Intelligence VS Beauty
- Thread starter B_DWTS00
- Start date
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
Spladle said:
Sorry, I thought you were being cheeky, but you actually meant it, oh dear... :redface:
LK
x
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
Spladle said:
lol, oh, ok...:smile:
Well right now I'd be happy to be full of anything... I can get a bit skittish when needy.... sigh.
LK
x
wellhungcamboy
Just Browsing
[FONT=comic sans ms,papyrus, arial, helvetica][FONT=comic sans ms,papyrus, arial, helvetica]Ode to a Naked Beauty
by Pablo Neruda
With chaste heart, and pure
eyes
I celebrate you, my beauty,
restraining my blood
so that the line
surges and follows
your contour,
and you bed yourself in my verse,
as in woodland, or wave-spume:
earths perfume,
seas music.
Nakedly beautiful,
whether it is your feet, arching
at a primal touch
of sound or breeze,
or your ears,
tiny spiral shells
from the splendour of Americas oceans.
Your breasts also,
of equal fullness, overflowing
with the living light
and, yes,
winged
your eyelids of silken corn
that disclose
or enclose
the deep twin landscapes of your eyes.
The line of your back
separating you
falls away into paler regions
then surges
to the smooth hemispheres
of an apple,
and goes splitting
your loveliness
into two pillars
of burnt gold, pure alabaster,
to be lost in the twin clusters of your feet,
from which, once more, lifts and takes fire
the double tree of your symmetry:
flower of fire, open circle of candles,
swollen fruit raised
over the meeting of earth and ocean.
Your body from what substances
agate, quartz, ears of wheat,
did it flow, was it gathered,
rising like bread
in the warmth,
and signalling hills
silvered,
valleys of a single petal, sweetnesses
of velvet depth,
until the pure, fine, form of woman
thickened
and rested there?
It is not so much light that falls
over the world
extended by your body
its suffocating snow,
as brightness, pouring itself out of you,
as if you were
burning inside.[/FONT][/FONT]
by Pablo Neruda
With chaste heart, and pure
eyes
I celebrate you, my beauty,
restraining my blood
so that the line
surges and follows
your contour,
and you bed yourself in my verse,
as in woodland, or wave-spume:
earths perfume,
seas music.
Nakedly beautiful,
whether it is your feet, arching
at a primal touch
of sound or breeze,
or your ears,
tiny spiral shells
from the splendour of Americas oceans.
Your breasts also,
of equal fullness, overflowing
with the living light
and, yes,
winged
your eyelids of silken corn
that disclose
or enclose
the deep twin landscapes of your eyes.
The line of your back
separating you
falls away into paler regions
then surges
to the smooth hemispheres
of an apple,
and goes splitting
your loveliness
into two pillars
of burnt gold, pure alabaster,
to be lost in the twin clusters of your feet,
from which, once more, lifts and takes fire
the double tree of your symmetry:
flower of fire, open circle of candles,
swollen fruit raised
over the meeting of earth and ocean.
Your body from what substances
agate, quartz, ears of wheat,
did it flow, was it gathered,
rising like bread
in the warmth,
and signalling hills
silvered,
valleys of a single petal, sweetnesses
of velvet depth,
until the pure, fine, form of woman
thickened
and rested there?
It is not so much light that falls
over the world
extended by your body
its suffocating snow,
as brightness, pouring itself out of you,
as if you were
burning inside.[/FONT][/FONT]
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
Ok, so I decided to put my gloves on and hopefully finish this fight quickly
EG, you say that the OED defines beauty as An outstanding or conspicuous example of that which is considered appealing, attractive and desirable This will no doubt surprise you, but I have always agreed. Beauty is something exceptional: it is something exceptionally average. I actually stated this point in the first line of my first post on this thread Beauty is a cumulative of average looks and this comment was based on the findings of Langlois & Roggman in their paper The role of averageness in defining facial beauty (2002). When mathematically combining the features of a large number of faces Langlois and Roggman observed:
these averaged faces and any individual faces that are close in configuration to the mathematical average are extreme, not average, in attractiveness
Extreme in attractiveness? I hope you will concede that this statement satisfies your definition of beauty and supports my position without contradiction. If you read my posts carefully, you will see I have never at any point said that an average face is beautiful. Anyway, to illustrate the point I have uploaded some pics to my gallery. (Perhaps Madame Zora, this definition gives you as much wonder for Mother Nature as it did for me?) Anyway, just another quote to underline the point:
.Mathematical averageness is a necessary and fundamental characteristic of perceived attractiveness in the human face and the concept of averageness has deep theoretical roots in both evolutionary and cognitive psychology.
(Rubenstein, Langlois and Roggman, 2002)
Ok, so I was going to list your arguments and give answers, but I only found two points in your postings. If you feel I have omitted anything please do say. To make actual comment, I will step aside and leave it to the words of the leading specialists in the field:
The principles of natural selection do not dictate that aesthetic beauty has any evolutionary correlation to genetic superiority according to my present knowledge (EG, 2006)
Far from merely skin deep, beauty appears to be an indicator of genetic and developmental health; and therefore, of mate quality; beauty is a health certification (Thornhill & Moller, 1997 p.528-533)
Beauty is a totally subjective opinion, influenced by culture and peer association. (EG, 2006)
We now know, through empirical research, that this maxim [Beauty is in the eye of the beholder] is false. Furthermore, the theoretical perspective described in this chapter can parsimoniously explain why beauty is not in the eye of the beholder
(Rubenstein, Langlois and Roggman, 2002)
Beauty therefore appears to be an objective and quantitative attribute of individuals like weight and height
(Kanazawa and Kovar, 2004)
In summation, you may recall my first posting on this topic said:
Don't knock beauty! It is actually a cumulative of average looks... what we see as beautiful is really just a good mix of genes, ideal for breeding. Beauty should not be dismissed lightly, because it's an evolutionary necessity!
It seems you clearly have a high regard for intelligence EG and are keen on academic debate, so I am curious as to why you have continually dismissed my argument? It has been entirely consistent throughout and a few moments of casual study online would have shown you that everything I have said in my posts from the outset was fully supported with papers from the leading academics in the field - in fact, you led me to believe you had read them. In contrast, your own argument has swayed hugely, included irrelevant data, and has not been supported by any credible academic source. And yet, despite my womanly attempts to get your attention (including some shameful provocations born from my increasing frustration) all my intellectual efforts seem to have been lightly dismissed and, in your worst moments, patronised from a position of glib ignorance
So perhaps you can say why you have not taken me seriously? I am a curious kitten
Emma
p.s. For people reading this thread who think I might be taking myself too seriously while I might be on the pretty side of average, I am certainly no model. This subject is something I have researched because I am writing an essay on how society looks at men and women.
EG, you say that the OED defines beauty as An outstanding or conspicuous example of that which is considered appealing, attractive and desirable This will no doubt surprise you, but I have always agreed. Beauty is something exceptional: it is something exceptionally average. I actually stated this point in the first line of my first post on this thread Beauty is a cumulative of average looks and this comment was based on the findings of Langlois & Roggman in their paper The role of averageness in defining facial beauty (2002). When mathematically combining the features of a large number of faces Langlois and Roggman observed:
these averaged faces and any individual faces that are close in configuration to the mathematical average are extreme, not average, in attractiveness
Extreme in attractiveness? I hope you will concede that this statement satisfies your definition of beauty and supports my position without contradiction. If you read my posts carefully, you will see I have never at any point said that an average face is beautiful. Anyway, to illustrate the point I have uploaded some pics to my gallery. (Perhaps Madame Zora, this definition gives you as much wonder for Mother Nature as it did for me?) Anyway, just another quote to underline the point:
.Mathematical averageness is a necessary and fundamental characteristic of perceived attractiveness in the human face and the concept of averageness has deep theoretical roots in both evolutionary and cognitive psychology.
(Rubenstein, Langlois and Roggman, 2002)
Ok, so I was going to list your arguments and give answers, but I only found two points in your postings. If you feel I have omitted anything please do say. To make actual comment, I will step aside and leave it to the words of the leading specialists in the field:
The principles of natural selection do not dictate that aesthetic beauty has any evolutionary correlation to genetic superiority according to my present knowledge (EG, 2006)
Far from merely skin deep, beauty appears to be an indicator of genetic and developmental health; and therefore, of mate quality; beauty is a health certification (Thornhill & Moller, 1997 p.528-533)
Beauty is a totally subjective opinion, influenced by culture and peer association. (EG, 2006)
We now know, through empirical research, that this maxim [Beauty is in the eye of the beholder] is false. Furthermore, the theoretical perspective described in this chapter can parsimoniously explain why beauty is not in the eye of the beholder
(Rubenstein, Langlois and Roggman, 2002)
Beauty therefore appears to be an objective and quantitative attribute of individuals like weight and height
(Kanazawa and Kovar, 2004)
In summation, you may recall my first posting on this topic said:
Don't knock beauty! It is actually a cumulative of average looks... what we see as beautiful is really just a good mix of genes, ideal for breeding. Beauty should not be dismissed lightly, because it's an evolutionary necessity!
It seems you clearly have a high regard for intelligence EG and are keen on academic debate, so I am curious as to why you have continually dismissed my argument? It has been entirely consistent throughout and a few moments of casual study online would have shown you that everything I have said in my posts from the outset was fully supported with papers from the leading academics in the field - in fact, you led me to believe you had read them. In contrast, your own argument has swayed hugely, included irrelevant data, and has not been supported by any credible academic source. And yet, despite my womanly attempts to get your attention (including some shameful provocations born from my increasing frustration) all my intellectual efforts seem to have been lightly dismissed and, in your worst moments, patronised from a position of glib ignorance
So perhaps you can say why you have not taken me seriously? I am a curious kitten
Emma
p.s. For people reading this thread who think I might be taking myself too seriously while I might be on the pretty side of average, I am certainly no model. This subject is something I have researched because I am writing an essay on how society looks at men and women.
Very interesting post LK!
I had seen the conclusions of two of the studies you mentioned (beauty as being "exceptionally average" and beauty as an indicator of genetic/phenotypic "value"), but your post does a good job of summarizing these studies and explaining your earlier arguments.
EDIT: the series of "composite" face pics is also very revealing. Do take a look at these pics in LK's gallery! (by the way, this confirms to me that it was the same study I remembered, they did mention the composite face stuff)
I had seen the conclusions of two of the studies you mentioned (beauty as being "exceptionally average" and beauty as an indicator of genetic/phenotypic "value"), but your post does a good job of summarizing these studies and explaining your earlier arguments.
EDIT: the series of "composite" face pics is also very revealing. Do take a look at these pics in LK's gallery! (by the way, this confirms to me that it was the same study I remembered, they did mention the composite face stuff)
beauty is not purely subjective. If it were, there would be no difference in price between an ugly and a beautiful house, in an ugly or beautiful neighborhood. The fact that beautiful things, places & people are hard to get is proof that we experience them in common, and therefore that our experiences are not purely subjective fantasies.EnglishGentleman said:
There are some places in the world that are so beautiful everyone agrees they are beautiful, like those vistas along the coast by Carmel CA. Experiencing beauty like that is not purely subjective. Some rugs, paintings, houses, objects etc are incredibly expensive precisely because large numbers of people experience their beauty, and want to experience that all the time. All experiences have a subjective component, it is true, because we are all individuals. But that does not mean that all experiences are "purely subjective" schizophrenic fantasies. People who are insane, imbeciles, or immature can't tell the difference between fantasies (which are purely subjective) and reality (which is experienced in common).
But because beauty involves a lot of complexity that is hard to articulate, people are fond of dismissing the whole thing as "subjective."
Hope this helps you sleep more soundly and perhaps more objectively tonight.
I disagree.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Just because you have a majority
of people agreeing that a particular
painting or what-have-you is beautiful
does NOT make it less subjective or more
'real'.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Just because you have a majority
of people agreeing that a particular
painting or what-have-you is beautiful
does NOT make it less subjective or more
'real'.
windtalkerways said:
WTW, keep in mind that LittleKitten and EnglishGentleman were arguing specifically over physical attractiveness, not necessarily the concept of beauty in general. My own background would make me tend to agree with your conclusions regarding beauty in art (although maybe we should run a study there - we might be surprised by what we would find), but when a study shows that people systematically prefer faces that are a composite of many faces (therefore closer to an "average" face), doesn't that show that there is an objectively quantifiable element to physical attractiveness (I defer to LittleKitten for a better explanation, since she is working on this topic right now)?
You're missing the point. Reality is what we experience in common. Fantasies are purely private. We can agree or disagree on what we experience--that alone is not enough to determine whether we are refering to something real (which can be experienced by others) or purely private (experienced only privately). But sanity requires that you be able to tell the difference.
Yes, I realize that but say for instance,
over where ever it is that the females
use those rings to stretch their necks
out like a giraffe...
To them that is beauty but many of us
would beg to differ on their perceived
version of beauty.
over where ever it is that the females
use those rings to stretch their necks
out like a giraffe...
To them that is beauty but many of us
would beg to differ on their perceived
version of beauty.
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
windtalkerways said:
I understand you completely WTW, but this thread seems to be about comparing the benefits of intelligence and/or beauty in respective mates and specifically (between EG and myself) if beauty has any purpose and value. Whether or not someone looks more or less attractive in jewellery or certain clothes is perhaps another topic? Mind you, if someone could tell me that for sure it would save a lot of time shopping! :smile:
I seem to remember reading something on your tribe in a Sunday paper magazine once. I think the neck rings were intended to exaggerate their feminine qualities (a long slender neck) and it sort of got out of hand! I cant imagine how those girls wash.
LK
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Physical beauty is still so subjective as to be at the whims of the times to be defined. Of course, everyone is familiar with the Reubenesque version of female beauty as compared to the Kate Moss version, which CERTAINLY doesn't portray good health! Yes, one can see trends in choosing "sturdier" partner while still preferring waif-like nymphs for sex.
Are there people who choose partners based largely on social expectations? Of course. Then it would be tough to sell an idea of beauty being something universal, since history already proves a long list of examples of DIFFERENT traits being considered beautiful. People still argue with me that Julia Roberts is beautiful, when I think she looks like a negative print of Condoleeza Rice, aka the Cryptkeeper.
I'm not familiar with the information you are studying, but I know enough to recognise when I reject a basic premise, and I feel that's where I am here. Still, it's always fun to get different perspectives, particularly when they're well presented, so thanks for that.
Are there people who choose partners based largely on social expectations? Of course. Then it would be tough to sell an idea of beauty being something universal, since history already proves a long list of examples of DIFFERENT traits being considered beautiful. People still argue with me that Julia Roberts is beautiful, when I think she looks like a negative print of Condoleeza Rice, aka the Cryptkeeper.
I'm not familiar with the information you are studying, but I know enough to recognise when I reject a basic premise, and I feel that's where I am here. Still, it's always fun to get different perspectives, particularly when they're well presented, so thanks for that.
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
madame_zora said:
Thanks for your perspective Madame Zora. It hasn't been my intention to tell people reading this thread what they should find beautiful. All I was trying to do was to relate a theory as to why such a thing as beauty exists at all. The evidence suggests that far from being worthless, the concept of beauty (whatever the local definition might be at any given period) has played an important role in the development of our species. :smile:
LK
LittleKitten
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Posts
- 119
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
sexycobra said:
Yes SC I personally think it does. It's interesting that Langlois and Roggman tested their hypothesis on infants so young, they had yet to be influenced by any cultural or social conventions. The results demonstrated that symmetrical averaged features were preferred. This discussion is not enitrely irrelevant to LPSG. In many ways the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is very similar to saying "Size is not important." It might be comforting, but is it true? If any scientist was brave enough to undertake an objective survey, they might find that size is important. Very beautiful people, just like very hung men, are sometimes subjected to admiration, jelaousy, ridicule (aren't beautiful people stupid?) and worse...
LK
madame_zora
Sexy Member
LittleKitten, I think I have figured out where my problem is. What you're saying is that the things we consider to qualify a face as "beautiful" is a "blended look", but that the number of persons who have that look might be fewer. is that right?
My problem was with using the word "average". I took that to mean, more people. I thought you were saying "average joe" was the standard for beauty, but I think what you're really saying that "averaging" the features is what we consider beautiful. If I have deciphered my misunderstanding accurately, then I agree with you. If I'm way off on a tangent, please reel me back in!
My problem was with using the word "average". I took that to mean, more people. I thought you were saying "average joe" was the standard for beauty, but I think what you're really saying that "averaging" the features is what we consider beautiful. If I have deciphered my misunderstanding accurately, then I agree with you. If I'm way off on a tangent, please reel me back in!
