Fisherian runaway]] and ''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> resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming increasingly sexually attractive, which in turn, overcomplicated or exaggerated them. | Complex ornament and [[few millimeters of bone]], however, likely cannot entirely be explained by mathematical simplicity because they are unnecessary specific and complex. The simplest nose shape would be simply two nostrils as found in some apes, after all. A flat chest is simpler than one with permanently swollen breasts. Even more obviously, the peacock tail is unnecessarily complex. | ||
Several explanations can be provided for these shapes: Either there are functional constraints<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 feedback loops in sexual selection such as [[Fisherian runaway]] and ''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> resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming increasingly sexually attractive, which in turn, overcomplicated or exaggerated them. | |||
Such feedback loops can explain the immense sexual attraction to superficial traits that humans exhibit, which have barely any relevance for survival except "social survival". | Such feedback loops can explain the immense sexual attraction to superficial traits that humans exhibit, which have barely any relevance for survival except "social survival". | ||
Another explanation was provided that beauty is an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall. These two opposing views the ''Good Geners'' vs ''Fisherians'' lead to significant academic rivalry since the 1990s, but the good genes hypotheses has largely been refuted since. | Another explanation was provided that beauty is an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall. These two opposing views the ''Good Geners'' vs ''Fisherians'' lead to significant academic rivalry since the 1990s, but the good genes hypotheses has largely been refuted since. | ||
The relation between beauty to health and ability is only relevant for extreme cases like disfigurement, certain syndromes and skin rashes and the like. | |||
Sexually dimorphic beauty and health are only weakly related 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 also initiated feedback loops in sexual selection in this case. | Sexually dimorphic beauty and health are only weakly related 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 also initiated feedback loops in sexual selection in this case. | ||