telegraph.co.uk —The discovery has come from research conducted across cultures and species that focused on one trait that earlier work found was attractive: symmetry.
Doesn't sound too surprising really. Beautiful people are more symatrical, meaning they have better genes, meaning they'll live longer. (very simplified way of looking at it of course)
Many "beautiful" people are that way because they tend to live healthier lifestyles. Ever take a good look at the woman wearing the "biker bitch" T-shirt behind the counter at the convenient store with the Marlboro hanging off her lip and the wrinkly leather skin. She's 28. She only looks 52+ because of the lifestyle choices. Liquor for breakfast washed down with a joint is a hard way to go.
I wear my handsomogram all the time. It's a device which I invented some time ago; essentially it's a long piece of mirror which I attach in the middle of my face so that people looking at me has a perfectly symmetrical view the visage. The invention has helped me a lot in scoring chicks, achieving a higher self-esteem, and living healthier and longer and all; the only problem is that I have to 'focus' my face at the intended people all the time. But it's good.
If you want me to send you a handsomogram, digg me up.
It has nothing to do with genetics, beautiful people tend to be healthy because they have more to live for. As an ugly person, I always had a hard time scoring chicks, therefore I had low self esteem, and didn't really care to take care of myself because of this. Happily married now, and I tend to take better care of myself because I'm happy.
From personal observation not all people with symmetrical faces are beautiful.
I think exaggeration of either masculine features (large square jaw, big nose, protruded brow) or feminine features (small chin, round face, small nose) are more important indicators of beauty.
Although having a symmetrical face does help with the beauty factor.
From the article, I don't see where health and long life are inferred in this study. It just talks about facial symmetry being a preference and the theory being that such symmetry is an advertisement for good genes. Where did they get the health and long life thing?
Wait. This symmetry = attractive = healthier thing has been known. I heard about it in middle school health class. It's the reason why so many athletes are attractive. That was 8 years ago.
I don't see how beauty can be an absolute indicator that someone has "good genes". I'm sure there are just as many beautiful people that have developed some kind of disease or suffered from some other kind of biological disorder or even depression.
I'm taking this stupid GE class about this kind of stuff right now actually. Some other interesting things that the article doesn't talk about:
- Men are often attracted to fuller lips and smaller jaw because it means the woman had higher levels of estrogen during puberty, potentially implying that she's more fertile.
- Men prefer a lower waist-to-hip ratio (ie: an hourglass figure) because the distribution of weight also indicates higher levels of estrogen as well as a lower risk of disease.
- While there are universal beauty preferences, some of our preferences vary depending on cultural success. For example, in Africa, women with a higher body mass index (BMI) are preferred because it implies that the person can support themselves (food-wise) and they are at less of a risk of AIDS
this doesn't ring true to me. Especially not after reading some research work by Dr. Michio Kaku.. who in his research on time had a whole bunch of people who have lived the longest.. including ones in guiness.. and their younger pictures.. well they were average.. not ugly.. but NOT symmetrical .. for this study to be true.. all of the people who have lived past 100.. they would have to fall into the category in a statistically higher percentage.... and they don't..in fact they're all pretty average.. and also some were smokers and some weren't skinny!! amazing that..
It's interesting, but the statement about "beauty" is somewhat misleading. Symmetry is generally more attractive, but there are a number of other issues which go into our general standard of beauty (body shape, BMI, breast size, ect) which would not in any way be accounted for by symmetry. This study, however, purports a link between symmetry, and hence "better" genes, and then a link between those genes, and better genes overall.
There are much better explanations. For instance, it could be that those people who are most attractive are most likely to be taken care of (if women) or respected (if men). In either case, even without better genes for hunting, or long life, they will be provided for, and hence will live longer
Scientists really aren't allowed to make leaps of logic without evidence. Symmetry may be an advert for good genes, but only for the nucleotides which control symmetry. This study fails to apply regression in order to attempt to control other variables, and thus cannot show any conclusivity to its results. I don't mean any disrespect, and it is an interesting study in general, but there are too many confounding variables, and too little control over the sample.
Let me put it this way: the goal of any entity is to reproduce. If one is symmetrical, and hence attractive, that becomes easier *even if there is no other benefit from it* because any parter will know that their children will be more attractive, and hence more likely to reproduce. The assumption that symmetry must have been selected into the gene pool because of some inherent benefit from it is specious at best.
This is backwards. We are the product of millennia of natural selection, and after all that time if there were an attribute of appearance that correlated with health, then OF COURSE we would find that attribute attractive. That's where the whole concept of attractiveness started in the first place.
If healthy humans tended to have green noses, then guess which trait we would have evolved to find attractive?