do you prefer attractive people?
I’ll continue to prefer more attractive people to less attractive ones in a thousand subtle ways (Jim)
It seems to be an accepted fact in some cultures that more attractive people are more successful, even to the extent that Jim thinks he prefers them in a thousand ways.
Why is this the case? Do humans generally treat attractive people better because we want to increase our chances of having sex with them? Do beautiful people have the ‘halo effect‘ working to their advantage? Are attractive people simply aware of their supposed physical advantage and do they ride on a wave of seductive and convincing confidence as a result of it?
Another possibility is that successful people are more likely to have the time and inclination, indeed be part of a culture, that encourages obsessing about appearance, and therefore they seem to be more attractive. Money tends to bring access to a better diet and access to better self-care facilities.
If you are famous or you know someone who is famous, you’ll find many people are extra interested in being your friend. Entering and climbing through social ranks is a common human preoccupation. Some people certainly approach other people in terms of what they might bring them, and attractive people benefit from this – the assumption that they will have good connections even if they’re not sexually available.
Jim’s comment about preferring attractive people in 1000 ways gave me cause for a ponder. I know that I only prefer attractive people in one way – I enjoy looking at them. But I enjoy looking at unusual people, maybe all people, so it’s a minor advantage for particular beauty.
The problem with our hyper-consumer, heavily marketing existence in western society is that we are bombarded with images that people want to live up to. Traditional, popular stories come loaded with the idea that good people, successful people, are beautiful. Nasty step sisters and evil criminals are ugly. We present children with the idea that they should paint people good or bad based on how they look, and this is a social construction that simply has to go. We tell each other what beauty is, based on what products manufacturers are trying to shift.
We need to dump the princess and superhero stories in the bucket where they belong and let future generations of children learn to take people as they see them, so we no longer have grown adults assuming it’s perfectly natural or moral to judge people by appearances.
There is also something to be said for making oneself as attractive as possible. To demand the whole entire world change and human beings to actually alter our nature under the guise of some human idea of fairness isn’t exactly moral. Why shouldn’t people look their best, feel their best, and have others respond positively to them? (Insanitybytes)
Marketers have nothing to do with it. They are, in my view, tapping into a natural inclination. And I think there is no wrong in being attracted to the beautiful, whatever each person considers the beautiful.
In fact, you are subconsciously more likely to think an unattractive person untrustworthy. Do the experiment. Be honest with yourself how you react to those you consider attractive and those not attractive and share the results.
LikeLike
Oh, I completely disagree. We are marketed an ideal of what is attractive, often within our own culture, but increasingly internationalised in characteristics. What we are presented as being attractive builds our idea of what is attractive – be that younger or older, bigger or smaller, short hair or long hair. Now that we are aware of this evolutionary trend to favour what is considered attractive, we can eliminate some of the discrimination that comes with it by not accepting the beauty standards that are presented to us in mass media. I think this is something we can change and control to a great extent.
Maybe I don’t move in the same kind of social and work circles as the rest of the people commenting here. I take people as they come, and I can honestly say that mentally categorising friends and co-workers while thinking about this topic, I certainly don’t favour conventionally attractive people because of their looks. But I’ll continue to ponder, as you suggest …
LikeLike
You are free to disagree. Tell me if you have met anyone who thinks themselves ugly? Are you saying the idea they are attractive has been pushed on them by the awful marketers? IS that what you want to believe?
LikeLike
I’ll have to think about that marketing comment a bit more. In times past women who had a bit more meat on their bones and what would be considered by today’s standards were considered beautiful and thin women were considered poor and unattractive. Thanks to modeling runways, Victorias Secret adverts, and Sports Illustrated swimsuit spreads if we aren’t working out 20 hours a day and eating celery sticks for dinner we feel like we aren’t. We aren’t all born with great teeth, perfect skin, and long wavy hair with barrel curls and highlights in just the right places. And we don’t all gave the money nor the time to achieve all that. So I think marketing does play a part in what we consider beatiful.
LikeLike
Ruth now the only thing marketers have done is to maybe change or influence what we think is beautiful. They have not made us like beautiful things. That was always there
LikeLike
I thought that was the point Violet was making. If we are so influenced by marketing as to what we think is beauty how do we know what is truly beatiful? How do we determine that? People we once would have thought beautiful we now see as unattractive. Of course people have always been drawn to beauty. What has changed is how we define it.
LikeLike
I don’t think that was her point.
Her point, if I understood her, was to argue we should not be attracted to beauty, that is to put it simply. That there is something inherently wrong about being attracted to beauty.
Is there a way to arbitrate on what is really beautiful? How would this be done?
LikeLike
I guess I misunderstood the point, then. I don’t think we can avoid being attracted to beauty. We see it in nature and the man-made. I thought her point was that when dealing with people we should recognize our propensity and be in a better position to guard against bias and discrimination because of it. Especially in light of the fact that our definition of beauty is ever changing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, thanks Ruth, that’s pretty much my point. I should just post your summary next time, my rambles are clearly confusing!
LikeLike
is the attraction to beauty conscious? Is there a time you rationalize why you are attracted to someone at the first instance?
The definition or what we perceive as beautiful maybe flux, but we will always be attracted to that we think is attractive
LikeLike
I think that we are consciously aware of the things and people we are drawn to. If we are simply talking about first impressions, here, then I do think we are consciously aware. We aren’t talking about intimate relationships, here. Of course physical attraction is a component of that kind of relationship. We’re talking about hiring and employment practices. And I think that, yes, we can definitely be aware that we showing bias in that arena. If on paper and in interview a less physically attractive person is more qualified for a position yet is passed over in favor of someone more physically attractive that’s kind of a dead give away.
LikeLike
I am now honestly confused. Was this about employment opportunities or was it what about how we naturally react in social situations?
Employers who discriminate on appearance, and there are a number, ought to check their practice.
On a normal day I am most readily attracted to a good looking member of the species. My feelings can change if I get to know them more and find something I don’t like.
LikeLike
Hahahaha! We’ve been having two different conversations, I think.
I thought it was about how physical beauty is rewarded with better employment, financial, and social opportunities – mainly employment and financial, though. Then again, I went back to the link Violet dropped into the OP for context. So without that I can see why you are utterly confused. She does talk about success and advancement in the OP here, though, so that was my context.
Her first sentence was, “It seems to be an accepted fact in some cultures that more attractive people are more successful…” I suppose I equated success with career and employment opportunities; not necessarily with romantic success.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t read the link. Just read her post and in my view whether it is success in the workplace or out of it, those deemed attractive are at an advantage.
And I don’t object to seeking to address this bias except I don’t know exactly how this can be achieved. I am not likely to go for the mundane or ordinary when there is a more attractive option. But maybe, that’s just me
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, as I said in another comment, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Someone you might think is an attractive option might be as ugly as a mud fence to someone else. I do think there are some people who are universally accepted as beautiful.
Now I have a question: what if you are the mundane and ordinary? Do you still go for the more attractive option, which might be considered above your status, or do you “settle” for someone equally mundane or ordinary? Is original and unique what you consider beauty? Or is it what the mainstream media markets to us as beautiful? What is unique or original about that?
LikeLike
If I am the ordinary, I would go for the beautiful. If it was a relationship, I would be hoping she would, if we had children, compensate for what I lacked in the looks department.
LikeLike
Okay, I get that. But what would make her settle for the mundane? I mean, according to the theory at play here people would naturally go for beauty, and in most instances more beauty than they possess, but at least their equal.
LikeLike
Now I could guess there are evolutionary advantages or benefits she thinks she might procure through the relationship. I mean I have seen women married to men I wouldn’t consider attractive even after several drinks
LikeLike
I’m speaking in hypotheticals here. I’m certainly not insulting you by calling you mundane. You might be a god for all I know. 😀
LikeLike
No offence taken Ruth, none at all.
LikeLike
What are we calling attractive, though? Is it merely outward appearances? There are some awfully physically attractive con-artists out there. Which just goes to show that paying preference to physical beauty alone can bring one to ruin.
Also, isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder? So what one person judges to be attractive may be utterly unattractive to the next.
LikeLike
What are we calling attractive? A very good question. And I think it goes to the heart of the issue in a lot of respects. Across time and cultures humans have favoured different types of people as ‘attractive’ – it’s not a static condition. Apparently there are certain facial feature proportions that can measure the attractiveness of people and cut across this, and of course there are the occasional people who are simply beautiful to almost any eye. But generally, being attractive is a state of mind, and quite a bit of work for some people. I’m not sure exactly where I stand on this, it’s a speculative post, but I think we can work to change society, because it’s a form of discrimination that needn’t exist – something that was useful for breeding no doubt (like most other things).
LikeLike
Ruth I agree that most times those we consider attractive are sometimes awful, especially when we get to know them well. But we usually get to see people first then if we interact for long know them.
LikeLike
Beauty is an excellence, a virtue.
Nevertheless, beauty can also be the obsessive object of appetite.
And that is a vice.
As the human being continues on the journey to fulfill his human nature he learns the difference between virtue and vice.
Hopefully.
LikeLike
Beauty is either luck (not sure if it’s good or bad luck), and/or hard work. It’s nice to appreciate it but I wouldn’t like to be hampered with it.
LikeLike
I have always had it easier. I know I must be attractive because I made great money stripping. And not at some hole in the wall. Nope it was at a world famous club. But I’ve never thought of myself as overly attractive. I think I am cute for sure but I’m no knockout. That said I’ve still had advantages I believe in jobs and other areas of life including dating.
LikeLike
If you hadn’t have been attractive, do you think you would have found something more interesting to do in the time you were stripping? I’m not sure I’d consider that a bonus, in spite of the financial rewards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoyed stripping. My parents taught me that my body is one of the tools that I have available. Some people use their body in the service like the military and others use their body building houses and laying bricks. So when one thinks of their body merely as a tool the stigma of stripping goes away. So more interesting? In waves stripping brought me out of my shell I guess. And it forced me to interact with people forced me to learn new skills like dancing while I was deaf and in many ways stripping taught me many things that other Pursuits may not have. So unlike some I don’t regret stripping not even for a moment.
LikeLike
An interesting perspective as always Michelle. I can’t relate to it all, as I’ve always hated being treated like a piece of meat – and I don’t mean that in derogatory way. I turned down modelling options when I was younger because people poking at me and looking at me as an object was weird, unpleasant, and I literally felt like a piece of meat. Bear in mind this was before I’d even glanced at anything resembling feminist theory. Men ogling, don’t even get me started. Somebody laying bricks is using their body to build a house, to complete a project. Dancing for primarly men is providing a backdrop of objects for them in the form of women, and I just don’t see the logical or useful end result overall. I’m glad it was useful for you personally and I agree there should be no stigma attached to it, but in the context of this discussion about attractiveness, I wonder if you would have found something else to do, that could well have helped you in the same kind of areas, if you weren’t so attractive i.e. is it really an illustration of benefits attached to attractiveness?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I Benifits because men thought me attractive. I do not doubt that for one second. As for more intereating? A deaf 18 year old girl with a high school deploma. Yup would ypu like fries with that?
I prefer the one I choose. For me it was not about being looked at as a piece of meat and more about making some serious cash to pay for college which has provided me with truly more interesting options.
I now work twice as long for a third the pay but I get to use another tool I have. My intellect. That is indeed more interesting.
I used to work a whopping 25 hours a week and walked away with 5k or more. It paid my college, bought my beach front hpme, put 6 figures in my bank account and bought my first new car.
I feel sorry for the girls who this is their last option, who have a drug habit or children to support and they need the job. For me it wasn’t need, it was just the best option to work as little as possible and make the most possible. It left time for studies, college, surfing and Sarah which are in reverse order of importance of course.
So it’s all in how the woman sees it. You could say ewww you were being degraded and ogled or you could say I was providing a fantasy of sorts as none could touch without being bounced out by the huge bouncers. I had all the control which is the ultimate in feminism and not the least in it. After all I left with their money every night and they left with their hands.
So feminist say ewww wrong wrong object blah.. I say nope not at all since I am in full control of who I dance for, what I charge and how much I’ll show. /smirk
Different perspective indeed. 🙂
Hugs and as always lots of love violet
LikeLike
We are coming at it from completely different angles and life experiences. I’ve always hated strange men staring with sexual intent, so the idea of stripping, for me personally, is unpleasant. But beyond that, I believe that the sex industry in this day and age is harmful for women and for society as a whole. It definitely encourages men to think women are something to leer at, to pay for, something they are entitled to. It feeds a lot of sexual violence by reinforcing the sense of entitlement to women, and the idea we are sexy shells for their pleasure. With better socialising they don’t behave like that, certainly in such great numbers.
It worked for you personally, although you don’t have a window to an alternative universe to see how else you might have progressed without it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Everyone prefers attractive people. And rich people, and powerful people, and popular people. Most don’t even notice their bias, but it’s there. I’m tremendously interested in human interaction, so I make a point of observing how these things work 😉
Have you ever noticed how people who don’t know each other form groups at parties? Within 20 to 30 minutes of arrival enough social cues will have been expressed for people to break off into “castes”. It’s absolutely fascinating. Similar clothes/watches/hairstyles- all just clues to signal other people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, dear. So that’s why I end up in the corner with the dog!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Please, Ruth, don’t call me a dog. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! I really was picturing myself at a party with strangers. I don’t do cliques. Maybe because I always find myself on the outside of them. *shrug* I’d rather sit in the corner and play with the dog. You’re welcome to join me!
LikeLike
Thank you for your honesty, Pink. Violet seems to think that acknowledging attractive people tending to be preferred to less attractive ones is somehow advocating this tendency.
LikeLike
As much as people may not like it, there’s no way around this tendency.
LikeLike
I do not think everybody is attracted to rich people. We could say that many people are, but I am not even sure if it is the majority. It could be so, within a certain social group within a certain culture, but I doubt, that this is a general rule of the thumb. I know people, who specifically distrust rich people.
People are attracted to popular people, because of both that they may actually be subjectively attractive to many, and/or because of a sort of groupthink, that people go often go with the flow. Rely on the opinions of others, because it is sometimes easier than to produce your own.
What is attractive to whom varies, though there might be some great majorities in human population who are attracted to specific features.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If people weren’t attracted to wealthy/famous people, then what’s celebrity culture? How did Reagan, Schwarzenegger and now Trump develop enormous followings?
LikeLike
Like I said, many people are. But not everybody, not necessarily even the majority. Are you attracted to Reagan, Schwarzenegger, or Trump on any level? Can we say, that a majority of people who know about these people are in any ways attracted to any of them?
Besides, many could be members of a following to Reagan and Schwarzenegger because of their work as actors, public figures and politicians. Because they appriciate their work and opinions. I suppose many people could be followers of Trump, because of his political work, but not necessarily because they are attracted to him. Are even the most of any of these people following these public and rich people actually “attracted” to them?
LikeLike
I think it’s a combination, but still based on evolutionary imperatives. Consider this:
Highest newspaper sales: tabloids
Highest magazine sales: celebrity magazines
Highest twitter followers: celebrities
LikeLike
I agree, that it is a combination. And I agree, that it is all based on evolutionary imperatives, but also on traits evolution has brought to us for varying reasons. After all, we are the products of our evolution. What I disagree is, that everyone prefers attractive people in every situation, or that rich people are automatically attractive to everybody, or even necessarily to most.
The tabloids, celeb mags and twitter tap not just to our natural inclination of being attracted to other people, but also to our natural curiosity. Why so many of us should be curious about Donald Trump, is not necessarily just because we are all attracted to money and power, like “Druidish princesses”, but also simply because such characters provide entertainment to us and in his case might even have direct power over our own lives.
The popularity of tabloids, celebrity magazines and celebrities is not just a result of everybody being attracted to the rich and famous, even if the fact that many are, plays into that. These things are marketed to us, through the attractions many have on the rich and famous, but also these magazines and other media procreate a culture where the consumer is expected to be attracted to them. It is at least as much a cultural thing as it is based on the most simple evolutionary traits. People being attracted to rich and popular is not so much an evolutionary imperative, as not all are subject to it, as it is an evolutionary survival trait, that some have more than others and the amount and the skill to employ the trait is much more determined by our relative cultures then our biology. Our cultures are a result of our evolution, but it is not like our evolution dictated our cultures to be exactly like they are. Evolution simply sets the limits in wich we are able to express ourselves, much like physics. Our evolution has also granted us with the powers of cognition wich in turn grants us the possibility of choises.
We are able to evaluate wether our attraction to a nother person should affect all our choises considering that person. We are able to evaluate how attracted we are to that person and based on what information. We are able to make estimations about what follows from our choises made considering the other person because we might be a bit attracted to them. That is the situation when morals steps in. If there is no direct harm to be seen to follow us taking action based on our attraction, there is no problem. If the benefits of our attraction to us and others outweight the potential harm us letting our attractions to inform us in our choises and actions, there should be no problem. Yet, if we actually start to choose who to vote for, or who to favour in a job interview situation, just for example, because we are attracted to them, there is a problem. Is there not? Especially so, if our attractions are based on superficial information. Superficial information like for example simply, that the political candidate is rich, or the job applicant is pretty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you think your observations might be limited to your social circles? You are in some kind of high society that crosscuts the acting world, is that right? That being the case, people who are interested in moving in those circles want to have money and power, and are drawn to people with more money and power than them – moths to a flame. I don’t know, I view that kind of attitude as incredibly insecure and superficial. I’d be off with my social caste chatting to the serving staff, because I’d probably be revolted by the people with those silly clothes and watches. Stuff, who cares?
LikeLike
… not limited to any particular circle. It’ll happen within any group. A random group of children playing on the street will develop some form of hierarchy. Physical appearance and strength will play a significant role in that.
The thing is, you’re treating it as if it’s a conscious decision. It isn’t, it’s instinctive. Something clicks in the depths of the mind that says: I’m better off near person A. It’s not just a matter of sex/reproduction. We’re wired for survival and certain characteristics increase the odds. As a basic rule, beauty (symmetry)/strength are markers for good health. Other sought after markers are also linked to well-being and survival- access to resources/food etc. Even though we’ve come a long way, you have to go back and always consider our animal nature 😉
LikeLike
It came as a religious experience for me, with Quakers having been with Quakers for a whole weekend, that we were all beautiful, that humans are beautiful as dogs or flowers are beautiful, grey hair and wrinkles are beautiful.
Later I met a strikingly ugly woman who refused to accept that her ugliness made her lower caste- it was one of those what am I doing moments, trying to put her down as ugly, and she resisted, and I love the resistance and want to learn from it.
if the rest of you don’t mind…
Would you mind deleting that last comment? It must be a keyboard shortcut or something, my hand resting on the ctrl key.
LikeLike
Well, I agree. Most people and things are beautiful in their own way, something fascinatingly cool about everything that exists. I said above that being attractive can be hard work, and some people with what might be considered ugly faces are more than able to pull it off. Charmismatic confidence is a very attractive characteristic, most people who are made to feel they are ugly by society will be unlikely to develop it, but I suspect it’s available to all of us.
LikeLike
Violet, I was just being honest. I assume that you too prefer attractive people in a thousand subtle ways without realizing it. I’m not saying that we ought deliberately to prefer more attractive people to less attractive ones. This is maddening! If you dislike a reality, you simply deny it, then criticize people who are honest about it.
LikeLike
I re-read your post. You are being more objective than I first assumed. I apologize.
LikeLike
I don’t know if I’m being objective, as such, but the post is not a personal criticism of you. People often feel like this when their words provoke a post, so I apologise if it initially felt like an attack.
You’re right, I do dislike the reality that people in general are agreeing with here – attractive people are treated better. I think it’s something we can and should change as a species. It’s simply another form of irrational discrimination based on how we have evolved.
If I remember rightly you made that comment off the back of the discussion around people being free to express themselves as they wish, be that masculine or feminine or something else. Attractiveness ideally should be about people feeling good about themselves, not ideally about how we treat others. And I think we can sensibly frame and control some of that, not just blindly accept how it is.
LikeLike
Aren’t people “attractive” because they are the ones who connect with preferred traits within a society?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I personally think a lot of it comes from confidence, and perhaps ‘connecting’ with the preferred traits gives a huge dose of confidence. Is that what you mean?
LikeLike
Confidence can definitely be an attractive quality, but I think it still relies on social context.
The example that comes to mind is the rise of “nerd culture”. Those who are technologically savvy and confident in that realm seem to be considered quite attractive theses days. With the same confidence 30 years ago in the world of technology, I don’t think the general attractiveness was typically there.
Attractiveness seems more a reflection of a society’s values.
LikeLike
Bingo. Preferred traits = better chances of survival and success = best evolutionary option.
LikeLike
I get your points Pink. But think about mine. We no longer need it for survival, for most anyway. We can recognise this instinct exists and ensure it doesn’t make us behave in a discriminatory way.
Also, it might affect who you gravitate towards initially in a room of strangers but surely it doesn’t affect who your friends are?
LikeLike
I completely understand and agree with your point- I’m just saying that unfortunately that’s not how the world works.
Personally I do believe it affects who people are friends with, and who they choose to marry. We convince ourselves we’ve moved away from our animal nature, but deep down I think it’s our primordial guide.
Did you know that a female gorilla with a facial scar will probably be excluded from the mating pool?
LikeLike
When it comes to personal romantic relationships there’s too much involved in attraction to break it down. For example, smell is a huge influence on me. In terms of friendship, I find it difficult to understand how anyone but the most superficial takes general attractiveness into account. I like spending time with people who interest me, regardless of what they look like. Surely only people involved in looks-driven worlds of social climbing could make such irrelevant choices. Anyone with a whiff of self-assurance doesn’t give two hoots about the looks of their friends.
LikeLike
The thing is, I don’t think people even know what they’re doing. As you know Mike was an actor, and one people thought of as good looking. I can’t begin to tell you how that plays out in real life. Or how annoying it is/can become.
I might be charming, I might be interesting, I might be competent at my job- I promise you all of that simply disappears when put against the notion of “good looking actor”. Like Rautakyy says, groupthink is a big part of it. I imagine the idea is: if other people think that person is attractive & important, then it’s probably advantageous if I follow suit.
LikeLike
No, I definitely couldn’t stand being overlooked or sidelined because my partner was on any kind of social climber radar. And then I’d also be suspicious that people talking me were doing so to get access to him. Besides, you *might* be charming, but you probably aren’t. 😀
LikeLike
… but again it’s not always conscious. I think the psychological mechanism works like this:
Person A has a certain status in a socio-cultural group, so contact or being liked by that person improves the standing of other people.
In animal terms, our little rat terrier was the bravest dog in the world when our (giant) Irish wolfhound was still alive. He knew that being part of her pack meant he was super-safe.
LikeLike
I for one – once again- agree with you Violetwisp.
Who is attractive to whom, when and why is something, that varies from culture to culture and from generation to generation even from decade to decade, from month to month and sometimes even on daily bases. Many people who found something fashionably attractive a couple of decades ago, would find the very same thing in a nother person today simply off-putting. Look at the 1980’s fashionable makeup.
Look at the paintings of Rubens. Are those people in them attractive to the modern consumer? Their fashionstatements, bodylanguage, or bodytypes? No doubt we could say that men are genetically attracted to fat women, because in a world of starvation fat means better changes of survival and the survival of mutual offspring? Is this not then an objective biological and genetic measure to beauty, or for being attractive?
We are not totally taken by our subconsciousnesses. When we become aware of our biases, is the moment when we are able to affect our choises based on them.
Attractive in what sense? Sexappeal? We may prefer people who we are not attracted in any sexual sense. If that is the case, then the reason is most certainly not something our biology would somehow subconsciously consider a better mate at procreation. Would it? It might be, that our genetics tells us, that we should hang out and have as tribal members to take our common genes further someone who seems healthy to us, but as humans we have the ability to analyze wether the makeup, or expensive car actually represent any health and to recognize that we may choose to be inclusive towards even the sick individuals, because we have better ways to deal with sickensses, than to ostracise the sick individual. We find people attractive in so many different manners from sexuality to health, confirmity and beyond, or just for being the extraordinary person who stands out from the crowd, exactly like we might even be disgusted by a person who is “too” extraordinary, or alternatively “too” confirmed, or even “too much” sexually appealing us. This is a complex matter, and pretending it is simple takes us nowhere.
Attractivity of a total stranger may be very much affected by how they look like, because that is all we know of them. But if we come to a discussion with them, our view on how attractive they actually are to us, may dramatically change. Really knowing someone may again change our view on how attractive we consider them.
Preferring “attractive” people over “ugly” is simply an intuitional first hand reaction, if it is just about appearance. Our cultures affect on how important we see this, and there are people who profit from selling us the idea, that this is actually more important in human relationships, than it really needs to be. The idea has to be first marketed before you can sell people costumes, makeup and even surgery on the pretense how damn important this is.
How do we see each other changes with time. There are of course situations in human life when we are in such a rush, that we do need to rely on our intuitions, but the less we are reliant of them and if we at least try to be more analytic when we have time to analyze our own biases, the better and more accurate evaluations we are able to make of the reality around us and other people in it.
LikeLike
It varies from culture to culture because survival techniques are different in each culture. Take your Rubens example. Corpulence at that particular time was a social marker of success. The wide hipped woman wasn’t just a good choice for reproduction; being big also meant she had good access to resources (she’d be able to feed herself and her offspring.)
As we’ve evolved we’ve simply adapted the social markers of success to our times- but perceived beauty within a particular socio-cultural group is still an important marker for probability of success in that group. And associating with the “top” tier of people in one’s society is, from an evolutionary perspective, the best way of increasing one’s own odds of success.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree with all that. However, we also manufacture the varying ideas of what is considered attractive in different cultures and there is the subjective individual experience of each and every one of us. I think we should not overemphasise the instinctive effect or how much we can or should generalize it, even though some people have (as Makagutu pointed out) tapped into this natural trait we all have to make profit. It becomes a moral question as soon as some actual harm is being done, or even when we recognize some potential harm from making bad choises on irrelevant measures. What we now percieve as attractive, may change in us or the subject of our attraction in relatively short terms, even by us just getting to know the person to whom we were at first attracted to on just superficial appearance.
The first quote from Jim in the topic post was originally from a discussion, where he brought up job interviews as an example.
After all are we not in a position to recognize our natural and cultural biases and thus restrict our instinctive choises up to a limit when they are not beneficial to us as individuals, or as members of a society? I mean, if a general is chosen to a position to lead a military campaign as much as possible on his ability to make war rather than on how attractive he is, then is it not a sound and reasonable measure to make the choise? How much should his attractiveness be part of this choise and how often does it play any role? Does not the same apply to an applicant to any job description, at least as long as being attractive is not any part of the tasks of the work?
LikeLiked by 1 person