4 ms·
But there's fairly objective standards that are correlated with attractiveness in any study of the phenomenon, eg. facial symmetry. Physical attractiveness, of
by Tycho 16y ago
But there's fairly objective standards that are correlated with attractiveness in any study of the phenomenon, eg. facial symmetry. Physical attractiveness, of course, which presumably is what SA was talking about.
From my own observations about how people react to amateur video productions on the Internet, eg. "omg who is that lecturer she is so cute!!", I think Mr Adams is onto something.
- Helianthus16 16y agoCorrelated. Just because we can say "This person is generally more attractive because of facial symmetry, well-aligned teeth, and x,y,z" doesn't mean we have any particularly useful quotient to judge the attractiveness of a person. Such a general measure is way too broad. And you missed my point: the perception of physical attraction is not based solely on physical traits! Look at Sarah Palin--some would say she's attractive, but if you mentally recoil at the thought of a Palin presidential run I'm sure you would not think so. Your amateur video productions _prove my point_ because the attractiveness is in the ordinary, the "just a person at home making a video." It is in the fact that the person is presumably contributing something valuable. So why would people care if models were paid to say something? This is why Adams articles frustrate me: because it provokes discussion without moving anything forward, because he's used a terrible model to abstract attraction and as a consequence our definitions are semantic (read: fucked) to begin with.