Comments on: Beauty is objective & subjective

By: Negus

Negus — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 22:24:43 +0000

I enjoy reading on human origins and population genetics, and visit this blog fairly regularly. This is my first comment. I thought you might appreciate a linguistic plug on this subject, a by product of a research. This sounds axiomatic, but we get the insight that the ancient age conceived beauty, for the most part, in terms of “youth” and “tender age”. Further, it based its standard of beauty on the snake, as a model of grace. Notions such as “beauty” and related European forms; “Hebe,” the first cupbearer of the gods of Olympus; the “ephebe,” the tender youth of the Classical Greece period; “wibet,” Amharic for “beauty” and its Ge’ez root wihib [wi-hib] share their roots with the snake; that is, “ibab [ib-ab]” (Amh.), Apep (Egy.), Apophis (Gr. ), as do “ababa” (bloom, flower), “baby,” and the pet name for a boy of tender age, “ababu” (Amh.). We see the intersection in the flower myths of Greek mythology. Fast come to mind Narcissus, Hyacinthus, Crocus, Adonis and other youth adored in the form of flowers. This thought likely dates to the age of serpent worship (pre-Neolithic). The fiery aura of Sunset and the lambent glow of the Horned-moon also supplied gauges for “hypnotic beauty” and “good looks”, respectively. Gunevere was of the former type, and Endymion of the latter. What inferences follow? I often wonder what else is petrified in other languages.

By: Samuel

Samuel — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:31:43 +0000

“What’s curious is that the evidence presented for “objective” standards of beauty is no evidence for it at all! (And I do believe there is an objective sense to the word.) But the fact that the same thing is valued across cultures doesn’t really speak to this issue.”

This is a puzzling statement. Perception of attractiveness is similar across cultures. Objective standards could be thought of those that arise from beauty evaluation mechanisms that exist in all humans. The fact that beauty does not seem to vary arbitarily across cultures suggests that some form of “objective” beauty exists.

By: Åse

Åse — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:18:37 +0000

As a social psychologist, I have to deliver this to my students on a regular basis. Don’t know why I seem to enjoy this, actually. Generally, I’m quite nice and sensitive, and allow people to keep their illusions, but the science on it is quite strong. We like what is beautiful, and we know what is beautiful, and we can judge who is beautiful across gender preferences and ethnicities fairly well. Nancy Etcoff published a book on this some years back (no I haven’t read it, but, well, I come across the primary literature. ) http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcoff/dp/0385479425

Some of my colleagues do work on the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype – although it seems like “what is ugly is bad” is stronger.

I was talking with one of them a few years back, and she mentioned how it was impossible for her to get people to rate unknown faces as being as beautiful as those of actors or actresses. Sure, exceptional beauty is a trait of at least the leading man/leading woman figures, but there is plenty of beautiful people who will never bother with fame.

When I read DS Wilson’s Evolution for everyone (I am pretty sure it was that one), I think I came across an explanation. Well, it was his explanation. The experience of beauty has a survival signal, and he reiterated that once he had fallen in love with the woman who was to become his wife, she seemed much more beautiful than all the other beautiful women. So, he set out to test whether additional information influences the perception/rating of beauty.

I’ll link in the press release about it, http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/9679.html.

What he did (at least the first one), was take year-books, and have the faces rated for attractiveness/beauty by people who did not know them, and also by former class-mates. And, he found that the rating was influenced by how you thought about the person.

So, all hope is not gone from us ordinary looking folks. It is a familiarity liking/disliking feature.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 06:32:48 +0000

#17, well, when kids draw humans they tend to be anatomically correct in an innocent kind of way (“hey dad, you forgot the butt!”).

By: Isabel

Isabel — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 06:29:27 +0000

>some archaeologists are now claiming they are toys!

Sex toys?? Hmm, kind of graphic for kids toys, but times change I guess…and after all we are talking about 24,000 BCE!

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1709.html

By: Sandgroper

Sandgroper — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 04:28:23 +0000

#12 – How about this one? To my eyes, it’s more beautiful.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/PortraitStudyOfNefertiti-ThutmoseWorkshop_EgyptianMuseumBerlin.png

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:33:54 +0000

#14, some archaeologists are now claiming they are toys!

By: Isabel

Isabel — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:36:01 +0000

So where does the venus of willendorf fit in?

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:28:35 +0000

What’s curious is that the evidence presented for “objective” standards of beauty is no evidence for it at all! (And I do believe there is an objective sense to the word.) But the fact that the same thing is valued across cultures doesn’t really speak to this issue. You know the optical illusion where one line looks a lot shorter than the other, though it isn’t? Well, let’s say this illusion works across all cultures: so what? That certainly does not show that the lines are objectively different lengths!

By: DavidB

DavidB — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:06:30 +0000

I presume the sculpture of Nefertiti is there as an example of cross-cultural agreement on standards of beauty: Nefertiti was seen as beautiful in ancient Egypt and still seems beautiful to us. So it is worth mentioning that there is a theory that the sculpture is an early 20th century fake. This is probably wrong (though the evidence is not conclusive) but the apparent ‘modernity’ of the face does seem a bit suspicious – like all those van Meegeren ‘Vermeers’ starring Greta Garbo.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:22:21 +0000

It is at the very least the common thread between symmetry and secondary sexual characteristics and, arguably, the larger expressive concept that encompasses both symmetry, which is in effect a form of proportionality, and the expression of many secondary sexual characters (think hip to waste ratio).

i think of proportionality as a linear combination between the two, which is sex-specific. but you can add that. my major point is that this is a multi-dimensional concept, and we shouldn’t reduce it down to one linear aspect.

By: Richard P.

Richard P. — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:05:58 +0000

My wife was born at an almost opposing pole vis-a-vis my birth place (Utah(not Mormon!)/Tehran). We met after university, i.e. after I spent untold hours listening to academics set up and discuss the Western/Other schema. Per their paradigm, this large cluster of ‘cultural’ and other apriori differences should constantly befuddle our relationship. They couldn’t have been more utterly wrong. Perhaps the only salient cultural difference that can’t be overcome is that she won’t go A’s baseball games with me. However, my in-laws and I attend a couple of Angles games every year and my (formerly Muslim) mother-in-law can tailgate with the best of them.

The Western/Other dichotomy is too stagnant. It models people as stagnant entities, unable to adjust and accumulate new attributes. Worse, it yearns to equate inalienable attributes such a skin color, last name, place of origin with fixed cultural behaviors. I’m sure that critical studies types have a pejorative term for people that integrate into ‘Western’ societies. Meanwhile, the rest of us, just going living together and fu#$ing each other to create the next fusion.

By: Grant C

Grant C — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:36:14 +0000

Long time reader – first time commenting. Good post Razib, but I feel like you should have mentioned the roll of proportionality to human perceptions of beauty. It is at the very least the common thread between symmetry and secondary sexual characteristics and, arguably, the larger expressive concept that encompasses both symmetry, which is in effect a form of proportionality, and the expression of many secondary sexual characters (think hip to waste ratio).

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:55:46 +0000

Baby got back.

By: Dm

Dm — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:25:17 +0000

#3 has it really been shown that estrus affects attractiveness of still images?

I was under impression that we are talking about visual, and static, input only. Not dynamic body language, not auditory signals, not chemoreception, nothing beyond just seeing a snapshot

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:11:27 +0000

one thing i didn’t mention, because the literature on this seems thin: there is likely some innate individual differences in preferences and weighting (as suggested above).

By: Darkseid

Darkseid — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:34:13 +0000

http://www.economist.com/node/21562896
the economist wrote about symmetry in relation to health a few weeks ago.

By: Dm

Dm — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:02:23 +0000

I haven’t studied the subject in depth, and probably won’t be tempted to look for references, but I’d be surprised if three more innate aspects of beauty recognition didn’t exist
- affinity to similar appearance, perhaps rooted in general biological self-species recognition, but also in a more recently evolved enhanced ability to “read the facial language”
- affinity to different appearances, perhaps driven by hybrid vigor / inbreeding aversion
- affinity to neoteny / baby-facedness, perhaps piggybacking on our societal extension of parental love

By: Eurologist

Eurologist — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:00:56 +0000

Another issue to consider is that secondary sexual characteristics considered attractive in one sex may not be attractive in the other.

And even within one sex (female), depending on time of ovulation, as has been shown.

What I find also interesting is the mix of universal vs. cultural perceptions. For example, a European might find two specific Japanese women exceptionally beautiful out of ten previously chosen to be judged mutually beautiful, while his Japanese counterpart would pick a different two and may rank the former near the bottom, and vice versa.

Finally, even the biological side is not fixed. There surely are differences in perception, too. I find Japanese maps impossible to read, and their subway stations confusing. It’s all a sea of slight nuances of light pink and orange and light purple/blue/greens and yellows – few contrasting dark hues:

http://www.lif.kyoto-u.ac.jp/coe4th/kyoto.gif

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9278/kyoto.gif

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2742074874_0dec6359a5.jpg

I don’t believe this is just cultural – for something practical, eventually, practicality and safety should win out.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:23:40 +0000

My best guess is that the connection is that the subjectivists of the first paragraph implicitly believe that non-western standards are natural and uniform, while western standards are artificial and subjective.

it’s not that coherent. it implicitly goes in that direction, but when confronted on this often there’s confusion and lack of recognition. most of the subjectivists i’m talking about don’t really focus on the details of non-western cultures too much, except as foils for western culture. so they don’t grasp that that’s what the implication is. to use their own terminology, they’re often quite eurocentric (even those who are non-white and don’t even identify as western).