Measuring Beauty | Can Beauty be Quantified?

[davis]

the difficulty is how u treat each subject that your are measuring. if you consider something beautiful or pleaseant than youre actions will change towards your subject. that is the problem when you measure beauty, your actions will undoubtledly predetermine youre response.

 

[the number 42]

Research by Zajonc (if you know how to pronounce his name please let me know) suggests that the more we are exposed to something, the more we like it. He found this for men's faces as well as for things like Chinese-like lettering.

If we can take liking the look of something as being the thin end of the wedge for thinking it is beautiful, then:

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - if beheld repeatedly'.

 

[shadowman]

beauty...

man, I don't know how to measure it, but it sure is beautiful isn't it?


you guys are all beautiful..

when you are on drugs, everything is beautiful...

wait I've figured it out! You meausre beauty by how much beer you've had!



you're all beautiful, see ya

 

[the number 42]

Here is something not beautiful - a bit of social Darwinism from Magro (1997):

"Why Barbie Is Beautiful. A study of a long series of hominid fossils reveals a progressive loss of some physical attributes and the acquisition of other characteristics. One wonders why evolution has been remodeling the human form in what often seem to be nonadaptive ways. A curious, superficially frivolous test may offer some insights, some of which may be profound.

Drawings and photographs showing humans with various physical traits were prepared and shown to 495 subjects, who were asked to select the most attractive characteristics.

In disfavor were: short shins, short legs, bowed legs, large and pointed canines, gums showing above the teeth, short thumbs, long palms, curved fingers, jutting jaws, short necks. These are all primitive features still seen in apes and monkeys.
Favored were: tallness, long legs, slim waists, long necks, curved red lips, large eyes, square shoulders, straight teeth, straight fingers, smooth and hairless skin, nonsloping foreheads, flat abdomens.

These are all features "derived" during evolutionary history. A look at a photograph of a Barbie doll, which accompanied the article, proves that Barbie epitomizes these favored characteristics.
Apparently, human males have been selecting their mates for these traits. The fossil record indicates this Barbie trend over millions of years. In effect, humans are selectively breeding themselves with Barbie as a goal for women".

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf118/sf118p16.htm

Bad news for girls with short thumbs & long palms

As with all social Darwinism, what's the evidence? Flimsy, and in this case blond and plastic too

 

[hitssquad]

Physical attractiveness studies, in brief

a bit of social Darwinism from Magro (1997):

"Why Barbie Is Beautiful. A study of a long series of hominid fossils reveals a progressive loss of some physical attributes and the acquisition of other characteristics. One wonders why evolution has been remodeling the human form in what often seem to be nonadaptive ways. A curious, superficially frivolous test may offer some insights, some of which may be profound.

As with all social Darwinism, what's the evidence?

Furnham, Adrian; Mistry, Disha; McClelland, Alastair. The influence of age of the face and the waist to hip ratio on judgements of female attractiveness and traits. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 36(5) Mar 2004, 1171-1185.
• •
(from the journal abstract) Various studies have established that the waist to hip ratio (WHR) influences perceptions of female attractiveness. The present study investigated the assumption that ageing of the face will exert a greater influence than WHR in ratings of female attractiveness, when WHR in females is manipulated within the normal range (0.67-0.85). In a within subjects design, 100 participants (mean age 23.4 years) rated 27 photographs on the following scales: youthfulness, attractiveness, fertility, healthiness, fecundity (likelihood of being pregnant), attractive to the opposite sex, a good mother and sexiness. The photographs had been digitally manipulated in terms of three levels of age of the face (young, middle, older: range around 20-40 years) and three levels of WHR (low, medium, high). Regressional analyses indicated that although WHR was found to have a significant influence on all the above attributes, the age of the face was found to have a greater effect. Results are interpreted in terms of age being a sexually selected trait providing potential mates with information concerning phenotypic and genetic quality.


Wade, T. Joel; Irvine, Kristin; Cooper, Marjorie. Racial characteristics and individual differences in women's evaluations of men's facial attractiveness and personality. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 36(5) Mar 2004, 1083-1092.
• •
(from the journal abstract) Prior research investigating the perception of men's faces has not considered the hybrid nature of black and white racial characteristics. Fifteen faces ranging from "pure" black or white to "hybrid" black and white were rated in the present research. Main effects for race of face were hypothesized. Predominantly black faces were expected to receive higher ratings for dominance and gender identity characteristics. Predominantly white faces were expected to receive the highest attractiveness rating and higher ratings for nurturant and expressive characteristics. The results supported the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of parental investment theory and existing research.


Sugiyama, Lawrence S. Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 25(1) Jan 2004, 51-62.
• •
The proposition that universal standards of female beauty reflect adaptations for reproductive value assessment does not preclude cross-cultural variation that is contingent on local environmental variation. Cross-cultural tests of the hypothesis that men have adaptations generating preference for low female waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) have used stimuli that were not scaled to local conditions, and have confounded WHR with level of body fat. I present a reassessment of the WHR hypothesis, showing that when effects of WHR and body weight are less confounded, and local environmental context is taken into account, it appears that Shiwiar forager-horticulturist men of Ecuadorian Amazonia may use both WHR and body weight in assessments of female sexual attractiveness in a manner consistent with the prediction of a context-sensitive preference psychology.


Jones, B. C; Little, A. C; Feinberg, D. R; Penton-Voak, I. S; Tiddeman, B. P; Perrett, D. I. The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 25(1) Jan 2004, 24-30.
• •
Studies have shown that male faces high in symmetry are judged more attractive than faces low in symmetry even in images where visual cues to facial symmetry are reduced. These findings suggest that there are correlates of facial symmetry that influence male facial attractiveness independently of symmetry itself. Apparent healthiness of facial skin is one factor that may influence male facial attractiveness and covary with facial symmetry. Here, using real and composite male faces, we found that males with symmetric faces were perceived as having healthier facial skin than males with relatively asymmetric faces (Study 1), and that facial colour and texture cues were sufficient to maintain an attractiveness-symmetry relationship when the influence of facial shape was minimised (Study 2). These findings suggest that colour and texture cues contribute to the relationship between attractiveness and symmetry in real faces.


Olby, Brian Christopher. Perceived attractiveness and personality attributes: A gender and racial analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering. Vol 63(9-B), 2003, 4420
• •
Subjects rated 12 female body shapes with respect to their physical attractiveness, and the extent to which they would be expected to possesses various personality characteristics. The shapes were varied using 3 levels of overall weight and 4 levels of body shapeliness. The sample was modified to control for socioeconomic factors and results are based on 297 undergraduates from Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic racial backgrounds. Loglinear analyses revealed that men and women, regardless of racial background, rated shapely underweight females as most physically attractive, sexy, and ideal for a woman, followed by normal weight figures of similar proportion. African Americans, women in particular, judged the shapely normal weight figures more favorably than the other subjects. Multidimensional scaling and subsequent frequency analyses showed that those figures judged as most attractive, sexy, and ideal were also expected to be fairly emotionally stable, and most successful and interpersonally competitive, but least faithful, kind, and family-oriented. Overweight female shapes, while rated as least physically attractive, sexy, and emotionally stable, were expected to be most family-oriented, kind, and faithful. Shapely normal weight figures were judged to be attractive and sexy, and were assumed to possesses a moderate amount of the personality traits in question. The results suggest that Caucasian and Hispanic subjects prefer shapely underweight women, while African Americans, particularly women, find shapely underweight and shapely normal weight women to be physically appealing. African American women also rate shapely normal weight women favorably with respect to personality traits. This perceptual difference may help inoculate them from developing eating disturbances and account for the low prevalence rate of eating disorders in African Americans compared to women of other racial backgrounds. It is suggested that future research identify those beliefs, values or behaviors that seem to inoculate African American women from developing eating disorders. Once identified, mental health professionals may facilitate their development in those women who are likely to have eating problems.


Johnston, Victor S. Female facial beauty: The fertility hypothesis. Pragmatics & Cognition. Vol 8(1) 2000, 107-122.
• •
Notes that prior research on facial beauty has suggested that the average female face in a population is perceived to be the most attractive face. The author argues that this finding, however is based on an image processing methodology that appears to be flawed. An alternative method for generating attractive faces is described and the findings using this procedure are compared with the reports of other experimenters. The results suggest that (1) beautiful female faces are not average, but vary from the average in a systematic manner and (2) female beauty can best be explained by a sexual selection viewpoint, whereby selection favors cues that are reliable indicators of fertility.


Soler, C; Nunez, M; Gutierrez, R; Nunez, J; Medina, P; Sancho, M; Alvarez, J; Nunez, A. Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 24(3) May 2003, 199-207.
• •
Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

 

[hitssquad]

Van Duuren, Mike; Kendell-Scott, Linda; Stark, Natalie. Early aesthetic choices: Infant preferences for attractive premature infant faces. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Vol 27(3) May 2003, 212-219.
• •
Previous studies have shown that when newborn and young infants are shown attractive and unattractive adult faces they will look longer at the attractive faces. Three studies with infants ranging from 5 months to 15 months were conducted to examine whether this attractiveness effect holds for infants looking at infant faces. A standard preferential looking technique was used in which infants were shown pairs of colour slides of upright (Experiments 1 and 2, n = 16) or inverted (Experiment 3, n = 16) infant faces previously rated by adults for attractiveness. Although Experiment 1 did not reveal an attractiveness effect, this effect did become manifest in Experiment 2 after increasing stimulus exposure time and replacing three of the original stimulus faces. The attractiveness effect was lost when faces were presented upside down. Findings are discussed in relation to the feature-based vs. configural processing debate in the face processing literature and in relation to the notion that attractiveness is based on presexual maturity rather than "cuteness".


Wade, T. Joel. Evolutionary theory and African American self-perception: Sex differences in body-esteem predictors of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology. Vol 29(2) May 2003, 123-141.
• •
Evolutionary biological theory has been shown to be relevant to an understanding of how individuals assess others' physical and sexual attractiveness. This research used the Body-Esteem Scale and multiple regression to determine if this theory is also relevant to an understanding of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness and self-esteem for a sample of 9l African Americans (aged 18-39 yrs). The hypotheses that regression models of physical and sexual attractiveness would differ within and across sex groups and that models of self-esteem would differ across sex groups in accordance with evolutionary theory were supported. Attributes (if the body related to fecundity and successful mothering characteristics predicted for women and attributes of the body related to strength and dominance predicted for men. In addition, attributes of the body dealing with sexual maturity were stronger predictors of sexual attractiveness for women. This research indicates that evolutionary biological theory can provide relevant insight for an understanding of self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem for African Americans.


Streeter, Sybil A; McBurney, Donald H. Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a "critical test". Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 24(2) Mar 2003, 88-98.
• •
An evolutionary model of mate choice predicts that humans should prefer honest signals of health, youth, and fertility in potential mates. D. Singh and others have amassed substantial evidence that the waist-hip ratio (WHR) in women is an accurate indicator of these attributes, and proposed that men respond to WHR as an attractiveness cue. In response to a recent study by L. G. Tassinary and K. A. Hansen (1998) that purports to disconfirm D. Singh's hypothesis, we present evidence showing a clear relationship between WHR and evaluations of attractiveness. We evaluated responses of 95 undergraduate students to a range of waist, hip, and chest sizes, spanning the 1st through 99th percentiles of anthropometric data. Waist, hip, and chest sizes were altered independently to give WHRs of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9, and 1.2. We replaced line drawings with more realistic computer-manipulated photographs. The preferred WHR was 0.7, concordant with the majority of previous results. By asking participants to estimate weight in each stimulus figure, we were able to statistically control for the effects of weight on attractiveness judgments; the effect of WHR remained.


Ishi, Hanae; Gyoba, Jiro. Analyses of psychological aspects of attractiveness in feminized and juvenilized Japanese faces. Tohoku Psychologica Folia. Vol 60 2001, 29-34.
• •
Averaged Japanese faces were quantitatively transformed into feminized or juvenilized faces by morphing. Fifty-six university students (28 males and 28 females) evaluated the facial attractiveness, and the attractiveness score was compared between the feminized and the juvenilized faces. As a result, for female faces we found that juvenilization was preferred to feminization, while the optimal transformation ratio producing high attractiveness was limited to a narrower range for feminization than for juvenilization. However, there was no large difference between the juvenilized and the feminized faces in male attractiveness. Thus, the present study indicates that feminization and juvenilization have different psychological effects on the attractiveness of female faces in spite of the similarity between the average young adult female face and child face. In contrast, juvenilization and feminization have the same effect on the attractiveness of male faces, while male faces are largely different from female and child faces in both physical and psychological aspects.


Dixson, Alan F; Halliwell, Gayle; East, Rebecca; Wignarajah, Praveen; Anderson, Matthew J. Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol 32(1) Feb 2003, 29-39.
• •
Five questionnaire studies asked 685 women to rate the attractiveness of outline drawings of male figures that varied in somatotype, body proportions, symmetry, and in distribution of trunk hair. In Study 1, back-posed figures of mesomorphic (muscular) somatotypes were rated as most attractive, followed by average, ectomorphic (slim), and endomorphic (heavily built) figures. In Study 2, computer morphing of somatotypes to produce an intergraded series resulted in a graded response in terms of perceived attractiveness which mirrored the findings of Study 1. In Study 3, back-posed figures were manipulated in order to change waist-to-hip ratios and waist-to-shoulder ratios. In Study 4, symmetric figures of a mesomorphic somatotype were rated as less attractive than a normal version of the same man. Study 5 showed that presence of trunk hair had a marked, positive effect upon women's ratings of attractiveness for both mesomorphic and endomorphic male figures. Women also judged figures with trunk hair as being older and they consistently rated endomorphic figures as being older than mesomorphs. These results are consistent with effects of sexual selection upon visual signals that advertise health, physical prowess, age, and underlying endocrine condition in the human male.


Konecni, Vladimir J; Cline, Laney E. The 'golden woman': An exploratory study of women's proportions in paintings. Visual Arts Research. Vol 27(2,Issue54) 2001, 69-78.
• •
Examined painters' use of the golden section, that is, the ratio 0.618-to-1, and other proportions when depicting females. 28 female figures painted during the period 1900-1967 were examined concerning the facial ratios of cheekbone width over face length and bi-section at eyebrows, and the body ratios of bisection at the navel and waist to hip. 81 university students (mean ages 21.1 yrs - 23.6 yrs) assessed the age and physical attractiveness of the portrayed females. Results show a strong attractiveness bias in favor of younger female figures. The most attractive figures differed significantly from others in that there was significantly less variability in 3 of the 4 examined ratios. Both the ratios of cheekbone width over face length and the bi-section at the navel were, in line with classical ideals, at the golden section for the most attractive figures, which also displayed significantly less waist-to-hip variability than the rest of the sample. Findings suggest that painting may act as intuitive transmitters of the accumulated cultural wisdom regarding females' proportions, attractiveness, health, and reproductive fitness.

 

[the number 42]

Findings suggest that painting may act as intuitive transmitters of the accumulated cultural wisdom regarding females' proportions, attractiveness, health, and reproductive fitness.

Apparently, human males have been selecting their mates for these traits

Nice try, hitsquad. However, the fact that people of many cultures and throughout history have seen characters in the constellations doesn't mean that Orion, the Ursas, Daffy etc are really there.

It may well be true that guys have been unconsiously selecting for Barbie for a long time (and presumably gals select for Ken), but all the abstracts in the world aint going to prove it. All we end up with is a lot of circumstantial evidence, not a shred of causal evidence. That's what I mean by 'flimsy'.

 

[p-brane]

Landfills are beautiful too.

 

[shonagon53]

i wonderede whether beauty could be quantified...

There are numerous attempts by sociologists. They're pretty straightforward. And they all show that beauty is a social construction, as everything else is. (At least if you agree with their basic assumption that something like class and social identity does in fact exist). But then you're only measuring "beauty as a social construction". So this is all quite tautological.

If you say that beauty is a purely subjective perception, then you say beauty is a purely subjective perception. Rather tautological too.

You can quantify beauty if you want to quantify it.

All pretty boring, if you ask me :-)

 

[the number 42]

There are numerous attempts by sociologists. They're pretty straightforward. And they all show that beauty is a social construction, as everything else is.

If you ask a sociologist about beauty, they may well say its a social construction. If you ask a biologist, they may say its genetic. Ask a painter, they might say its about light and shade. All of these, including biology, can be seen as part of the 'construction' of beauty.

Of course on a personal level, this is purely academic. If I think something is beautiful then I like it whether a sociologist agrees or not. But if we were to consider that beauty consists of some quality beyond the subjective... then we have to agree that it is possible that sometimes when we think a thing is beautiful, we are wrong.

 

[Mentat]

What if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" just means that beauty has no meaning, aside from the effect it has on the beholder? I think Monique mentioned this possibility on the first page of this thread.

It's not that something is beautiful because it has this effect, since that still leaves it as an objective phenomenon (albeit, one with a purely subjective effect...the cause is still objective, and thus quantifiable). No, it is that the effect itself -- caused by whatever source, for whatever reason -- is beauty. Note: The effect itself is not beautiful, it is beauty. "Beautiful" would come to mean "having the ability to make one experience beauty", which is not very different from the typical definition of it anyway, is it?

In this case, everything is beautiful (assuming that everything has the ability to make at least one person experience "beauty"), and how beautiful something is is simply a measure of how potent the experience is for the beholder.

 

[odersven]

...

so many words for what you can't put a finger on.

Mentat basically has it. You must remember that all things have been created from a source (not metaphyisically or anything, they simply are, and do change) and that these things exist objectively since they were created. And yet, produce a subjective effect. That is the paradox in rational terminology.

There is no value to this - when you try and generalize the characteristics of beauty to a is or is not divide, you will not be able to see or understand it until you loose your definition.

 

[the number 42]

...these things exist objectively since they were created. And yet, produce a subjective effect. That is the paradox in rational terminology.

Alcohol exists objectively, and we could argue that it affects each person differently. But it affects people in a more similar way (e.g. slower reflexes, falling over) in general terms, than a drink like milk or a drink like water i.e. it is catergorically and objectively different. Within that category, alcohol comes in a variety of strengths.

Are 'beautiful' things of a different category than 'drab' things?
Are there degrees of beauty?
If strength of booze is in the gut of the drinker, can you drink a bottle of scotch and be sober?
And finally, if beauty be the booze of love, where's the bar?!

 

[odersven]

that was my point. Beauty in relation to anything is specialized and you cannot formulate a generality to condition beauty.

In plot form, you would have drab as the opposite of beauty. Yet, that would mean that whatever was beautiful to some degree could be defined by its corresponding relation to drab. This is the whole good vs evil argument. If something is not entirely good, or as good as something else, then it is composed of some evil. It is a stupid argument. So, I would say there is no degree to beauty because beauty is not a moral vice, it transgresses it.

When you observe (not experience) something in an analytical manner and try and measure the "beauty" of something, you are automatically objectifying what you are observing and cannot experience the beauty is presents because beauty is a subjective reaction of the experienced.

Analytical anything cannot translate emotions. That is why you would automatically fail in your attempt to quantitize beauty.

There is no definite now, only what is plausible. You cannot know where an electron will be all the time, and you cannot know the character of beauty all the time.

 

[shonagon53]

Here's a famous and interesting sociological exercise in measuring "beauty" as it exists as a social fact.

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" has been translated as "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste".




It's probably the most thorough and most quoted work on beauty in the social sciences and in psychology. In 1998, the work was voted by members of the International Sociological Association to be the third most important sociological treatise of the 20th century. Whatever that means...

Just for your information. :-)



[I know this is not an argument, but sometimes info should suffice. I just think the matter is too complex to be discussed on a message board.]

 

[the number 42]

... you would have drab as the opposite of beauty. Yet, that would mean that whatever was beautiful to some degree could be defined by its corresponding relation to drab. This is the whole good vs evil argument. If something is not entirely good, or as good as something else, then it is composed of some evil. It is a stupid argument. So, I would say there is no degree to beauty because beauty is not a moral vice, it transgresses it.

Perhaps beauty is qualitatively different to drab i.e. they exist not on a dimension, but as separate categories, as much as things can be considered separate. And that one is not good nor the other evil. Drab is evil? I need to exorcise my wardrobe! I think we can fairly leave good vs evil arguments well alone.

Even if we can't percieve it objectively in all its wonder - as we filter everything through our limited senses - perhaps it does exist out there, in the real world. But if you are suggesting that we cannot measure beauty, and that's all there is too it, then we have come to the end of an otherwise interesting thread.

And thanks for the reference, but I hope I don't have to buy a book to have a discussion on Physics Forums - I'd be broke within a week

 

[THANOS]

There are many differnt kinds of beauty. A friend once told me beauty exist for our survival. So i thought more on that and agreed. What we see as beautiful will most likly be preserved and treasured. Like gold, diamonds, roses, cats, dogs, nature, babies of all types of animals and humans. Mating is a part of survial also and we all have differnt personalitys so it makes sense that our sense of beauty may differ also. Humans don't need to fight over mates like animals altough some do. Humans are more likly to find their mate by enojying their personality and/or looks.

 

[shonagon53]

And thanks for the reference, but I hope I don't have to buy a book to have a discussion on Physics Forums - I'd be broke within a week

It's called a library card.

 

[wtfc]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Why does the west always get into such things. Just relax and enjoy ! Why do u have to measure anything like beauty.
Catterpillar turns into a butterfly. If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

 

[shonagon53]

Why does the west always get into such things. Just relax and enjoy ! Why do u have to measure anything like beauty.
Catterpillar turns into a butterfly. If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

You do have a point about the West's obsession with measuring everything. This morning I received not less than 4 e-mails promising me an easy and cheap way of adding at least 2 inches there where Western man thinks it's important!
One of the e-mails included a detailed chart showing the different sizes of different races. It was called "Size Matters. Don't make your girlfriend go black. She'll never come back!"

You truly have a point.

 

[Philocrat]

Beauty has only one definition...

It is an ability to overcome, or raise oneself above, all causal and relational laws of nature!

 

[the number 42]

If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

Is potential for beauty the same as beauty? Is potential for intelligence (foetus) the same as possessing intelligence (adult boffin)?

I've got to be honest, wtfc; if you honestly think - on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level - that a maggot is equal in beauty to a butterfly, I would be very hestitant to see how you decorate your living room.

 

[marcus]

Here's a famous and interesting sociological exercise in measuring "beauty" as it exists as a social fact.

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" has been translated as "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste".


... the matter is too complex to be discussed on a message board.]

Hello shonagon
thanks for the title
I went to amazon with your link and read about 10 pages for free

it is certainly a book worth looking at
if one is interested in taste and what underlies it

personally i believe there is a component of the sense of beauty which is genetically programmed because it has evolved
and that there are some survival/reproductive success things connected to being able to spot beauty almost reflexively---without rational or verbal process

of course much much much of one's taste is learned and even trained into one----and undoubtably correlates as Bourdieu says with social class (but I am interested in the evolved/genetically programmed substrate of it, which I think is there before training)

early on in this thread I have tried to introspect and express some of this about the sense of beauty

(sense of beauty seems operationally definable to me, but the abstract idea of "beauty" not so definable or only secondarily definable)

 

[young e.]

Requisites of measuring beauty

Well the term "MEASURE" lexically mean "...to regulate by a standard..." so i think that if this topic would be the case the closest posibble method is first we must set a certain reference point or a DATUM then set a standard and then postulate a unit of beauty. It is very hard for us to measure something (in this case beauty) in which we don't know where to refer or what is the regulating standard. Then if this requisites could not be satisfied then there would not be any possibility that BEAUTY could be measured--- and thence we could let out the term "BEAUTY" in the world of measurement and just consider it as just a psychological matter on how we evaluate certain things around us...

***KHOULSZZSZ***

 

[shonagon53]

personally i believe there is a component of the sense of beauty which is genetically programmed because it has evolved
and that there are some survival/reproductive success things connected to being able to spot beauty almost reflexively---without rational or verbal process

(but I am interested in the evolved/genetically programmed substrate of it, which I think is there before training)

(sense of beauty seems operationally definable to me, but the abstract idea of "beauty" not so definable or only secondarily definable)

Fully agree here. It's just a matter of what interests the researcher most.
I think that for all "cultural" matters, there can be a fundamental "evolutionary" or socio-biological explanation or at least an explanation referring to "subconscious" and non-reflective dynamics.

But then you're saying very universal things: being able to spot beauty serves survival; being able to smell bad things is necessary to spot out bad food and recognize people, etc...

These things are often so universal that they tend to become almost devoid of meaning (all people in all cultures eat food in order to survive).

My interest simply goes out more to how different groups have built different strategies of "organizing" beauty as a social construct. And how "beauty" can be used as a tool to distinguish groups and create boundaries between them.

I know this can be considered to be merely "the surface" on a deep layer of evolutionary processes. Although I think both lines of thought aren't mutually exclusive: distinguishing groups and forging group cohesion (through marks of identity, and culture in general -- which includes notions of beauty), are crucial for the survival of any group.

 

[shonagon53]

I've got to be honest, wtfc; if you honestly think - on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level - that a maggot is equal in beauty to a butterfly, I would be very hestitant to see how you decorate your living room.

See, that's interesting. In this kind of debates, it's always interesting to refer to food preferences in different cultures. You simply can't imagine to eat dogs, horses or insects. And still, billions of people do it every day. And they simply can't imagine you to eat such disgusting things like pigs.

Again, everything from which you don't die when you eat it, can be considered to be "food". But if you say that, you say nothing. The interesting things begin when you start to look at why certain groups eat certain things, and how they use these food habits to distinguish themselves from other groups.

That's my dissatisfaction with mere socio-biological or evolutionary explanations of many things we humans do. We all eat. But that's too basic. That way you state the obvious. To me, socio-biology is often the science of stating the obvious.

 

[marcus]

Fully agree here. It's just a matter of what interests the researcher most.
I think that for all "cultural" matters, there can be a fundamental "evolutionary" or socio-biological...

My interest simply goes out more to how different groups have built different strategies of "organizing" beauty as a social construct. And how "beauty" can be used as a tool to distinguish groups and create boundaries between them.
...

you seem to have the discussion well in hand.
I can come in and read a smattering of posts only sporadically
and so cannot contribute much to discussion

I thought Bourdieu was real interesting and hadnt seen it before

Alas, Bourdieu research was with French of 1960s
a culture and society no longer existing
all local cultures are being smashed by globalization
and some traditional people are angry

a friend of mine was invited to a conference about the book "Jihad and McWorld" and spoke with the author. It was a troubling experience and she did not seem entirely happy afterwards.

I love certain mathematics and certain circa 1800 vienna-type choral music.
If a Mullah who liked those things would come, maybe, in desperation, I would join a traditionalist group. We would have a rule against broadcast TV and rightwing Talkshows.

I normally decline to be objective about cultural values
(to do the kind of sociological study that interests you, it may be
necessary to make at least a show of objectivity)

I believe in the reality of beauty
I think the human mind has evolved
and it has evolved with an ability to have a sense of beauty
(the details do not matter to me. it does not matter if
some people love pig-stew and others love cow-stew
as long as they LOVE the food they eat and care about making it delicious)
the differences do not matter and they are sociological
accidents but somehow the human brain has evolved
an ability to thoroughly enjoy singing contrapuntal
4-part sacred choral music from 1750-1850

or 1950 new Jersey doo-wop

or the Paean to Apollo that Xenophon's soldiers sang when they
had to fight the hill-people of the Anabasis.

the amazing thing, the miracle, is that the mind should have
this love of music in the first place

and so on

and the stars

and screw the rest

(so as I say my particpation is extremely sporadic but I think
to discuss beauty and the sense of beauty is to discuss what is
absolutely the most important most essential thing)

 

[the number 42]

You simply can't imagine to eat dogs, horses or insects. And still, billions of people do it every day. And they simply can't imagine you to eat such disgusting things like pigs.

Again, everything from which you don't die when you eat it, can be considered to be "food".

Yes, we all eat food, from bugs to other people. And there are individual and cultural differences in what is preferred. Yet all of this stuff is 'food'. But apart from sideshows, people don't eat glass or metal. A categorical distinction can be made between 'food' and 'non-food'. And I am suggesting that some things can be considered 'pleasing to the eye' (beauty), and others 'unpleasing to the eye'. Of course there are individual and cultural variations, but only the severely disturbed can look at a car wreck or a mutilation and consider it 'beautiful'.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Can someone be sexually attractive yet have minimal beauty? Are beauty and attractiveness different? I guess it depends on whether you're talking about humans or just objects and images in general.

 

[The Bob]

Anything can be beautiful if you look at it in the right way.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You mean when you're on drugs, right? In that case it would also depend on your mood. Plus, when you're drunk, a lot of people look beautiful/attractive that would not suit you on other occasions.

 

[Dayle Record]

There is a lot of beauty here, this group creates it, free.

http://www.phidelity.com/cms2/index.php?set_albumName=album55&id=DSCF0449&option=com_gallery&Itemid=72&include=view_photo.php

 

[reilly]

A
Question: Why is the chord C#, F#, B, Eb, F#, Bb, much, much better than C#, F#, C, Eb, G, Bb ?

Here are some more bad chords: C#, F, C, Eb, F#, Bb, ...or this one... D, F#, B, Eb, F, C
Here are some more good chords: C (in the bass followed by) Bb C D F G and A ... or: C Bb C# E G and A

Chords are good or bad depending on their context, how they are voiced, and how they are used -- in fast passages, or slow ones, how are they resolved etc. Your first example of a "bad" chord, could be used effectively in arpeggiated form -- you can hear dissonances like this in Charles Ive's works.I'm not so sure it's necessarily bad.

Actually, your next two "bad" chords are used in jazz music. The C# F C... can be thought of as a C# major 7 with an Eb minor on top, something you can find in Herbie Hancock's music. The D, F# etc is a D dominant 7 with a flat nine (Eb), a sharp 9(F) and a 13th(B) -- putting a natural 13th with flat/sharp ninths is somewhat unusual, but you can certainly hear it in Thelonius Monk's music.

It all depends.

As far as measuring beauty or other highly subjective matters, statisticians have developed some powerful techniques generally known as perceptual mapping and multidimensional scaling. They are often used in marketing -- largely developed at the University of Pennsylvania -- to get at such questions as how to balance sweetness vs. packaging -- the red or the blue -- and price -- and. Or, they have been used, sometime ago to find the characteristics of the "ideal" political candidate. The techniques are highly sophisticated and very mathematical, and, generally work with appropriate survey data.They are used fairly widely in market research, often with considerable success.

Years ago, I and some colleagues applied multidimensional scaling to see if we could discern what made a pop hit, and to learn how to use the technique. As best as I can remember, "the beat" was primary, and I don't recall what else.

But, these techniques could be use to try to measure beauty, and probably have been so used. This stuff is for real. Do a GOOGLE if you want to learn more.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Billy T]

I have only read a few recent posts so repeating, i apologize, but some may be interested in the following fact:

If many people of one sex selected at random have photos taken of their faces and these photos are the data base shown to many other people (usually only of the opposite sex, in most such psychological tests) and they rate the "beauty" of the faces, one that always rates very high is not any of the original photos, but a computer generated image that is effectively the average of the entire data base.

I think about this demonstrated result in the following terms: Cows are very different from humans (my group ) and none appear particularly beautiful to me. They differ in appearance too much from my group. Likewise any face that differs greatly from the average of all faces I see will be "ugly" (mouth not centered under the nose, etc.)

Conversely a face which is very typical will never be considered "ugly" so when its scores are added up in the test, it will rate well above average, if not "highly". Each individual making ratings of the faces will rarely select the same face as "most beautiful" (once mass culture effects are removed - no recognizable "models" in the data set etc.).

If the rating group is segregated into different ethic groups during the data analysis, their set of highly rated faces will tend to have characteristic of their ethnic group.

Not much surprizing in all this, but in some sense, beauty is like I have seen often and never far from the average.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Two words:

Beauty is relative.

 

[Gale]

heh, i think i'd forgotten about this thread... lots of replies. thanks...

But really, i think people are focussing on people mostly. I'm really curious how it is that we all seem to be able to really appreciate rainbows or the stars. is it intrinsic? A lot of things in nature are generally agreed upon to be beautiful.

But anyways, i liked the thing about how when you look at something longer, it becomes more beautiful. I find that true in personal experience at least. Perhaps everything is beautiful then, but somethings take more time to appreciate? Also, about beauty being what is average... i think that's sort of true as well. At least perhaps, the most easily appreciated beauty tend to be most normal.

 

[dextercioby]

I think there's a ****load amount of nonsensical speculation in this thread...

Daniel.

P.S.Ooops,it's in the phylosophy forum.It think that figures...

 

[Loren Booda]

Billy T

and they rate the "beauty" of the faces, one that always rates very high is not any of the original photos, but a computer generated image that is effectively the average of the entire data base.

A virtual digital inbreeding!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Kant measured beauty something along these lines- from prettyness through to sublime, and the sublime is perceived by the emotions it arouses of inadequacy and morality, negative emotions that when we realize we are actually the same as ever, we feel relief and joy.
I think the german idealists were the last to take this sort of study of beauty seriously- rather than as a call to justice, I remain pretty inadequate and immoral despite having this feeling quite a lot, and their ideals of attaining a notion of universal beauty were replaced (Adorno) by admittion of individual suffering- I think.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think there's a ****load amount of nonsensical speculation in this thread...

P.S.Ooops,it's in the phylosophy forum.It think that figures...

Actually, I think this is one of those areas in which philosophy has rather serious practical implications. The way we view beauty will likely impact the way we approach many problems in our political, personal, and even scientific lives. And, of course, our view of beauty will influence that of others.

In our personal lives, the implications are obvious. If we want long-term happiness, should we focus primarily on superficial biological drivers, like physical appearance, or should we be looking for something deeper? I'm pretty curious about the answer to that question myself.

In the political realm, think of the current question of gay rights. Our cultural conception of the "beauty" behind a gay relationship will undoubtedly impact the decision we make about its legality.

Finally, there are many books on how scientists view the "beauty" of their work and how it impacts their opinions about new theories. I think most scientists would agree that relativity is a "beautiful" theory and they will likely use it as a standard for comparison to new ones. Why do they view it this way and is it really appropriate for them to do so?

It's my opinion that everybody should be at least a part-time philosopher because it's their responsibility to understand the guts of what they've devoted their lives to doing, whatever it may be. In particular, ethics are crucial. I think every physicist, in order to earn a Ph.D., should be required to have thought about potential ethical consequences of their work. In particular, we should all be thinking hard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Kant measured beauty something along these lines- from prettyness through to sublime, and the sublime is perceived by the emotions it arouses of inadequacy and morality, negative emotions that when we realize we are actually the same as ever, we feel relief and joy.
I think the german idealists were the last to take this sort of study of beauty seriously- rather than as a call to justice, I remain pretty inadequate and immoral despite having this feeling quite a lot, and their ideals of attaining a notion of universal beauty were replaced (Adorno) by admittion of individual suffering- I think.

Jaspers thought much like Kant, but beleived that it wasn't the subleme. but he did think the rest.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

 

[Huckleberry]

"You can monitor someone's reaction, when sitting in a monitored environment, and relate that to perceived beauty. Dilatation of the pupil, sweating, smiling, maybe certain brain patterns."

If you really want to gague reaction to beauty, at least in men, there's a pretty obvious thing you can monitor that you left out...

Actually they have a device to measure stimulation in women as well. It looks like a tube with a little light in it that measures the flow of blood... well, you can guess the rest. I saw it on a show a few weeks ago. I believe it was called "Anatomy of Sex".

There have been studies done on what people find beautiful. It seems that we are generally attracted to overall symmetry. Ofcourse, the statistics only work over a large population. Individuals still refuse to cooperate.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

Actually I don't have more info now. I will have it further in time, after reading more about Jaspers, its because I'm reading right now some of his lectures and, I mean, he didn't speak much about beauty, only a little, but didn't dedicate time to it. When he mentions beauty he doesn't speak about existence, well, now I just find something: "the nearest an object gets to the encompassing, the more it shows itself and how it is, and the reality of it's appearence creates increasingly more douptfullnes about it's beauty" and more things...I do know that Kant and Kierkegaard were the most inportant philosofers in Jaspers... haven't reach any place were he talks about "trascendental cyphers". When I get to know more, I will post it

 

[Huckleberry]

well again, i suppose i rather think of people as sort of exceptions, and i really don't mean human beauty. what makes certain flowers beautiful? or paths? or things like that. i don't have an opinion yet on forms, but if such things were true, then it'd seem that it'd make sense that beauty could be based on somethings resemblance of a form. Perhaps forms have more aspects than even just physical ones. I'm not even sure what the textbook definition of forms would be.

and as far as socrates being a saint... pfft...

I would say that beauty depends entirely on a persons aesthetic values. When a person looks at something and it pleases them then it is beautiful. One person could look at a flower and think it beautiful because it fits into some symbolic image they have of what the world should be. Another person might step carelessly all over your petunias without a second though because flowers have no signifigance in their personal ideology.

Ancient greeks had a thing similar to this concept. Hmm, what was it called? I think they called it archetypes. An archetype was a perfect example of whatever it represented. These things could not exist in reality because they were just so perfect. So somewhere there was a perfect chair that exemplified every idea of what a chair should be. Substitute chair with whatever you like and you got the idea.

The concept of beauty is connected to the concepts of good and evil.

What was the question again?
Huck

 

[Telos]

If my girlfriend thinks a flower is beautiful, and I don't, is it because she is equipped with special sensors to "see the beauty," and I am not? Or perhaps, I have not opened my beauty sensors sufficiently?

Lots of Buddhist and Hindu traditions stress that it is possible to "see the beauty" in rocks and in the face of your enemy, etc... in everything, because it's everywhere. I guess the Christians say the same, for the kingdom of heaven is everywhere, and all that.

So, it's up to you. You bend and twist your mind through meditation in order to think that everything is beautiful, putting on your "beauty glasses" as it were, or you can go the western route and either follow the social fashions or explore your own uncertain subconscious recreations.

Whatever you do, I guess one thing is for certain - it's not advisable to go through life thinking nothing is beautiful.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks, Guille, I will keep a look out for your post. Its a nice thought that there is something more to beauty, that Plato, Kant, Jaspers may share. Would be nice to think there was something in it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

one word i know will answer the question--- postmoderism ---

it is when a society has no set absolute truth, one thing may appear to one person one way, and to another another way.

in my opion, everyone should see themselves as beutiful, and if they do not, it is due to believing someone telling them they are not. And if eveyone can see themselves as beutiful, then everyone is beutiful.

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if I am not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

 

[Huckleberry]

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if I am not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Do I really want to know?

 

[lawtonfogle]

ok, from the title, the movie sounds like something i would not watch at home, school, or church. It sounds like a NR-Mature rated, or at least a R rating.

At school, many people who break the law, form speeding to doing drugs, say they are not breaking the law because they have not been caught. In other words, what i do is fine and not wrong unless I am caught, is how they think. An R-rated movie is not something that will change this. It encourages this, some R-rated movies say sex out side of marriage is ok. Others say killing someone is ok. And even if the bad guy is punished in the end, there always seems to be someone who is killed or hurt. If you like watching this watch the news. (which i think should become R-rated because of the things they show.)

Anyways, i looked up a family friendly reveiw of the movie, and it is something that i think should be a crime to film. You can do something better with your time than this. Try watching the Sci channel.