luvluv

Hey guys, what is the selective advantage of being good looking? I mean, beyond physical attributes of large breasts and large child-bearin' hips and the like, what is the selective advantage of a pretty face? Why do we recognize beauty and why is the lack of it so detrimental to our reproductive efforts?

Thanks

Dr Rick

What is the scientific evidence that human beauty confers a reproductive advantage?

Kosh

In case you haven't noticed, "good looking"
people are pretty rare, and the ugly ones
seem to have no problem re-producing. The
aesthetics of beauty have also changed over
time. Look at some of the paintings from the
middle ages. Think those hips could have made it
into Playboy?

pescifish

It's not clear to me whether you are asking why a being would prefer beauty or why/if beauty is inherently an advantagous attribute.

How do you define 'beauty'? <a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">www.m-w.com</a> defines it as "the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit"

By this definition, we might assume that any social being gives preference to a person that gives pleasure. Humans, being largely social might tend to prefer 'beautiful' beings in the mating process. If 'beautiful' beings are preferred in the mating process then that beauty is an attribute that is passed on, regardless of specific intent to pass it on.

If we assume 'beautiful' beings have advantages in life, then the mating process would prefer this attribute in order to maximize development to successful DNA reproduction in future generations.

The problem I have is that I can't establish the criteria for 'good looking' or 'beauty' by your question. Also, what you mean by "Why do we recognize beauty..." in your final sentence. The second half of that question is based on mere hypothesis: can we establish that lack of beauty is detrimental to our reproductive efforts?

lpetrich

One interesting hypothesis: that it is a way of recognizing good health and strength; that way, one can choose a partner who is likely to co-produce offspring with a good chance of propagating onward.

Among many bird species, males are flashy-looking, while females are plain-looking and camouflage-colored. And the females tend to select the flashiest males to mate with -- which perpetuates the genetic tendency to look flashy.

Flashy features of feathers (spectacular colors, awkward length, etc.) can serve several functions:

An indicator of good health; being afflicted by parasites can cause dullness and blotchiness.

Conspicuous consumption: the owner of these feathers indicates that he is healthy and well-fed -- and capable of avoiding the predators that he advertises his presence to.

RufusAtticus

"Pretty girls make us buy beer. Ugly women make us drink beer."

Guess the quote.

-RvFvS

Quetzal

Couldn't say it better myself:
Of course, this is ultimately self-defeating:
This proves that it's all Eve's fault.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

As lpetrich points out, part of what we term ‘beauty’ could well be a sign of health. At the other extreme, deformities are often a sign of disease, leading to, for instance, an asymmetrical face. I remember seeing a series of pictures (I’ll try and find ) where female faces (real ones, all photographed in similar lighting in b&w) were ordered purely by bilateral symmetry, from the very symmetrical to the severely deformed. And it was clear that the ‘attractive’ ones were all up the symmetrical end. Obviously the deformed were ‘ugly’; what was odd was the way you could equally well rate the ‘good’ half in roughly the order they already were. There are good developmental reasons why symmetry would be a sign of health, and it makes sense for evolution to pick up on it, to make noticing the healthiest individuals important.

<a href="http://www.drcatherinefulton.com/beauty.htm" target="_blank">http://www.drcatherinefulton.com/beauty.htm</a>

Naturally, there’s rather a lot more to it, and much of the rest may be culturally determined. But there are I think some underlying evolutionary basics too.

Kosh said:

Sure. But we’re talking ideals, not practicalities. Given the choice between mating only with the best or not mating at all, (many? most?) animals will lower their sights a bit. We may fantasise about &lt;insert favourite actor/actress&gt;, but we go home and breed with our spouses. I’d also query whether ‘ugly’ ones have no problem reproducing. I suspect that they in fact do. Most people are in the middle of the distribution, neither really attractive nor really unattractive, and that’s why all the cultural factors -- personality, income, status etc etc -- are so important... seem, even, to be the overriding factors.

You mean, what are referred to as ‘child-bearing hips’? They may not be so attractive now, when being fat is a sign of less-than-perfect health. But in days when imperfect nutrition was common (most of human history?), being a bit chubby was a good thing, it showed you were well-nourished. But I wouldn’t push that too far, it’s just speculation. Sure, it’s changed over time. That’s all the cultural side.

I suspect that that there’s a basic utility in being able to spot deformity, by reference to things like symmetricality of faces. Naturally once this tendency is in place, those at the extreme end of symmetry will be seen as most attractive, sort of a superstimulus. I also suspect that those fat lovelies still had basic symmetry etc.

[/waffling]

Oolon

Kosh

"Beer. Helping ugly people have sex since 1865"

Nialler

Could this be much more strongly related to cultural pressures than to genetic forces?

In certain parts of Africa and the South Pacific, plumpness is flaunted as a sign of wealth, and carries a cachet of sexual desirability.

Admittedly, this could still be a response to a genetic drive to mate with someone who offers the best chance of aiding the survival of your offspring, so it may be impossible to determine this.