4 ms·

>But I think that aesthetic beauty is multi-dimensional and temporal. A fine wine or a brandy; a sublime cheese and not a fresh glass of milk. There is a very s

>But I think that aesthetic beauty is multi-dimensional and temporal. A fine wine or a brandy; a sublime cheese and not a fresh glass of milk. There is a very specific kind of electric, youthful beauty which is ephemeral and fleeting. But there are other kinds of beauty which can be subdued and hard to miss, which can appreciate over time. I don't even mean that in a subjective "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but rather, that beauty objectively can come in more than one form. I think the opposite. I think the higher level ideal is the illusion. What our base instincts tell us is beauty is the actuality and it's embedded in our biology. For much of humanity woman have always been valued for their youthful beauty. Pregnancy is costly health-wise and men value youth and beauty because natural beauty conveys better physical genes and youthfulness conveys higher success to conceive a child. Women are objectified for their beauty by men beauty for real biological reasons. And as a result women who obsess over their own physical beauty also end up being more successful in the mating game. Most of this behavior is the result of evolutionary psychology. This definition of beauty is cold, but it is reality and it is delusional to call it a "misunderstanding" of beauty. The author writes this article and is drawing upon millions of years of evolutionary instinct and behavior. >I wish society would accept and circulate this truth rather than the other simpler, convenient, and yet so very wrong lie reflected by this article. Society doesn't need to circulate anything. Any person with a brain recognizes physical beauty and they know the meaning of the quote "Don't judge a book by it's cover". What's going on is just people are continuously lying to themselves when convenient. You're saying it here as if someone let's me know of the "truth" and suddenly my instinctual definition of beauty will completely do a 180 and change? No. Unfortunately the cold hard truth is this: You have minimal choice in what you find beautiful. Culture and biological instincts shape your preferences far more than individual choice and you have little control over it. It's like choosing to find the female form beautiful or the male form beautiful. If I had that choice I can be gay at will. It's convenient to define beauty on your terms when you encounter a woman lamenting the fact she's not beautiful, but your definition of beauty completely flips when talking about sending homosexual people to training camps to train them to be straight... yeah as if they or anyone has a choice. Like I said, your definition is a lie we tell ourselves unconsciously when the situation is convenient. Sorry to be a downer. But hacker news is a level up above other sites. I think we can handle the truth. In fact I think we prefer it. I prefer to talk about the actual science behind why she feels the way she does and how evolution and biology has shaped this behavior. Keep in mind it's not one sided. Women objectify men as objects of success and this no doubt shapes mens behavior as much as mens preferences shape women. I have more interest in the interplay of behaviors between men and women then I do idealistic re-definitions of beauty. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but that eye is built by DNA by which ALL humans share 99.9%.

yowlingcat 3y ago
I appreciate your simplistic argument and find it almost noble in its naiveté. Somewhat ironically, I don't think you take your biological essentialism far enough. Why do feminine beauty ideals contrast across not just cultures but socioeconomic class? Thinking just about feminine beauty, can you create a uniform rule about why certain strata and societies have historically prefer a more androgynous look and others prefer the more "bombshell" look? Why does what vary over time and wax and wane as certain looks go in and out of fashion? Could you create such a rule which is consistent over time? Do you think those rules would have been consistent by era, or would they have varied in times of famine versus times of surplus, and could you create anything consistent across civilization? How about by geographic areas which shaped the city states which served as centers of power in those civilizations, IE how feminine beauty may exist on the steppe vs on the coast, or in the mountains? Why don't we take it one step further and ask about such a rule in primate sociology that varies in, say, one great ape spicies versus another? How about archaic hominid differentiation between H. Neanderthalensis vs H. Florensiensis vs H. Naledi vs H. Sapiens? > Unfortunately the cold hard truth is Speaking about cold hard truth is challenging when working from a basis of archaeogenetic ignorance. You risk overestimating how universal your priors are.
- formulathree 3y ago
  >Why do feminine beauty ideals contrast across not just cultures but socioeconomic class? Thinking just about feminine beauty, can you create a uniform rule about why certain strata and societies have historically prefer a more androgynous look and others prefer the more "bombshell" look? Why does what vary over time and wax and wane as certain looks go in and out of fashion? Socioeconomic class is basically another culture in terms of influence. These two terms can be used interchangeably as they both have the same effect on the perception of beauty. Your question is something I can answer. It differs across cultures because the minds interpretation of beauty involves external experiences. That is why. As for your comment about universal rules. Well that's also easy. Universal rules involve symmetry and youth. Possibly more, but those are some of the biggest rules of beauty extend past "culture" so we know it's part of biology. >Could you create such a rule which is consistent over time? The answer is no. None of these rules are created by anyone or anything. >Do you think those rules would have been consistent by era, or would they have varied in times of famine versus times of surplus, and could you create anything consistent across civilization? How about by geographic areas which shaped the city states which served as centers of power in those civilizations, IE how feminine beauty may exist on the steppe vs on the coast, or in the mountains? These rules vary by culture, culture varies by environmental circumstance and genetics. You're getting into a redundancy here. I think you misinterpreted my post. I DID not say that culture does not influence beauty. Quite the opposite. I said Culture DOES influence someones perception of beauty. Read my post, it is there. However and this is a big "However" you do not have a choice in the matter. You do not choose your culture and you do not choose the ideals that are imprinted onto your brain by that culture. Once imprinted on your brain you cannot change it. If the culture values skinny bombshell models then that ideal will be seared into your brain. There are variations and anomalies but overall it is generally consistent. It's the same way that a baby bird imprints on the first thing it sees as it's mother. It does not have a choice. Your brain is evolved to assimilate itself into it's environment and culture without conscious choice from you. That being said outside of this as I previously mentioned there are beauty standards that are universal that are not created by culture, two examples already mentioned are symmetry and youth (for women). We know this because surveys show that these ideals do not shift when observing different cultures. Additionally, quite obviously: men are generally attracted to women and women are generally attracted to men, there is some genetic influence making this opposite sex attraction preference generally consistent across all cultures. Do not discount these universal rules. They are powerful biological instincts and overall... When in conflict they usually override cultural imprints of beauty. >Speaking about cold hard truth is challenging when working from a basis of archaeogenetic ignorance. You risk overestimating how universal your priors are. Except this statement doesn't make sense. If everything I say is logically correct and everything you say has issues with correctness, then who's the ignorant one?

yowlingcat 3y ago

I appreciate your simplistic argument and find it almost noble in its naiveté. Somewhat ironically, I don't think you take your biological essentialism far enough. Why do feminine beauty ideals contrast across not just cultures but socioeconomic class? Thinking just about feminine beauty, can you create a uniform rule about why certain strata and societies have historically prefer a more androgynous look and others prefer the more "bombshell" look? Why does what vary over time and wax and wane as certain looks go in and out of fashion? Could you create such a rule which is consistent over time? Do you think those rules would have been consistent by era, or would they have varied in times of famine versus times of surplus, and could you create anything consistent across civilization? How about by geographic areas which shaped the city states which served as centers of power in those civilizations, IE how feminine beauty may exist on the steppe vs on the coast, or in the mountains? Why don't we take it one step further and ask about such a rule in primate sociology that varies in, say, one great ape spicies versus another? How about archaic hominid differentiation between H. Neanderthalensis vs H. Florensiensis vs H. Naledi vs H. Sapiens? > Unfortunately the cold hard truth is Speaking about cold hard truth is challenging when working from a basis of archaeogenetic ignorance. You risk overestimating how universal your priors are.

formulathree 3y ago
>Why do feminine beauty ideals contrast across not just cultures but socioeconomic class? Thinking just about feminine beauty, can you create a uniform rule about why certain strata and societies have historically prefer a more androgynous look and others prefer the more "bombshell" look? Why does what vary over time and wax and wane as certain looks go in and out of fashion? Socioeconomic class is basically another culture in terms of influence. These two terms can be used interchangeably as they both have the same effect on the perception of beauty. Your question is something I can answer. It differs across cultures because the minds interpretation of beauty involves external experiences. That is why. As for your comment about universal rules. Well that's also easy. Universal rules involve symmetry and youth. Possibly more, but those are some of the biggest rules of beauty extend past "culture" so we know it's part of biology. >Could you create such a rule which is consistent over time? The answer is no. None of these rules are created by anyone or anything. >Do you think those rules would have been consistent by era, or would they have varied in times of famine versus times of surplus, and could you create anything consistent across civilization? How about by geographic areas which shaped the city states which served as centers of power in those civilizations, IE how feminine beauty may exist on the steppe vs on the coast, or in the mountains? These rules vary by culture, culture varies by environmental circumstance and genetics. You're getting into a redundancy here. I think you misinterpreted my post. I DID not say that culture does not influence beauty. Quite the opposite. I said Culture DOES influence someones perception of beauty. Read my post, it is there. However and this is a big "However" you do not have a choice in the matter. You do not choose your culture and you do not choose the ideals that are imprinted onto your brain by that culture. Once imprinted on your brain you cannot change it. If the culture values skinny bombshell models then that ideal will be seared into your brain. There are variations and anomalies but overall it is generally consistent. It's the same way that a baby bird imprints on the first thing it sees as it's mother. It does not have a choice. Your brain is evolved to assimilate itself into it's environment and culture without conscious choice from you. That being said outside of this as I previously mentioned there are beauty standards that are universal that are not created by culture, two examples already mentioned are symmetry and youth (for women). We know this because surveys show that these ideals do not shift when observing different cultures. Additionally, quite obviously: men are generally attracted to women and women are generally attracted to men, there is some genetic influence making this opposite sex attraction preference generally consistent across all cultures. Do not discount these universal rules. They are powerful biological instincts and overall... When in conflict they usually override cultural imprints of beauty. >Speaking about cold hard truth is challenging when working from a basis of archaeogenetic ignorance. You risk overestimating how universal your priors are. Except this statement doesn't make sense. If everything I say is logically correct and everything you say has issues with correctness, then who's the ignorant one?