Beauty: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
131 bytes added ,  31 October 2019
Line 26: Line 26:
Animal's preference for objective beauty as geometrical simplicity is likely only a fluke of evolution and only preferred because simple shapes are easy to process, resulting from the (actual useful) preference to create order and predictability.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref>
Animal's preference for objective beauty as geometrical simplicity is likely only a fluke of evolution and only preferred because simple shapes are easy to process, resulting from the (actual useful) preference to create order and predictability.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref>
Due to this preference, members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful (''aesthetic sexual selection'') and beauty became an important factor of attraction.
Due to this preference, members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful (''aesthetic sexual selection'') and beauty became an important factor of attraction.
Some simple and elegant body shapes may, however, not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but simply coincidental result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience favoring simple shapes.
Some deep sea fish may be particularily ugly being blind.
Some simple and elegant body shapes may, however, not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but simply coincidental result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience favoring simple shapes. This explains why even blind or very primitive species can be beautiful.
Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction.
Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction.


17,538

edits

Navigation menu