Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nope I went from gorgeous to beyond.
That doesn't really support this:
Originally posted by Tha C-Master Sexuality is influenced all of the time and it shows as it changes throughout time and throughout culture. People choose ultimately but certain factors do influence it.
Being attracted to women(their level of beauty aside, as it's largely subjective), was this ever a choice for you?
Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't really support this:Being attracted to women(their level of beauty aside, as it's largely subjective), was this ever a choice for you?
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.
Being more attracted to better looking women makes perfect sense.
Also both sexes recognize features that are determined "attractive" on both genders. While a person may not date a member of the same sex, they can recognize their attractiveness. In our society, it is considered "unmanly" for a man to recognize that another man is attractive. This has started to change though.
Things that have changed in society have been relations with family members, people under or over a certain age, animals etc. These things did take place frequently in other societies, but in our current structure it is not the norm. Which has contributed somewhat to the lifestyle people lead.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.Being more attracted to better looking women makes perfect sense.
Also both sexes recognize features that are determined "attractive" on both genders. While a person may not date a member of the same sex, they can recognize their attractiveness. In our society, it is considered "unmanly" for a man to recognize that another man is attractive. This has started to change though.
Things that have changed in society have been relations with family members, people under or over a certain age, animals etc. These things did take place frequently in other societies, but in our current structure it is not the norm. Which has contributed somewhat to the lifestyle people lead.
Which proportions and features would these be? Cos I've seen guys completely infatuated with ugly women.
Not in regards to your earlier statement of ever changing sexuality.
Okay.
And this has what to do with the immediate topic?
Also, you didn't answer the question, being attracted to women, was this ever a choice?
Originally posted by Robtard
Which proportions and features would these be? Cos I've seen guys completely infatuated with ugly women.Not in regards to your earlier statement of ever changing sexuality.
Okay.
And this has what to do with the topic?
Also, you didn't answer the question, being attracted to women, was this ever a choice?
Infatuated with and physically attracted to aren't the same thing. Someone may not be your "type" but you could still recognize their attractiveness.
Lets sum everything up. Sexuality as a whole has changed in regards to what is acceptable and what is not in our culture. It also influences actions. Most people would never think of doing their sister no matter how good they look, but in the past it was the norm.
My point was that a man could view another man as an attractive man and not want to have relations with him. But he still recognized cues and proportions that would be deemed attractive.
Eyes, symmetry, lips. facial structure. Healthy body. etc.
For women much of the same thing.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.
you can describe statistical norms, sure. There is by no means any sense of a universal "attractiveness" though.
what research are you referencing here?
Originally posted by inimalistNo one person is going to have the exact same standards as everyone else, but there are features a person looks for.
you can describe statistical norms, sure. There is by no means any sense of a universal "attractiveness" though.what research are you referencing here?
Symmertry to a person means health. It's all very subconscious. It is also biological, influenced by culture, and influenced by society.
While I'm sure not everyone would think... Jessica Alba was their type, I'm sure they'd all agree she is better looking than a person with one eye and a face that is deformed with next to no teeth.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No one person is going to have the exact same standards, but there are features a person looks for.Symmertry to a person means health. It's all very subconscious. Is biological, influenced by culture, and influenced by society.
sure, a person is more likely to say a person with a symmetrical face is more attractive than someone without, but only at a statistically significant majority. It is the same with facial composites. A face that averages between the features of many faces is seen to be more attractive, but again, only at a statistically significant portion of the time.
as biologically driven as it might be, it by no means describes any universal nature to "what is attractive"
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
While I'm sure not everyone would think... Jessica Alba was their type. I'm sure they'd all agree she is better looking than a person with one eye and a face that is deformed with next to no teeth.
based on what?
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, a person is more likely to say a person with a symmetrical face is more attractive than someone without, but only at a statistically significant majority. It is the same with facial composites. A face that averages between the features of many faces is seen to be more attractive, but again, only at a statistically significant portion of the time.as biologically driven as it [b]might
be, it by no means describes any universal nature to "what is attractive"based on what? [/B]
However the more symmetrical face and proportionate the body is compared to the other, the more the votes increase in that favor. On the extreme end, you'd have supermodels and people with no eyes or are hideously deformed, it would be unanimous.
There was actually studies with infants that reacted better to more symmetrical and appealing faces of both genders the same way the adults and teenagers did who were influenced by society. So, while no two people have the same tastes, they can recognize physical beauty in another person.
Attractiveness comes from more than looks, it is a set of traits that a person finds attractive. Charisma, confidence, success, height, fame, etc.
People in our society place people into convenient categories to distinguish them and go through the process of elimination. Which is why you see people who join particular groups or go by particular fads, it is easily recognizable and accepted by a large chunk of society.
Some very brief and quick links I found really quickly for anybody who wants to look at this. I actually made a thread about this before in more detail:
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-the-beauty-of-symmetry.html
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Infatuated with and physically attracted to aren't the same thing. Someone may not be your "type" but you could still recognize their attractiveness.Lets sum everything up. Sexuality as a whole has changed in regards to what is acceptable and what is not in our culture. It also influences actions. Most people would never think of doing their sister no matter how good they look, but in the past it was the norm.
My point was that a man could view another man as an attractive man and not want to have relations with him. But he still recognized cues and proportions that would be deemed attractive.
Eyes, symmetry, lips. facial structure. Healthy body. etc.
For women much of the same thing.
Again, I've seen guys who are clearly physically attracted to women who aren't attractive. Least to me. So where's the "standard"?
Sister ****ing is a bad example, as it's few cultures and it was more of a power-play/politics than actual "damn, my sister is hot, I'm going to get up in that." Not so much a social norm. eg The Pharoahs married their own sisters, but the general populace of Egypt didn't.
Yes, I can recognize a handsome man and not want to **** him; because I'm not sexually attracted to men. To be on topic, I don't think this will change due to outside factors, this aspect of me just is.
You're throwing of generalizations. Which features exactly are universally attractive/hard-wired into us? Blue eyes, small breast, tall, short etc.
Guess I won't get an answer whether you chose to be attracted to women.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
However the more symmetrical face and proportionate the body is compared to the other, the more the votes increase in that favor
yes
this doesn't mean that, to a particular individual, a person with a symmetric face will be perceived as more attractive. biologically motivated or not, it isn't an absolute or universal quality that people see as attractive
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
On the extreme end, you'd have supermodels and people with no eyes or are hideously deformed, it would be unanimous.
you have this data? have you ever heard of the nation Mauritania?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
There was actually studies with infants that reacted better to more symmetrical and appealing faces of both genders the same way the adults and teenagers did who were influenced by society. So, while no two people have the same tastes, they can recognize physical beauty in another person.
do you understand what the statement "statistically significant majority" means?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Attractiveness comes from more than looks, it is a set of traits that a person finds attractive. Charisma, confidence, success, height, fame, etc.
whose point do you think this supports?
I might disagree with Dr. Feng's conclusions, however, as I'd be interested to test the "attractiveness" hypothesis with some type of appeal to how atypical things are to cognitive schemas (which for faces would be very biological, as we have areas of our brain which are thought to be hard wired for facial perception). The infant evidence is easily explained by more symmetric and composite faces being more typical of what they would expect to see, and thus, more perceptible as faces, something which our attentional systems are more prone to.... wait... you know what, nevermind...
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I've seen guys who are clearly physically attracted to women who aren't attractive. Least to me. So where's the "standard"?Sister ****ing is a bad example, as it's few cultures and it was more of a power-play/politics than actual "damn, my sister is hot, I'm going to get up in that." Not so much a social norm, the Pharoahs married their own sisters, but the general populace of Egypt didn't.
Yes, I can recognize a handsome man and not want to **** him; because I'm not sexually attracted to men. To be on topic, I don't think this will change due to outside factors, this aspect of me just is.
You're throwing of generalizations. Which features exactly are universally attractive/hard-wired into us? Blue eyes, small breast, tall, short etc.
Guess I won't get an answer whether you chose to be attracted to women.
Exactly, you recognize he is "good looking" without being attracted to him, which is the perfect example. You don't have any sexual interest in men but you see the visual cues, the same one that women do. That's not to say that every person will want to be with that person, but they can at least say to some extent that they have more favorable features.
Well I am speaking in general.
It's not so much hair color, eye color, skin color, etc, as that has changed with culture to some extent. Women of lighter skin (but tanned) and lighter hair that are thinner are preferred more nowadays than in the past. Then it was heavier women, paler, women, women with curly hair, etc.
I'm talking about symmetry, fuller eyes, spacing in the face, lack of deformity, being in decent shape, as those things portray health, which is what people look for in offspring.
All very subconscious.
Originally posted by inimalist
this doesn't mean that, to a particular individual, a person with a symmetric face will be perceived as more attractive. biologically motivated or not, it isn't an absolute or universal quality that people see as attractive
What it means is that a person who has what is considered a "more attractive face" will have more of the aforementioned features, consistently.
Originally posted by inimalist
you have this data? have you ever heard of the nation Mauritania?
People who are fatter? People were fatter in our history not long ago. As being fat was a sign of wealth, and tanned skin was a sign of poverty because people who were out in the sun worked physically hard and were poor.
Very different than now. That is a cultural difference. As I said.
Originally posted by inimalist
do you understand what the statement "statistically significant majority" means?
Actually the point of that was to point out nature vs nuture, that cultural bias only affects certain features of attractiveness, and not others. Humans have a rather consistent appearance due to them being more willing to mate with people who have certain features.
Originally posted by inimalist
whose point do you think this supports?
Originally posted by inimalist
I might disagree with Dr. Feng's conclusions, however, as I'd be interested to test the "attractiveness" hypothesis with some type of appeal to how atypical things are to cognitive schemas (which for faces would be very biological, as we have areas of our brain which are thought to be hard wired for facial perception). The infant evidence is easily explained by more symmetric and composite faces being more typical of what they would expect to see, and thus, more perceptible as faces, something which our attentional systems are more prone to.... wait... you know what, nevermind...
However even with people who are considered good looking the features aren't that vastly different in terms of proportion. The closer it is to "average" the better. They have done "tests" where the best "features" were sampled together based on perception and it came up with a face of a celebrity.
It was Halle Berry most recently, can't remember what it was before.
I don't think Halle Berry is attractive at all...
like really, I'd say a 4 or 5 maybe
EDIT: aside from that, you are all over the place, most of your points are inconsistent with the idea that there is some universal "attractiveness", and I've learned in the past that I have little patience to try and explain statistical concepts to people looking to just argue...
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterHowever even with people who are considered good looking the features aren't that vastly different in terms of proportion. The closer it is to "average" the better. They have done "tests" where the best "features" were sampled together based on perception and it came up with a face of a celebrity.
It was Halle Berry most recently, can't remember what it was before.
Do you have a link to this data?
Because if it's what I am thinking of, it was some online thing. Hardly "scientific".