I just find it amazing that "the basis for attractiveness was yearbook photos from the 1957 graduating classes at Wisconsin high schools." High school yearbook photos? People never get more attractive then they were in their HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK PHOTO? Good thing that wasn't true in my case - and in the case of most of my "late blooming" friends.
"attractive women (those rated in the second highest quartile of hotness) had 16% more children their less attractive peers, while very attractive (top quartile) women had 6% more." So you can be hot, but not TOO HOT!!
First, 1957 - pre BCP. Perhaps these women would have chose differently had reliable birth control been available.
Second, the definition of attractiveness and beauty is constantly changing, and differs from culture to culture. So... wtf?
@AtomiClash: humanitarian misanthrope: That is EXACTLY what I was going to say. If a bunch of people from Elizabethan England time traveled in the time machine I built in my garage and showed up on Michigan Avenue today, they'd look around and say "Holy shit! The future smells weird and these people are so tall and fuuuuugly!" They say fugly because they came over to my place and watched Mean Girls before we went shopping. I'm really proud of them for picking up the slang. But seriously, this study is ABSURD!
I'd say it makes a huge amount of sense that women become more attractive through hereditary genetics. Men too, though probably with less speed.
Come on, the least attractive people in any society struggle to find partners and thus have kids. This is true, and it's obviously true. Especially for women. Having a good job won't help your chances of getting a man if you are sadly very ugly (and some people are), though it sometimes works the other way around for men. Ugly genes, like peeing babies, are thus constantly being removed from the pool.
And for all of you saying 'We'll what's attractive? You can't say.'
a) Society determines this as a whole, and currently the beauty values espoused in the mainstream media is what we consider attractive. Maybe you and your friends don't agree, but as a whole, this is what society has come up with. It wasn't forced on us by some mysterious group of oppressors, it's what people respond to and buy, because it's what people like.
b) I believe that men are more likely to have a standard version of female attractiveness in a given culture than the other way around. Most guys find the same girls pretty, in my experience. Friends of mine often totally disagree on what kind of guys are cute. So I think there is a standard that guys apply. You can find an objective standard if you ask enough people.
My last point would be that 50,000 years ago we were neanderthals. (Some of us still are, just getting that in there before you use it against me, ha.) So that right there is completely conclusive proof of good genes being passed on making women more beautiful. As for the rest of this idiot's stuff about Coulter, well... he should stick with common sense arguments, that's all I'll say.
@Agumen: currently the beauty values espoused in the mainstream media is what we consider attractive.
Not in my case, and not in the case of the majority of my male friends. Come on, the least attractive people in any society struggle to find partners and thus have kids. This is true, and it's obviously true.
No, it's not.
@Agumen: Well, I think that men just value attractiveness more than women do, so you see women striving to be more attractive more frequently than you see men striving to be more attractive. Obviously, that's a generalization, but all you have to do is observe the general population to see this to be true. I also agree with you that while some people are saying that beauty is "subjective," in a lot of ways it's really not. I watched a show on the Discovery channel once that was called like The Science of Sex or something like that, about what has been scientifically proven to be attractive. You can argue all you want that attractiveness is subjective, and of course on an individual level, it is, but IN GENERAL, people find the same qualities attractive. For example, people with symmetrical faces ARE more attractive, regardless of sex or race.
@Agumen: 50,000 years ago we were neanderthals.
Neanderthals are not the same species as modern humans. They existed at the same time and were probably driven to extinction because of us. Maybe humans killed them because they weren't pretty?
P.S. Your section "(b)" is full of logic fail, not to mention a touch more didacticism than I can deal with before noon. I'm sure someone else here can dissect it for you, though
@Agumen: The standards of beauty and attractiveness are not universal—not in our society and not across the globe. What is known is that infants tend to react more strongly to faces with greater symmetry, which is as close to an innate preference for a beauty standard as we're apt to get. The rest tends to be a result of socialization and chemistry.
I'd be curious to find out on what study you base your assertion that unattractive people struggle to find mates and procreate, particularly since it is so "obviously true."
@Agumen: While I don't disagree with everything you're saying, I think that most of the culturally dictated beauty standards change too often to have any serious bearing on evolution. The ideal body type changes at least every fifty years. Beyond symmetry, the kind of facial features considered most desirable change fairly often too. I remember watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, and there was a lot of discussion about why they had cast the fairly plain-looking actress that played Jane, given that she was supposed to be much prettier than Elizabeth. And the answer was, of course, that back in the Regency era, the actress playing Jane would have been considered much prettier. She had the Greek statue look that was very in at the time, whereas Jane's "cute" face would have been considered less refined--but now it's the opposite.
There are a handful of beauty variables that do seem to stay constant, but there are a hell of a lot more that are clearly culturally defined and change from generation to generation. I can't put a whole lot of stock in this theory.
@nora charles: But you're quibbling over really little details. No one would argue that either of the two actresses in the BBC version of P&P aren't attractive, just over which girl is more so than the other. But that they are both attractive is undeniable.
Those handful of beauty variables that you mention as being constant are the central ones to beauty (symmetry, the golden ratio). The frivolous fades (cute vs statuesque, etc.) may change but it makes as much difference as changing the style of a window dressing to the window. The underlying architecture is what's important.
Well, if women are getting more attractive, it's time to change the standards! Can't let women get away with conforming to patriarchal standards without a lot of work, surgery and self-disgust!
And also... trying to use objective science to prove subjective opinions = fail.
HarpMadness promoted this comment
Edited by Mireille is German for the Bart, the. at 07/28/09 9:56 AM
Mireille is German for the Bart, the. was starred
Mireille is German for the Bart, the. was unstarred
Apparently 300+ pound, barely educated, horribly dressed, extremely racist women with no social skills, very few teeth and very loud speaking voices are attractive, because that's who's reproducing the most down here in Florida. My anecdotal, subjective statistical analysis supports this.
I'm not sure that "attractiveness" (however you define that) is necessarily something kids always inherit. Often two beautiful people get together, only to produce a child in whom the features of the parents don't really harmonize. The reverse is also true - two average-looking people can produce a conventionally gorgeous child.
Also Mr.Kanazawa? People might find Coulter attractive (god knows why), but that doesn't mean they trust her or find her intelligent. She's a joke. Even her own party knows that. She barely registered a peep during the last election.
Plus? Putting a woman that dresses like her in the White House would probably have made Islamic extremists like Osama even more enraged about America.
@EkaterinaBallerina: " She barely registered a peep during the last election."
I for one was quite pleased about that. I am certainly not generally about silencing women, but IMO the less she talks the better.
11/11/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
What happened to the simple measures in life, like the LSAT and the GMAT?
Oh - and get off my lawn.
07/28/09
So as the Romans would say, quod erat demonstrandum.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
Second, the definition of attractiveness and beauty is constantly changing, and differs from culture to culture. So... wtf?
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
COTD seconded.
07/28/09
Come on, the least attractive people in any society struggle to find partners and thus have kids. This is true, and it's obviously true. Especially for women. Having a good job won't help your chances of getting a man if you are sadly very ugly (and some people are), though it sometimes works the other way around for men. Ugly genes, like peeing babies, are thus constantly being removed from the pool.
And for all of you saying 'We'll what's attractive? You can't say.'
a) Society determines this as a whole, and currently the beauty values espoused in the mainstream media is what we consider attractive. Maybe you and your friends don't agree, but as a whole, this is what society has come up with. It wasn't forced on us by some mysterious group of oppressors, it's what people respond to and buy, because it's what people like.
b) I believe that men are more likely to have a standard version of female attractiveness in a given culture than the other way around. Most guys find the same girls pretty, in my experience. Friends of mine often totally disagree on what kind of guys are cute. So I think there is a standard that guys apply. You can find an objective standard if you ask enough people.
My last point would be that 50,000 years ago we were neanderthals. (Some of us still are, just getting that in there before you use it against me, ha.) So that right there is completely conclusive proof of good genes being passed on making women more beautiful. As for the rest of this idiot's stuff about Coulter, well... he should stick with common sense arguments, that's all I'll say.
07/28/09
Not in my case, and not in the case of the majority of my male friends.
Come on, the least attractive people in any society struggle to find partners and thus have kids. This is true, and it's obviously true.
No, it's not.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Neanderthals are not the same species as modern humans. They existed at the same time and were probably driven to extinction because of us. Maybe humans killed them because they weren't pretty?
07/28/09
Oh well then.
P.S. Your section "(b)" is full of logic fail, not to mention a touch more didacticism than I can deal with before noon. I'm sure someone else here can dissect it for you, though
07/28/09
I'd be curious to find out on what study you base your assertion that unattractive people struggle to find mates and procreate, particularly since it is so "obviously true."
07/28/09
There are a handful of beauty variables that do seem to stay constant, but there are a hell of a lot more that are clearly culturally defined and change from generation to generation. I can't put a whole lot of stock in this theory.
07/28/09
Those handful of beauty variables that you mention as being constant are the central ones to beauty (symmetry, the golden ratio). The frivolous fades (cute vs statuesque, etc.) may change but it makes as much difference as changing the style of a window dressing to the window. The underlying architecture is what's important.
07/28/09
And also... trying to use objective science to prove subjective opinions = fail.
07/28/09
07/28/09
I don't know, I think Jokela can stop jizzing over unattractive women dying off now. It's a little annoying.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
*sulks that I cannot heart you twice*
07/28/09
Plus? Putting a woman that dresses like her in the White House would probably have made Islamic extremists like Osama even more enraged about America.
07/28/09
I for one was quite pleased about that. I am certainly not generally about silencing women, but IMO the less she talks the better.