|
Good looking people are more intelligent (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yes. Physical attraction is objective. Simple! |
Sure it is, in a way. There are universal attributes which are generally linked to attractiveness. I would say that most of the things I said fit the criteria. You can tweak a person's looks however you want - eye color, face shape, hair color, freckles or no freckles, etc, etc, etc,..but I bet as long as they have all those other things in place they'd still be considered attractive. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Attractiveness is totally subjective, its not scientific. |
Actually, Jenny's got a point. There are loads of scientific studies that confirm there's a surprisingly objective way of measuring physical attractiveness... though, of course, there's a subjective component as well. And, trust me, this comes from a person whose taste in women is far from being universally regarded as not polemic.
I could be arsed to look for these studies in the near future, but I can't right now. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Symmetry of facial features, clear + healthy complexion, straight teeth/good smile, healthy hair, fit body. Pretty simple. |
Japanese find snaggle attractive and Jamaicans like gap between front teeth |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| And you find anyone under 12 attractive. Doesn't make it right. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Sure it is, in a way. There are universal attributes which are generally linked to attractiveness. I would say that most of the things I said fit the criteria. You can tweak a person's looks however you want - eye color, face shape, hair color, freckles or no freckles, etc, etc, etc,..but I bet as long as they have all those other things in place they'd still be considered attractive. |
You list "fit body" as an attribute, but the study has a separate control for body size. So already it seems clear that it isn't so clear-cut. Even if we're talking about a generalised conception of attractiveness, there is a lot of evidence that the ideal image of attractiveness has changed many times throughout history, and so is not some objective constant. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
And you find anyone under 12 attractive. Doesn't make it right. |
There is no right or wrong in attractiveness... :rolleyes:
I know it was a joke, but you seem like the shallow type that would consider there to be rights and wrongs in something that is a subjective personal opinion that has no bearing on your life. If you lived a few degrees of latitude lower I bet you'd also hate the gays and lesbians too. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You list "fit body" as an attribute, but the study has a separate control for body size. So already it seems clear that it isn't so clear-cut. Even if we're talking about a generalised conception of attractiveness, there is a lot of evidence that the ideal image of attractiveness has changed many times throughout history, and so is not some objective constant. |
Well we're not talking about throughout history, we're talking about right now. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Well we're not talking about throughout history, we're talking about right now. |
Are we really?
| quote: | The UK findings are based on the National Child Development Study, which followed 17,419 people since their birth in 1958.
...The US results were taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a similar study of 35,000 young Americans. |
|
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Well we're not talking about throughout history, we're talking about right now. |
We are, although the spectrum of criteria which you linked to an objectively understood set of conditions for attractiveness- in the same capacity that, say, certain facial gestures are universally understood to connote an emotional state- are supposed to be trans-temporal. So if it loses its relevance in different timeframe, then I don't believe it can be qualified as categorically objective.
And this isn't even including various cultural formulations of what is considered attractive. |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| if cor was fresh prince y'all niggas be carlton. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Oh come on, that's RECENT history. Why must you argue with me? Just because you don't like me? I think most people would agree that generic standards of attractiveness haven't changed much in our time/recent history.
Whatever, I stand by my point. If you don't agree, that's fine. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Well we're not talking about throughout history, we're talking about right now. |
Actually, we're not. These objective attributes are held throughout time. That's why even though the chubby girls we see from the Renaissance aren't exactly what we consider to be an example of what a fit body is like today, we still don't say they're mingers.
Even my running gag about breast size has got some objective truth behind it though most people around here think a medium sized boob is probably best, and that explains why the Venus of Lespugue looks funny but not exactly incomprehensible (those are actually common attributes in venus figurines). |
|
|
|
|
