3 ms·
"""But seriously, surely looks are a very subjective thing?""" Subjective as in: "the beauty (or lack thereof) of a person X is not a law of nature, different
by dextorious 15y ago
"""But seriously, surely looks are a very subjective thing?"""
Subjective as in: "the beauty (or lack thereof) of a person X is not a law of nature, different people can have different opinions on the matter", yes.
But subjective as in: "statistically people don't tend to agree to what's beautiful/ugly", then no.
I could be finding person X beautiful, and you could find it ugly. But showing him to, say, 100,000 people, the opinions won't be 50-50 or close (=totally subjective). People tend to agree. Only if the person is rather bland looking the statistical results will be totally random and not skewed towards ugly/beautiful.
Consider an experiment of showing a picture Anjelica Jolie to 100,000 males to mark as ugly/beautiful. I bet I can predict the results.
- Craiggybear 15y agoI don't really care what the majority think. The "majority" regard reality TV as interesting and spiders, insects and snakes ugly. Or Fox News objective and accurate. I can't share that. Personally I find Jolie too extreme to be described as beautiful. But she certainly isn't ugly either, far from it.
- dextorious 15y ago"""I don't really care what the majority think.""" Which is beside the point. The question was whether looks are subjective. Well, in the aggregate statistical sense they aint.