Collarchat.com

Create a
Free Account		 As the Collar Turns:
 Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home  Login  Search 
Espanol  Deutsch  Francais  Italiano  Portugues 

Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 9:56:48 AM   
aeaa


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/8/2007
Status: offline 		Greetings Masters & Mistresses,
Greetings  girls,
 
The topic headline is a shocker, aea knows.  Imagine her shock when she was reading the news online this morning and saw the headline:
 
"Why Doesn't Evolution Get Rid of Ugly People?"
 
aea was mortified. Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Does nature even have the right to choose? 
 
This lead aea to thinking about Norman's writing.  she recalls that nearly every slave was described with beauty, and thanks to the serums, youth.  There were passages that made us realize that beauty varied and came in different shapes and sizes, nonetheless, it was there. Much of what Norman wrote about females had to do with physical appearance. 
 
This lead aea further down the path of thought to "nature" and how Goreans respect it and love it as well as follow it in their own lives.  So, does "natural selection" eliminate "ugly people?" Evidently not according to scientists.
 
The article is actually a pretty interesting read.
 
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/06/27/why-doesn-t-evolution-get-rid-of-ugly-people.aspx?GT1=10150

aea wondered what thoughts others might have in regards to it.
 
she wishes you well.
 
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 10:06:15 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10836
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		The journalist doesn't seem to have understood the research she was reporting on.  Beauty and ugliness are mostly related to sexual selection, not natural selection, and the study of the deer had to do with their fitness, not their attractiveness.  Now maybe it's really true that a trait that most people find attractive in males would be unattractive in females.  But that's hardly my, say, impressionistic observation.  When beautiful people mate, their children tend to be pretty beautiful too.

I've always suspected that noticeable individual differences in beauty are preserved within the human population because the stratification fosters certain other traits that improve our fitness.

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 12:49:53 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 16519
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		[using fast reply]

I'm so tired of arguing with misinformed people in general about romantic/politic views about evolution and natural selection that I just don't have the stomach (or the time) to do it again.

It's about passing on genes. Species/individuals that reproduce are the most successful.

No, that's not as fun as pretending that we're in a sports event with trophies. Rodents, for example, are extremely successful--and not because the cutest, strongest mice can best the other mice. Achilles, for example, would be an evolutionary failure--he got killed without having children. Nor did he eliminate the weak--he mostly killed heroes (Hector, for example--who DID have children and would then be more successful in evolutionary terms).

Not particularly Gorean, granted. Just science.

As for the beauty/ugly thing--when you're done with science, read Shakespeare, who addresses that exact point multiple times.

Have a great weekend.

_____________________________

Yes, I still update my blog--thanks to all who asked!
http://writingtrue.blogspot.com
Gorean FAQ Threads

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 1:34:22 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 7242
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline 		Hello aea,
 
Studies which have shown pictures of human faces and figures to infants and recorded their reactions -- e.g., whether they looked and smiled, or grimaced and turned away -- have found that humans have an innate sense of beauty -- of what appeals, and what does not. The operative factors were determined to be the proportions and positional relationships between of the visual elements of the images. In faces, the size and relative positions of the eyes, nose, mouth, cheekbones, chin, ears, etc.
 
(So yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as beauty.)
 
But that nasty ol' sexual chemistry is primarily mediated by our sense of smell, by scent. Sorry. Heh.
 
Be well,
 
Kirata
 

 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/1/2007 2:00:12 PM >

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 4:28:33 PM   
patina


Posts: 493
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: no
Status: offline 		Greetings to all

There are also different levels or kinds of intelligence.  Intellectulal, emotional, common sense, some people are genusis in one area but completely stupid in others,  genuis in math--stupid in history, genuis in science stupid in grammer. 

How many of us know someone we call so smart they are stupid.  Or know of a couple where one is very smart and the other is just an average thinker.  Was it the Germans or Russians who were trying to breed the smart race.  They selected people and said who would actually breed with whom in order to produce a smarter group of people.  Of course their experiment failed over time.  They could not control intelligence by way of sexual reproduction.   

peace be to all

patina

_____________________________

a diamond in the rough

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/1/2007 5:44:20 PM   
aeaa


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/8/2007
Status: offline 		Greetings Masters & Mistresses,
Greetings girls,
 
aea thanks those who have taken the time to respond.
 
she senses that some might have found the topic inappropriate or just annoying. she apologizes.  Sometimes when aea reads something that might inspire her to dig deeper because it makes so much sense or so little sense, she thinks others might also have an interest.  Discussion can be a fun thing.  Too many times she seems to see the same old topics addressed and she had hoped  to add a little something different.  Perhaps it wasn't so different or interesting after all.
 
she wishes you well.
 
aea

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 12:56:34 AM   
Totalmaster4you


Posts: 1359
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline 		Tal aeaa Greetings to the free and owned,
If it was only about beauty Mick Jagger would never get a date. No less married to a supermodel. My understanding is that women seek the best provider for them to have a family with. This is an unconscious instinct. If we only going to have beautiful people procreate whose idea of beauty do we use. The rennaissance ideal was BBW. Just 10 years ago we complained that supermodels were too thin and nowadays supermodels are thin and plus sized. The bottom line is there will never be consensus and even if there were it would probably change within a decade.

_____________________________

Sometime ago I decided it was time to change my nic. However I didn't wish to disconnect from my original profile. Since then I've signed Touch your mind (TYM or Tym). Opinions in my posts should be taken as my opinion and my opinion only.

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 1:18:16 AM   
MyMasterStephen


Posts: 166
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aeaa

"Why Doesn't Evolution Get Rid of Ugly People?"
 
 




It is the ugly people who stand up for themselves, who go out there and fight for their right to survive, while all the pretty ones do nothing for fear of ruining their good looks.

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 1:59:55 AM   
Caius


Posts: 157
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline 		I don't even know where to start with the misconceptions and leaps this article is laden with.  This type of thing is a strong argument for never reading any article on evolution outside a peer-reviewed journal.   Lordandmaster is quite right when he points out that this has more to do with sexual selection than natural selection -- and indeed he gets kudos from me for being one of the few people I've encountered who is (presumably) outside of the domains of evolutionary biology and congitive science who actually understands the distinction between the two.   Darwin himself devoted much of his work after  the initial firestorm surrounding his theory of natural selection to sexual sleection -- in fact, his two-volume "The Descent of Man and Selecton in Relation to Sex" came to over twice the length of the infamous "The Origin of Species" and weighs in at over 800 pages in most publications -- so concerned was he that his work on natural selection would be hijacked by those who would use it to suggest that various human beings representing different phenotypes may be genetically superior to others.    Sexual selection explains the existence of the races and our largely arbitrary standards for beauty without the need for natural selection.  

aeaa, if you truely want to understand these issues, I highly recommend both of the above-mentioned works; despite being quite genius they are nonetheless very accesible even to those with limited experience in evolutionary theory and despite being antiquated, they remain central works in the discipline today.  Great primers all the way around.   Jared Diamond's mroe recent work, "The Third Chimpanzee" also touches upon this subject, if I recall correctly, and his works are fairly well geared to a broad audience. And consequently, I think you have nothign to apologize for.  This is an interesting topic that people should have a broader exposure to.  Teh article that stimulated your interest is simply highly flawed.

Kirata, you are part right and part wrong.  In fact, aesthetic appreciation for differences in phenotypes is one of the few thigns that is not innate to infants in how they react to others.   They show no preference for various phenotypes or diferences in features.  What they do react strongly (and quite obviously innately) to, are the way emotions play upon these features.    However, as they age they will begin to attach weight and a sense of appeal or disliking for various features, largely based on those minut details you mentioned -- the size and relative positions of various facial features.   Specifically,  they will have a prediliction upon sexual maturity to seek out mates who had those features that they were most exposed to growing-up -- typically those of siblings.   This is why research has shown that married couples quite commonly posseses very close (but often consciously unnoticed) similarities in size of earlobes, size of nostrils, and all kinds of other small details of this sort.   Yes, that's right, most of you are looking for your sister/brother. ;)

Of course, it's important to remember that people choose their partners upon many different criteria, so even if beauty were closer linked to natural selection (which makes little sense in the evolutionary context that homo sapiens sapien spent the majority of it's first one-hundred thousand plus years in), we could still expect it to play a rather limited role in who succeeded in propogating -- the "ugly" or the "beautiful" -- regardless of whose arbitrary standards you use.


< Message edited by Caius -- 7/2/2007 2:36:45 AM >

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 4:58:38 AM   
aeaa


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/8/2007
Status: offline 		Greetings Master Caius,
 
aea wants to thank you very much for your response, Master.  Clearly you do have a much deeper and broader understanding of this topic or perhaps topics from the article than aea has even dreamed of having.  she has made note of the suggested books, Master, and looks forward to learning more in this area.  she does find it fascinating.  
 
While aea knew that the article seemed "wrong" to her, she was clearly not informed enough to understand why. she desired to and still does. Web search did not give her the tools that you have.  Now, she can begin digging deeper.

It is with genuine appreciation that aea receives your reply, Master. 
 
Thank you.
 
aea wishes you well.

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 6:30:47 AM   
Caius


Posts: 157
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline 		Glad to have been of help to you int he matter.

There's a reason you won't easily find a deeper appreciation of these fields in regular commercial media, including most online newspapers/magazines and why, correspondingly, conventional searches can be a tiring way to find relevant resources.   This subject matter -- evolution in general, that is -- continues to face entrenched resistance from many directions, though the vast majority of the basic principles have been considered scientifically sound since well before public debate was sparked.   And that kind of reporting represents the corresponding priority which major media usually assigns to this subject matter.  And in fact it may not be so much the reporter as the material they are given, as many scientists of questionable impartiality are frequently beneficiaries of these firms, as any serious climatologist will tell you.   Well, these are extreme examples, but there are precedents, many in fact. 

But none of this is to say that there aren't resources online for this sort of thing.  In fact, there are some significant resources out there, including no shortage of scientific archives, and some truely enormous open-domain library projects in the works at present.  Even something as simple as wikipedia which, I will admit, has suprised me in what a robust resource it has become.  I've seen the basic principles and frameworks of several different domains of study fairly well laid out there.  You always have to approach each article with a bit of sketpicism at first, but with experience you can determine the empiricist from the blow-hard.    Good luck, and if, when you've finished those books or whatever you use for your springboard, you want some advice as to some particulars,  feel free to message me and I'll give you what advice I can for whatever various disciplines and issues you find intriguing.

Now, could someone tell me, why can't I re-edit my post anymore? Is there a set amount of times you can use this function per post ina given period? I really have to start editing these thigns before-hand.




< Message edited by Caius -- 7/2/2007 6:43:13 AM >

(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 4:11:35 PM   
aeaa


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/8/2007
Status: offline 		Greetings Master Caius,
 
Thank you again, Master.  aea is looking forward to this new venture of learning with particular interest.  While she has other questions that may or may not apply, she thinks that she'll wait before asking them. They may turn out to be irrelevent once she develops a better understanding of the topic at hand!
 
aea wishes you well, Master!

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 7:14:17 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 7242
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius

In fact, aesthetic appreciation for differences in phenotypes is one of the few thigns that is not innate to infants in how they react to others. They show no preference for various phenotypes or diferences in features.... However, as they age they will begin to attach weight and a sense of appeal or disliking for various features, largely based on those minut details you mentioned -- the size and relative positions of various facial features. 
 
 
The following is excerpted from Science and Consciousness Review, September 7, 2005.

Babies come into the world with a genetic predisposition to favouring pretty faces rather than ugly ones, according to a new study. The five-year programme at Exeter University was the first to examine newborn infants’ reactions to a series of 30 photographs of female faces.
 
Dr Alan Slater, a psychology lecturer in child infancy who led the research, said he was surprised by the findings. "To my complete surprise there was a strong effect of attractive and unattractive photos on infants," he said. "I didn’t for one moment believe we’d get these kinds of results from newborns. I was convinced it was a learned process. Our research shows that perception of beauty is something genetic rather than socially constructed."
 
They studied nearly 100 babies up to the age of three days and found a significant difference in the time babies looked at attractive and unattractive photographs. Slater’s team also swapped the internal features -- eyes, nose and mouth -- of the attractive face with those of the unattractive face. "The babies were more responsive to the internal features," said Slater. "This means these features are what the infants used to determine the attractiveness of the face."

Have a nice day.

K.
 


< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/2/2007 8:07:21 PM >

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 10:51:08 PM   
Caius


Posts: 157
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline 		Thank you for refernce, Kitara.  I was able to track down the article in question.  It seems an interesting study, but there are a few things to be kept in mind. One, Science and Consciousness Review is not a peer-reviewed resource, its an online community for open discussion on these topics (think slashdot for cognitiion) and, correspondingly there's really very little of substance in the article itself.  Actually, I've  heard about this research before.  In fact, it's not a new preimse by any means, the procedure, or many very similar to it, have been conducted many times.  Because of the nearly coutnless issues that can become conflated, some of it is invalidated, and much of the rest of it is still suspect.

Actually though, I'd be suprised if this is  a case of research errors. Rather I think we're simply seeing the statements he's trying to make getting muddled in the delivery and the recommunication.   Similar studies in the past have shown that its not so much a matter of "beauty" as homogeonization.  That is, average looks.  Putting infants aside for a second, it has been clearly demonstrated that adults are more likely to rate one-another as attractive when the person being observed has features of average size and placement.  Actually the same has already been established to a lesser extent with infants as well.  So what the infants (newborns, apaprently, in this case) are responding to is a very slight preference for features not to be too far out of wack with what they (yes, innately) expect from a human face.    But it does not mean the baby ascribes a natural sense of aesthetic beauty to these features, it simply means he or she prefer to exercise their newfound and developing visual  recognition skills on a "soft" target.   These babies will still be subject to the rules of conditioning for the concept of beauty previously mentioend in thi thread, as they age.  This research, if it is sound, and I intend to take a closer look at it now, is probably further evidence of innateness is visual cognition in general, but does not indicate innate standards for beauty aside from the incredibly obvious (i.e. few humans without a fetish are going to prefer greatly over- or under-sized features to average ones).   It's a fine distinction, but a relevant in the context of our discusion here.

Again, I appreciate you brining this up, as it truely is relevant and thus an error for me not to have addressed it intially.



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 11:46:48 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 7242
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius

So what the infants (newborns, apaprently, in this case) are responding to is a very slight preference for features not to be too far out of wack with what they (yes, innately) expect from a human face.
 

"To my complete surprise there was a strong effect of attractive and unattractive photos on infants," he said.
 
K.
 
 
 
.
 
 

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/2/2007 11:51:28 PM   
becca333


Posts: 1050
Joined: 4/11/2006
Status: offline 		Regular features indicate a lack of genetic abnormality.  So what seems to be defined here as 'beauty' is actually a perception of good genetics, which would be passed on to offspring.

Definitions of beauty vary from culture to culture, and over time.  Take a supermodel back a few centuries in time and she'd be seen as a freak (well, a few of them are now, too); in the past 'plump' was a huge compliment, it indicated that the girl was well fed, therefore probably healthier and able to breed well. 

Some of the features we call beauty in our culture are actually against good genetics - the anorexic look, for one.  So 'beauty' isn't always the best indicator of breeding success.

Besides, look at all the people who stare at the love of their life and say mistily, "Isn't he/she gorgeous!" and you look at someone with a face like an old boot.  Eyes of love see differently.

Some research says people find a mate who complements them.  Some research says people find mates who resemble them.  Real life says that people find someone who's available, who matches their interests, and who wants them too.

A few more things the geneticits miss:

* Beer goggles.  Anyone can find that special someone after enough alcohol is consumed.

* Desperation.  Biological clock, family pressure, whatever. 

* Magic.  Who knows why some people fall in love, they just do.  And, amazingly. sometimes it works.

* Force of habit.  Some people like being married, and make do with their partner without expecting perfection.

Every organism has a biological imperative to survive and breed.  Some do it better than others, and not always for obvious reasons.  Intelligence, rat cunning or a sweet nature often do better than just good looks.  Survival of the species also works on numbers - having enough variety so the species as a whole can cope with any changes in environment.

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/3/2007 12:01:44 AM   
stella40


Posts: 417
Joined: 1/11/2006
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		As soon as I saw it was Sharon Begley and that she had lumped together beauty, intelligence and fitness and then ugliness, stupidity and a lack of fitness I stopped reading. Complete drivel written by someone who can't write.

_____________________________

I try to take one day at a time, but several days come and attack me at once. (Jennifer Unlimited)

If you can't be a good example then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.


(in reply to aeaa)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/3/2007 12:02:34 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10836
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		It stands to reason.  Think about it.  You've inherited your genes from your mother and your father.  That means you're likely to have inherited your mother's predilection for men who look like your father, or, if you're male, your father's predilection for women who look like your mother.  And that means you're likely to be attracted to someone who looks like your mother or father--but don't forget that YOU look like your mother and father too, because you've inherited their genes!  After generations and generations of this process, the effects are sure to be substantial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: becca333

Some research says people find mates who resemble them.

(in reply to becca333)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/3/2007 12:23:13 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 7242
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline 		Hello becca,
 
Beauty and sexual attraction (mate choice) work on different pathways. But it bears note that history has never accused Rubens of painting the world's most beautiful women. The bust of Nefertiti, on the other hand, is almost universally recognized as beautiful.
 
Let's remember that newborns do not have the mental capacity to be about ascribing "a natural sense of aesthetic beauty" to anything (Caius) or to perceiving "good genetics". They just look and smile, or frown and turn away. Empathy allows us to recognize pleasure and interest, and dislike and distancing, but everything else is interpretation. In this case, the evidence for calling it "beauty" comes from the fact that adults tend to agree. And analyses of the geometry of the "attractive" human face have yeilded results that are already being applied in the field of plastic surgery.
 
Beauty will never explain mate choice. But I don't think that's because beauty is simply a matter of the style of the time or emotion-colored perceptions. Just because mom married dad doesn't mean she'd rate him as drop dead gorgeous, even if he is to her.

Be well,
 
Kirata

 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/3/2007 1:01:06 AM >

(in reply to becca333)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? - 7/3/2007 1:01:58 AM   
becca333


Posts: 1050
Joined: 4/11/2006
Status: offline 		Yes, the whole article implies that beauty is the most desirable characteristic for finding a mate, and that's obviously just not so if you look at couples around you.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> Why hasn't nature eliminated ugly people? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2012
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

3.719