Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Beauty: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Evolution of beauty
| 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 deep sea fish may be particularily ugly being blind. | Some deep sea fish may be particularily ugly due to 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. | 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 and even plants 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. | ||
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. A flat chest is simpler than one with permanently swollen breasts. Even more obviously, the peacock tail is unnecessarily complex. | 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. 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, | 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 these shapes are an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall | or these shapes are an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall, | ||
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> | 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. | resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming increasingly sexually attractive, which in turn, overcomplicated or exaggerated them. | ||