xdamage
11-09-2009, 07:39 PM
And, w/r/t your comment about cosmetic surgery:
Using the term "flaw" w/r/t cosmetic surgery kind of bums me out (but I know I'm fighting a loosing battle).
Cosmetic surgery doesn't correct flaws- it changes a certain aspect that someone was uncomfortable with. I don't consider a hooked nose, small boobs, a buddah belly to be "flaws" per say. Granted, they don't fall in the lines of ideal beauty, but they aren't flaws. And no, I'm not a plastic-surgery-hater.
I understand the popular think of today and I am fine with plastic surgery, but let's take our 21st century mind and put it aside.
Imagine you lived in 1700, or a 3rd world village, and say you saw someone with a crooked nose, crooked teeth, while you yourself had perfect teeth, skin, hair, symmetry, and because of all of that, had a vast choice of partners...
BTW it turns out when you actually do studies we find that across all societies there are factors that people consider attractive vs unattractive. It is not just some social construct. Matters like symmetry, proportion, clear eyes, clear skin, shiny hair, lack of physical deformity, normal stature (for your respective group), etc., do matter a lot. They are probably indicators of healthy genes and good survivability that our brains are adept at noting quickly.
But anyway so ... In a pre-modern society it would be left up to everyone else to decide who wants to mate with the person with crooked teeth, nose, etc. They would decide whether or not it pleased them and act on it, regardless of any euphemistic thinking we have. And that would be life. And if that ended up lowering their odds of breeding, and passing on those traits, then evolution would have done what it does. Weeded out traits that others decide are undesirable, using whatever criteria they want.
And if we saw animals rejecting each other over visible matters, we'd simply chalk it up to Okay, that is their nature!
Plastic surgery alters that. I am not really opposed, but my point was subtle... which is that the social training we apply to people, like plastic surgery, does not alter their fundamental nature. That negative traits are still being passed on and that might have deeper negative implications then we realize yet, but will in time.
Actually my point was far more subtle then that and controversial, which is that women have been helping to shape male behavior all along, at least as much as males have been shaping male behavior, by who they choose to mate with. That immediately raises a lot of OMFGs in a society that has been teaching that men are all bad, women all good, though it puts women back on equal terms with males in terms of shaping societies, but it also means they are equally responsible for the proliferation of violence (or nearly so sans rapes and forced sex) which is never going to be a popular view is it?
Even if it was true, why would anyone accept that if we have children with a person who shows violent traits from youth, chances are they will pass that on even if we socially mask it later in life (i.e., if someone has a heart defect, or crooked teeth, etc., those traits will be often be passed on even if we mask them in life). Like plastic surgery, we will have sex with whoever seems okay to us in appearance and behavior in the moment. That they are actually not so attractive or not so nice... well, that is a matter for our offspring and their generation.
But that controversial view would mean some fairly dramatic and difficult implications that our society is not yet ready to consider, even if true.
Furthermore, w/r/t breeding & plastic surgery, it's a slippery slope from there to eugenics. From there, complaints could be raised about diabetics being allowed to breed (because they have to take meds which mask their true self), etc.
Agreed, but my point was subtle and admittedly hopeless.
So, in studies boys (aged 8-12) do better at spatial rotation tasks than do girls. It's a task where they are shown a multi block formation and asked what it would look like if it rotated one way or the other in space (think Tetris in 3D). Small differences, but boys generally score better than girls.
This leads some sociologists/evolutionary psychologists to believe that differences in ability are due more to differences in socialization than due to faint evolutionary traces of the hunters vs. gatherers theory. (e.g. Girls are given dolls, boys are given blocks)
Could be. That is why we need the studies. But also we need the whole truth. Partial truths are misleading. Like if it turns out males generalize that better in brand new situations with brand new shapes, and that is a survival matter where one doesn't have 2 weeks to get caught up, that is a still may be a significant difference.
Uh, the differences in muscular composition are more due to testosterone than due to evolution.
Sounds like double talk since the differences in testosterone are due to differences in evolution.l
Using the term "flaw" w/r/t cosmetic surgery kind of bums me out (but I know I'm fighting a loosing battle).
Cosmetic surgery doesn't correct flaws- it changes a certain aspect that someone was uncomfortable with. I don't consider a hooked nose, small boobs, a buddah belly to be "flaws" per say. Granted, they don't fall in the lines of ideal beauty, but they aren't flaws. And no, I'm not a plastic-surgery-hater.
I understand the popular think of today and I am fine with plastic surgery, but let's take our 21st century mind and put it aside.
Imagine you lived in 1700, or a 3rd world village, and say you saw someone with a crooked nose, crooked teeth, while you yourself had perfect teeth, skin, hair, symmetry, and because of all of that, had a vast choice of partners...
BTW it turns out when you actually do studies we find that across all societies there are factors that people consider attractive vs unattractive. It is not just some social construct. Matters like symmetry, proportion, clear eyes, clear skin, shiny hair, lack of physical deformity, normal stature (for your respective group), etc., do matter a lot. They are probably indicators of healthy genes and good survivability that our brains are adept at noting quickly.
But anyway so ... In a pre-modern society it would be left up to everyone else to decide who wants to mate with the person with crooked teeth, nose, etc. They would decide whether or not it pleased them and act on it, regardless of any euphemistic thinking we have. And that would be life. And if that ended up lowering their odds of breeding, and passing on those traits, then evolution would have done what it does. Weeded out traits that others decide are undesirable, using whatever criteria they want.
And if we saw animals rejecting each other over visible matters, we'd simply chalk it up to Okay, that is their nature!
Plastic surgery alters that. I am not really opposed, but my point was subtle... which is that the social training we apply to people, like plastic surgery, does not alter their fundamental nature. That negative traits are still being passed on and that might have deeper negative implications then we realize yet, but will in time.
Actually my point was far more subtle then that and controversial, which is that women have been helping to shape male behavior all along, at least as much as males have been shaping male behavior, by who they choose to mate with. That immediately raises a lot of OMFGs in a society that has been teaching that men are all bad, women all good, though it puts women back on equal terms with males in terms of shaping societies, but it also means they are equally responsible for the proliferation of violence (or nearly so sans rapes and forced sex) which is never going to be a popular view is it?
Even if it was true, why would anyone accept that if we have children with a person who shows violent traits from youth, chances are they will pass that on even if we socially mask it later in life (i.e., if someone has a heart defect, or crooked teeth, etc., those traits will be often be passed on even if we mask them in life). Like plastic surgery, we will have sex with whoever seems okay to us in appearance and behavior in the moment. That they are actually not so attractive or not so nice... well, that is a matter for our offspring and their generation.
But that controversial view would mean some fairly dramatic and difficult implications that our society is not yet ready to consider, even if true.
Furthermore, w/r/t breeding & plastic surgery, it's a slippery slope from there to eugenics. From there, complaints could be raised about diabetics being allowed to breed (because they have to take meds which mask their true self), etc.
Agreed, but my point was subtle and admittedly hopeless.
So, in studies boys (aged 8-12) do better at spatial rotation tasks than do girls. It's a task where they are shown a multi block formation and asked what it would look like if it rotated one way or the other in space (think Tetris in 3D). Small differences, but boys generally score better than girls.
This leads some sociologists/evolutionary psychologists to believe that differences in ability are due more to differences in socialization than due to faint evolutionary traces of the hunters vs. gatherers theory. (e.g. Girls are given dolls, boys are given blocks)
Could be. That is why we need the studies. But also we need the whole truth. Partial truths are misleading. Like if it turns out males generalize that better in brand new situations with brand new shapes, and that is a survival matter where one doesn't have 2 weeks to get caught up, that is a still may be a significant difference.
Uh, the differences in muscular composition are more due to testosterone than due to evolution.
Sounds like double talk since the differences in testosterone are due to differences in evolution.l