ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Heres my attept of a scientific explaination of this subject. Beauty is simply the most intricantly symetirical design we can achieve, this is why things like cathederals are concidered beautiful. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Beauty is simply the most intricantly symetirical design what is "intricantly"? I have no ref to this or similar? that aside, I also find beauty in Symetry, and simplicity working on a twist for a few mins, did you mean Intrinsic or intricate (I`m no spelling expert myself!, but reading in context with letters you used those are the only two I can come up with?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 intrinsic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 i think that beauty is a measure of how much someone likes something... "someone" ie. it can vary from person to person. whilsts some find beauty in old temples, others find it in modern buildings, some find it in shining green lasers at any building which is a long way away! they can all be beautiful to see, but the most beautifyl would vary with each person as (in my opinion) beauty is a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badchad Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I saw a documentary on discovery or something that surveyed people's ideals of "beauty". They simply showed volunteers a bunch of mugshots (for lack of a better word) and asked them to rate the person in the photos attractiveness. The basic finding was that the more symmetrical a person's face was, the more "beautiful" they were perceived. After that initial study the guy went a bit further and actually refined the technique. He then added things like distance between eyebrows, which points on the face were more pronounced in beautiful people, angles of the mouth, nose etc. etc. In the end he came up with a "model" face. It would seem that "beauty" can be generalized, however I still abide by the old adage: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I also saw that, and unfortunately this leads to pre conceptions in jurys as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulderMan Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 i think its more to do with our own interpripation of beauty. i find for more people it is subconsious though, they like a face, but cant pick out features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake712 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 While symmetry is involved greatly in sexual selection and concepts of beauty, I am definitly for the idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I too saw a documentary on beauty and learned about an experiment dealing with birds; where the birds wore contrasting color bracelets on their legs. Some would have: yellow then green on both legs and others would have: yellow then green on one leg and green then yellow on the other. The ones that had the same order turned out to mate more, and produce more offspring because they were symmetrical. We all programed to be attracted to symmetry because it is a sign of health and good genes. However, all of this is entirely subconsious. The consious part, I believe allows for the variations in taste/style. However, defining beauty in its entirety is moving into more of a philosophical argument which one could argue for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 What do guys mean by "symmetrical", here? do you mean that some one has a face with no symetry? One eye is bigger than the other?... Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 the moe symetrical the mroe attractive (or so says the theory). (I have no girl friend as one ear sticks out more than the other, well thats what i belive anywat.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake712 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yes Albert. Some people do have one eye slightly bigger than the other, or one foot longer, or a ear that is alittle higher than the other. However, the difference is so small you can't notice unless you look very hard. However, our brains take in EVERYTHING we see. That's how people get away with subliminal messaging. You may not notice the message consiously, but you do notice it subconciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Love looks not with eyes but with the mind Any way, I think the theory of more symitrical the more attractive is wrong, but I might be comvinced that the more symitrical the more beautiful!! Symetry is indeed beatiful, in terms of art and mathematics... Many renaisance artists use techniques like symetry of composition, proportion, etc to form some masterpieces... I think the term "beauty" here means more "precise" to reality? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 And I dont think a person with the most symetrical, but alien face would be attractive to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 And I dont think a person with the most symetrical, but alien face would be attractive to me... You May THINK that but subconciously it is the oposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake712 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Sorry, what i was trying to say was that symmetry seems to influence not determine, to an extent, among humans and animals, sexual selection. Perhaps, more among animals than humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 well as far as I understand it that is the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I maybe over stating though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 You May THINK that but subconciously it is the oposite so............. Does that imply the more symetrical has a less alien-like face? I was thinking that our brain can be used as acurate detector on the symetrical shapes of human body, because I was using mathematics to measure what parts of the face of my ugliest female mate that are'nt symetrical, and fail to do so, but still, looks ugly to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 No face is symmetrical. If you look at a photo of a face that has been made to be symmetrical (e.g. a composite of one side and its mirror), you will find it quite unattractive. As it happens, people tend to find the 'average' more attractive. Research done in the area (forgive me, I do not have the reference), made composite faces by morphing together many other faces. The greater the number of faces used to create the composite (i.e. the closer to the population mean the image became), the higher became its attractiveness rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 For curiosity, what does that image look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galaxygirl Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I don't know if this is the experiment you're talking about Glider, but there was a similar one done at Scotland's University of St Andrews that you can read more about (and even participate in) here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 It's not the particular study I was thinking of, but it's certainly a part of the same field of research, ta for finding it (I didn't have the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Beauty is also part Conditioning too. I`ve seen certain tribes with stretched necks, all body tattoos, lips that are cut and strtched you could use as a skipping rope etc... ALL are considered "beautifull" amongst themselves, I personaly find some of it repulsive. just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badchad Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The image will depend upon how symmetrical you already are. This can easily be done in adobe photoshop. I took a fairly close up picture of my face, then split it down the middle and mirrored each side. Thus, if you look at the original image, and then the two others (the original plus the two mirrored sides) it looks like 3 separate images. It wasn't a flattering pic of me or I'd post it. However I found another example here: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/symmetrie/symmetrie.htm Cool isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Yep. It shows how exactly symmetrical faces look a little disturbing. All faces are a little asymmetrical, but the further from symmetrical they are, the less attractive they become. It has to do with perceived fitness for breeding. On a deep level, we take pronounced asymmetry as a sign of either the effects of illness, or some congenital condition which signals to us that the individual is less suitable for breeding. YT is right. A lot of it has to do with socially acquired 'norms' that we accept as 'templates' from which we judge the degree of deviation. However, there are some signs of universality. For example, long necks are considered attractive in females in western society. The Masai (or is it the Turkhana?) just took it to extremes. But examples of going to extremes exist here too. E.g. Jordan. The stretched lips and knocked out front teeth that is a tradition in areas in Africa is not actually a beauty thing. Those areas have high prevalence of Clostridium tetani bacteria (tetanus). The stretched lips and absent front teeth mean that those people can be fed if (when) they contract tetanus, significantly increasing their chances of survival as a people. It is interesting insofar as it is an adaptive behaviour that has become entwined in the social history of those people and is now considered the norm (with respect to appearance and attractiveness) among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now