> If we take this at face value, then the beauty of a face is not the same as the beauty of a painting. Beauty is plural, diverse, embedded in the particulars o

> If we take this at face value, then the beauty of a face is not the same as the beauty of a painting. Beauty is plural, diverse, embedded in the particulars of its medium. My problem with such neurological research, and much other research, is that the implications typically derive that an average positive effect among the sample size constitutes a universal positive effect. This is specially dubious in cases such as this where an individual negative effect is impossible to offset it, as there is a zero point. There is no such thing as a negative effect here, the zero point is that the beauty of a face is the same. Thus, assume, for sake of argument, that for 50% of persons, the beauty of the face be the same as that of a painting, and that for 50% it not be. This will measure an average positive effect, and from that there are often made conclusions that there is a universal positive effect. In fact, such average positive effects will be measured with a sufficiently large sample size if the positive effect only exist in 1% of the same size, as again, there is no negative effect possible. The historical common assumption was that human neurology can be assumed to be quite consistent, but I am not so sure in the light that it is often found that neurological research is often no longer reproducible if it even be moved to a different city. This issue is especially something that is near and dear to me, because I've noticed that some of the people I know seem to indeed draw a distinction between humanoid beauty, and beauty of nonhumanoids, and some I know don't. I also see in such people that they seem to be far more interested in a man's clothing and hair than his face, to decide whether they find him beautiful.