Shocking :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics
I didn't know that ?!
Printable View
Shocking :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics
I didn't know that ?!
The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.
...
The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.
"Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness," Todd said, "because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them"
Come on, it was interesting and makes perfect sense.
I had specific things I wanted in my partner and I was not happy until I found it but I did sacrifice a few things along the way. My man makes me happy and that is all that matters.
This 'scientific' test was kind of silly. How the tard do you measure someone's attractiveness? Is there a scale? Is there a weight? Who made the '10' list? One person's perfect is another person's repulsion, so how did they even set this standard?
Actually there are quite a lot of studies done on this. There is a lot of evidence now that people are genetically wired, in general*, to see certain traits as attractive or not attractive. They include proportions (this is more important the weight, you can weigh more or less as long as the proportions are maintained); symmetry; evidence of good health including things like clear eyes, shiny hair, clear skin; certain facial shapes; etc. Basically these are all genetic indicators of good partners for having children.
* There are always exceptions in large populations, but the general trends are consistent across all cultures tested from everything I've read.
I should note too, that with regards to weight, it seems to be that in cultures where food is scarce, heavier weights are more often seen as attractive, and in cultures where food is plentiful, lighter body weights are more often seen as attractive. But as I said, regardless of weight, when people are asked to rate attractiveness, they tend to pick the same proportions.
Some things like tans versus fair skin seem to be cultural and don't seem to matter much either way, although clear skin free of blemishes is seen as attractive tanned or not, while blemished skin tanned or not is generally rated as unattractive.
Somethings like jewelry, clothing, and body adornments seem to be cultural, what is fashionable in the moment. But you can still rate other factors about a person's physical appearance and find common likes/dislikes within a culture independent of the body adornments and fashion.
This isn't absolute, but I'm convinced that attractiveness is a measurable trait, and very much driven by what our multi-million year old genes have learned offer the best odds of having healthy children.
Sure, but as I said, it's a big world, so big there are bound to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean that there aren't far more common general trends either, or that the exceptions are proof that there is no underlying commonness. It just means that given a large enough set, and enough time, exceptions emerge sometimes.