Why is it more pleasing to look at the girl on the left than the one on the right?
I can understand why intelligence is desirable (natural selection) but why certain looks and not others? Like scientifically? Was it just a coincidence that we evolved into preferring certain features?
I'm not here to say that we should consider ugly people beautiful. I'm just really wondering.
- Left has superior skin quality, indicating better health, diet, genetics.
- Straight, shiny hair indicates the same.
- Left has more feminine facial features, indicating better hormones/genetics etc. Right has a disgusting manly brow. Indicating her hormones are fucked up.
- Right has horrible teeth, indicating she's doing something wrong...
This is also the reason they use make-up. Make-up pretty much makes them look genetically good / diet / etc etc etc
>>25036538
Also, her hook jew nose on the right indicates she might have more breathing/sleeping problems. Also more likely to get hit/break her nose and cause these problems.
>>25036562
>her hook jew nose on the right indicates she might have more breathing/sleeping problems
how so?
>>25036469
Nature's way of warning you of genetic defects.
>>25036538
Okay but what about nose, lips, jaw shapes, they don't indicate how healthy this person is
Yes a nice looking nose is considered better genes but why is it considered that way? (Considering they both function just as well of course)
Same with other facial features
Generally signs of health.
but why the high forehead straight forehead on the girl on the left is more attractive than the receding beetlebrow one on the girl on the right is unattractive there doesn't seem to be a practical explanation for.
I would guess that "good looking" people fufill the criteria without fufilling the evolutionary rationale behind them.
the girl on the left looks younger and healthier.
the girl on the right looks older and less healthy.
these things are reinforced and associations are made all througout your life, but it probably mostly takes place in your formative years.
Bumping for exposure
The more attractive a person seems, the closer they are to being the perfect human currently possible (which is impossible, though a select few come close to this ideal). The right combination of genes will result in a universally attractive person, regardless of background.
These are the genes people want their kids to have.
An angular structure on men indicates a healthy amount of testosterone.
A softer yet balanced structure on women indicates femininity and a healthy amount of estrogen.
With the right blend of hormones and genes, offspring will look universally attractive and desired by all.
1. Facial symmetry
2. Neotenous features are desirable in females, they represent youthfulness and fertility. Femininity is based on this.
3. The closer your facial features adhere to the golden ratio (phi), the more attractive you are. Everything natural in this universe obeys this law.
4. General indicators of health - clear complexion, glowing skin, long luscious hair.
5. Beauty is indicative of good healthy genes.
>3. The closer your facial features adhere to the golden ratio (phi), the more attractive you are. Everything natural in this universe obeys this law.
A postulation is dogmatic, not an explanation.
OP knows what an attractive girl looks like, he wonders why they look like that.
>because math
is silly religious nonsense.
>>25036599
They're a result of millions of years of evolution. Evolution and natural selection have fine tuned human genetics to such a small degree that we can hardly explain the extremely minute differences between apparently similar features/genes.
Maybe the girl on the left is like 0.000005% more aerodynamic. Maybe her facial features can channel rainwater down her face 0.000348% more efficiently, and prevent her from being blinded by the rain. Maybe her facial features are slightly more sturdily built to protect her brain/face from physical damage.
Regardless of what these superior features are, both males/females are genetically wired to be attracted to them. And this is for the sole reason that there used to be humans that WEREN'T attracted to them, who mated with inferior genetics, and slowly died off because their children were like 0.000001% worse at surviving than their superior gened counterparts.
>>25037785
Not necessarily. Evolutionary "advantage" cannot explain everything. It could be the result of nothing practical(ie. random).
>>25037869
What doesn't it explain?
And yea on a small scale it won't make a difference. If we put one species of monkey that grows 305 hairs per year, and another that grows 306 hairs per year on a planet and let evolution fight it out, it would probably be a really long time before we noticed any difference in the populations (controlling for all the obvious factors).
Also, evolutionary advantage is more than just on an individual species basis. Many different species form a balanced ecosystem. And some species can evolve to better fit into that ecosystem even though they might be objectively inferior when not accounting for the ecosystem.
>>25037974
If you throw some paint on a wall, the result is random from your perspective because it cannot be fully understood.
of course if you go down the molecular level, there is a reason for the why the result ended up being what it was. it can be cut down to, things are as they are, and that doesn't explain anything.
