Correlated. 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 a

Correlated. 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.