lisabeth
@lisabethur8
13 Years50,000+ Posts
Comments: 4373 · Posts: 50653 · Topics: 564
What are the benefits of being conventionally attractive (Page 2)
You are on page out of 3 | Reverse Order
Posted by TheTinManPosted by schwarzbeing unattractive is lucky with the men and women. lucky in love.
And what are the benefits of being conventionally unattractive?
click to expand
None! Your needs will always be frustrated and you'll grow old and suffer boredom and sorrow.
Advantages:
Never getting a speeding ticket
Always getting hired by male managers
Always get hit on and taken out on nice dates
Disadvantage:
Hating azz biches
Never getting a speeding ticket
Always getting hired by male managers
Always get hit on and taken out on nice dates
Disadvantage:
Hating azz biches
Posted by rockyroadicecreamAnd how unattractive you are to be so bittery bitch?Posted by AdreamuponwakingYou're an idiot parroting idiotic cliches like that one.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
click to expand
Posted by lisabethur8😆 -
omgosh they are?
are you interested in any?
(wedding bells for firebunny in the future)
they have to go through your mother huh?
But of course.
@andswho : 10
firebunny: -2
Pros of being attractive
- Easier employment opportunities
- Material objects
Pros of being unattractive
- More self confident due to abilities and talent as their self worth has been built away from aesthetics
- Use to rejection, so will likely have a thicker skin to criticism
- More socially rounded
- Easier employment opportunities
- Material objects
Pros of being unattractive
- More self confident due to abilities and talent as their self worth has been built away from aesthetics
- Use to rejection, so will likely have a thicker skin to criticism
- More socially rounded
Posted by andswhoPosted by MontgomeryPosted by lisabethur8😆 -
omgosh they are?
are you interested in any?
(wedding bells for firebunny in the future)
they have to go through your mother huh?
But of course.
@andswho : 10
firebunny: -2
click to expand
😄
*Tier Platinum™ snickers collectively*
Posted by schwarzConventionally attractive rarely opens their own
And what are the benefits of being conventionally unattractive?
doors... in fact, they're also known to open
doors for others.
Conventionally attractive stands a better chance
of getting what they want from others.
Conventionally unattractive learns skills that
won't fade with time, improving looks that they
will likely grow into anyway.
Imo.
Good to see you back, schwarz.
Cloudy.
Posted by schwarzConventionally attractive rarely opens their own
And what are the benefits of being conventionally unattractive?
doors... in fact, they're also known to open
doors for others.
Conventionally attractive stands a better chance
of getting what they want from others.
Conventionally unattractive learns skills that
won't fade with time, improving looks that they
will likely grow into anyway.
Imo.
Good to see you back, schwarz.
Cloudy.
Sorry but conventionally attractive people have the worst time dating.
Ppl liking the idea of you..
Wanting to say they got you, but not valued...
Dating down and the person continuously trying to "One Up" you...
Fling after Fling...
It's a lot.
Ppl liking the idea of you..
Wanting to say they got you, but not valued...
Dating down and the person continuously trying to "One Up" you...
Fling after Fling...
It's a lot.
My conclusions:
There is the widespread almost universally agreed upon notion that unattractive people are more likely to hone their intelligence through furthering education because they simply can't get by on their looks alone.
Now, from my limited observations in real life (I'm 17, so my experience isn't that solid):
The human body is fluid and works in harmony; good genetics and a good face usually means that person has a good brain too.
My devil's advocate purely contrarian thesis:
Most (not all) people like to believe that ugly people's consolation prize is that they're likely intelligent. They hate the idea that a very attractive person probably also has high intelligence and thus has the world by the balls.
There is the widespread almost universally agreed upon notion that unattractive people are more likely to hone their intelligence through furthering education because they simply can't get by on their looks alone.
Now, from my limited observations in real life (I'm 17, so my experience isn't that solid):
The human body is fluid and works in harmony; good genetics and a good face usually means that person has a good brain too.
My devil's advocate purely contrarian thesis:
Most (not all) people like to believe that ugly people's consolation prize is that they're likely intelligent. They hate the idea that a very attractive person probably also has high intelligence and thus has the world by the balls.
Posted by EnochtheWisePosted by schwarz"....the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women. Because both intelligence and physical attractiveness are highly heritable, their children will be simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent. Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought."
My conclusions:
There is the widespread almost universally agreed upon notion that unattractive people are more likely to hone their intelligence through furthering education because they simply can't get by on their looks alone.
Now, from my limited observations in real life (I'm 17, so my experience isn't that solid):
The human body is fluid and works in harmony; good genetics and a good face usually means that person has a good brain too.
My devil's advocate purely contrarian thesis:
Most (not all) people like to believe that ugly people's consolation prize is that they're likely intelligent. They hate the idea that a very attractive person probably also has high intelligence and thus has the world by the balls.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent
click to expand
a large part of it is the halo effect
I think tiziani mentioned it
It does probably suck to be held to higher standards and expectations than less attractive people simply because of the beauty halo
some people (virgos most commonly) have performance anxiety that intensifies more when others have higher expectations of them
some people (virgos most commonly) have performance anxiety that intensifies more when others have higher expectations of them
Posted by EnochtheWiseFor me personally researching this is the closest it gets to being passionate for something. I love itPosted by schwarzHalo effect is addressed in bottom portion of article I linked (last 2 paragraphs), and that study was conducted specifically to see if the correlation is grounded empirically. People are still ranked as more beautiful, independent of the knowledge of them having higher IQ. There definitely is a halo effect, and previous research demonstrates this, but as Kanazawa concludes, probably because the correlation between perceived intelligence and perceived beauty is actually empirically accurate. The cognitive bias in this instance is perhaps a bit of wisdom preserved for obvious reasons of evolutionary advantage. Its widely known that aesthetic preferences correlate with reproductive advantage, and intelligence of offspring obviously aids survival in many instances.Posted by EnochtheWisePosted by schwarz"....the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women. Because both intelligence and physical attractiveness are highly heritable, their children will be simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent. Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought."
My conclusions:
There is the widespread almost universally agreed upon notion that unattractive people are more likely to hone their intelligence through furthering education because they simply can't get by on their looks alone.
Now, from my limited observations in real life (I'm 17, so my experience isn't that solid):
The human body is fluid and works in harmony; good genetics and a good face usually means that person has a good brain too.
My devil's advocate purely contrarian thesis:
Most (not all) people like to believe that ugly people's consolation prize is that they're likely intelligent. They hate the idea that a very attractive person probably also has high intelligence and thus has the world by the balls.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent
a large part of it is the halo effect
I think tiziani mentioned it
Full study that the Psych Today article discusses is found here if you're interested:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222436245_Why_Beautiful_People_Are_More_Intelligentclick to expand
Alan Slater and his colleagues at the University of Exeter showed paired images of faces to babies as young a one day old and found that they spent more time fixated on the more attractive face.
“Attractiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it’s innate to a newborn infant,” says Slater.
Developmental psychologists have known for years that babies have preferences for certain objects, such as high contrast images, and curvy, biological shapes. But where these preferences come from remained unknown.
Slater’s research, using extraordinarily young infants, supports the idea that babies are not mere blank slates, but instead come into the world with a fairly well developed perception system.
Pretty people
The group took pictures of a variety of female faces and asked adult subjects presented to rate them for attractiveness. Subjects scored each face on a scale from 1 to 5. The researchers then searched for pairs of photographs that were similar in all respects – in brightness and contrast, for example – but at opposite ends of the attractiveness scale.
They then presented these paired photographs to newborn infants, who ranged in age from one to seven days old. All babies were in the still in hospital after birth. One researcher held each infant upright about 30 centimetres away from the two photos. Another stood out of view and noted where the babies eyes were directed.
Almost all the babies spent more time looking at the more attractive face than the less attractive one, says Slater, who will be presenting his results at the British Association for the Advancement of Science Festival of Science in Exeter later this week.
He suggests the reason for this preference is simple – pretty people actually have the prototype of a human face. Researchers have long noted that by melding together hundreds of faces, a statistical average of facial characteristics is reached that happens to be incredibly attractive.
In a baby’s mind, these beautiful faces may represent the stereotypical human face, says Slater, which they have evolved to recognise. Such built-in information helps babies learn quickly including the ability to pair faces with sounds like voices.
According to Slater: “Babies are born with a fairly detailed representation of the average human face that helps them recognise familiar faces and also helps them learn about the social world.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6...ful-faces/
“Attractiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it’s innate to a newborn infant,” says Slater.
Developmental psychologists have known for years that babies have preferences for certain objects, such as high contrast images, and curvy, biological shapes. But where these preferences come from remained unknown.
Slater’s research, using extraordinarily young infants, supports the idea that babies are not mere blank slates, but instead come into the world with a fairly well developed perception system.
Pretty people
The group took pictures of a variety of female faces and asked adult subjects presented to rate them for attractiveness. Subjects scored each face on a scale from 1 to 5. The researchers then searched for pairs of photographs that were similar in all respects – in brightness and contrast, for example – but at opposite ends of the attractiveness scale.
They then presented these paired photographs to newborn infants, who ranged in age from one to seven days old. All babies were in the still in hospital after birth. One researcher held each infant upright about 30 centimetres away from the two photos. Another stood out of view and noted where the babies eyes were directed.
Almost all the babies spent more time looking at the more attractive face than the less attractive one, says Slater, who will be presenting his results at the British Association for the Advancement of Science Festival of Science in Exeter later this week.
He suggests the reason for this preference is simple – pretty people actually have the prototype of a human face. Researchers have long noted that by melding together hundreds of faces, a statistical average of facial characteristics is reached that happens to be incredibly attractive.
In a baby’s mind, these beautiful faces may represent the stereotypical human face, says Slater, which they have evolved to recognise. Such built-in information helps babies learn quickly including the ability to pair faces with sounds like voices.
According to Slater: “Babies are born with a fairly detailed representation of the average human face that helps them recognise familiar faces and also helps them learn about the social world.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6...ful-faces/
Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics
Abstract
Human infants, just a few days of age, are known to prefer attractive human faces. We examined whether this preference is human-specific. Three- to 4-month-olds preferred attractive over unattractive domestic and wild cat (tiger) faces (Experiments 1 and 3). The preference was not observed when the faces were inverted, suggesting that it did not arise from low-level image differences (Experiments 2 and 3). In addition, the spontaneous preference for attractive tiger faces influenced performance in a recognition memory task involving attractive versus unattractive tiger face pairings (Experiment 4). The findings suggest that infant preference for attractive faces reflects the activity of general processing mechanisms rather than a specific adaptation to mate choice.
Introduction
...'A major unanswered question concerning the basis for the attractiveness effect in infants is tied to the larger discussion of whether judgments of facial beauty reflect an adaptation for mate choice or are simply a by-product of general information processing mechanisms (Basolo, 1990; Cornwell, Boothroyd, Burt, Feinberg, Jones, Little, Pitman, Whiten & Perrett, 2004; Ghirlanda, Jansson & Enquist, 2002; Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000; Rhodes, 2006; Symons, 1979; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). A human-specific attractiveness preference would make evolutionary sense because attractive faces advertise a number of traits about an individual including fitness, and what is considered fitness may be different for different species (Etcoff, 1999; Geary, 1988). In addition, a human-specific attractiveness preference could provide a bestiality avoidance mechanism. Alternatively, it could be that there is a general preference for attractive mammalian faces. In other words, there is something common across all mammalian faces that makes an exemplar attractive and different from an unattractive exemplar.
In the present study, we examined whether young infants, 3 to 4 months of age, would display an attractiveness effect for nonhuman animal faces (i.e. domestic cats in Experiments 1 and 2, and tigers in Experiments 3 and 4). Evidence on how infants respond to the attractiveness of nonhuman animal faces provides data that is relevant to the debate over whether the attractiveness preference reflects an adaptation for mate choice or is merely an offshoot of general information processing mechanisms. In particular, if the attractiveness effect reflects an adaptation for mate choice, then one would expect it to occur only for conspecific faces. However, if the attractiveness effect is an outgrowth of general perceptual or cognitive mechanisms, then it would not be expected to be human-specific.'
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, a group of 3- to 4-month-old infants was presented with four 10-s preference trials, each of which paired a different attractive cat face with a different unattractive cat face.
Results and discussion
A preference score for the attractive cat faces was calculated for each infant by dividing the summed looking time to the attractive faces over all four trials by the summed looking time to both attractive and unattractive faces over the four trials. This score was then converted to a percentage and averaged across infants to yield a mean preference for the attractive cat faces. The mean preference for the attractive cat faces of 61.25% , SD = 13.22, was reliably different from the chance preference of 50% , t(19) = 3.81, p < .01. In addition, 16 of the 20 infants displayed individual preference scores for the attractive faces above 50% , p = .01. The data indicate that young infants will display an attractiveness preference for faces from a species other than humans.
Experiment 2
To determine whether the attractiveness effect for cat faces is comparable to the attractiveness effect that has been observed for human faces, we examined how the attractiveness effect for cat faces is affected by stimulus inversion. When infants view inverted human faces, they no longer show an attractiveness preference (Slater et al., 2000; Van Duuren et al., 2003).
The inversion manipulation also allowed for an assessment of whether the attractiveness effect observed in Experiment 1 might be attributable to low-level image differences between the two sets of faces that are not necessarily diagnostic of attractiveness versus unattractiveness in cat faces in general. If the attractiveness effect is due to low-level image differences, then the preference for the attractive faces should be preserved with the inversion manipulation, given that such differences would not be affected by inversion. Alternatively, if the attractiveness effect is based on perception of the cat faces in their upright orientation, then one would expect chance responding (i.e. a no-preference result). Experiment 1 was thus repeated, but in this instance with inverted cat faces.
Results and discussion
Familiarization trial
Individual looking times were summed over the left and right copies of the stimulus on the familiarization trial and then averaged across infants. Mean looking time was 7.54 s (SD = 1.58) for infants familiarized with attractive tiger faces and 7.52 s (SD = 1.69) for infants familiarized with unattractive tiger faces. The difference in mean looking times was not significant, t(18) = 0.03, p > .20. This result is informative inasmuch as it indicates that the attractiveness preference is observed only when attractive and unattractive faces are paired, a finding that is consistent with a more general observation that infants are more likely to exhibit differential responding toward two classes of stimuli when those stimuli are presented paired together than when they are presented in isolation (e.g. Younger & Furrer, 2003).
Preference test trials
Each infant's looking time to the novel stimulus was divided by the looking time to both test stimuli and then converted to a percentage score. The mean novelty preference for an unattractive tiger face following familiarization with an attractive tiger face was 54.20% (SD = 12.54), a value that was not significantly different from chance, t(9) = 1.06, p > .20. In addition, just six of the 10 infants displayed individual preferences for the novel unattractive faces above 50% , p = .75. In contrast, the mean preference for an attractive tiger face following familiarization with an unattractive tiger face was 65.33% (SD = 12.80), a result that was reliably different from chance t(9) = 3.39, p < .02. Also, nine of the 10 infants displayed individual preferences for the attractive faces above 50% , p = .02. Moreover, the difference between the two conditions was statistically significant at the one-tailed level, t(18) = 1.96, p < .05.
The expected asymmetrical pattern of preferences was observed and is consistent with the spontaneous preference for attractive over unattractive tiger faces that was demonstrated in Experiment 3. Specifically, a spontaneous preference for attractive tiger faces would have facilitated a novelty preference for an attractive tiger face after familiarization with an unattractive tiger face, and interfered with a novelty preference for an unattractive tiger face after familiarization with an attractive tiger face.
General discussion
...'One may ask what the present results imply regarding whether the attractiveness preference in infants is dependent on perceptual learning mechanisms or whether it reflects a face representation that newborn infants bring to the learning situation for faces. The learning account of the attractiveness effect is couched in terms of prototype formation: when several faces are averaged, adults perceive the resulting face as more attractive than any of the individual faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). By this learning account, infant preference for attractive faces may reflect a preference for faces similar to a composite of the faces seen since birth. In contrast, by a nativist account, newborn infants could enter the world with a face representation (Slater & Quinn, 2001), and attractive faces are preferred because they more closely match this representation. This representation could still be in the form of a prototype, except that it would have been formed through evolutionary mechanisms.
Our view is that when one considers (1) the findings from previous studies showing that newborn infants display an attractiveness preference for human faces (Slater, Bremner et al., 2000; Slater, Quinn et al., 2000), and (2) the results of the present study where young infants showed a preference for nonhuman animal faces that were not experienced prior to participation in the experiments, the overall pattern of outcomes is more consistent with the idea that infants come to the task of face learning with a face representation that is sufficiently general as to direct attractiveness preferences that are not human specific. This conclusion accords well with work examining the nature of the face representation that young infants use to recognize individual human and nonhuman (i.e. monkey) faces (Pascalis, de Haan & Nelson, 2002). However, whereas the ability to respond to attractive versus unattractive nonhuman animals persists into adulthood, the ability to differentiate among individual nonhuman animal faces decreases in older infants, a decline that continues into adulthood. More generally, whereas some aspects of our representation of faces may be modifiable by experience so that they become quite finely tuned on the basis of one's early learning history (see related work on the developmental processing of race; Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy & Hodes, 2006; Kelly, Quinn, Slater, Lee, Gibson, Smith, Ge & Pascalis, 2005; Kelly, Liu, Ge, Quinn, Slater, Lee, Liu & Pascalis, 2007), others like attractiveness may remain broadly receptive to a variety of inputs. This latter observation is not to deny that environmen
Abstract
Human infants, just a few days of age, are known to prefer attractive human faces. We examined whether this preference is human-specific. Three- to 4-month-olds preferred attractive over unattractive domestic and wild cat (tiger) faces (Experiments 1 and 3). The preference was not observed when the faces were inverted, suggesting that it did not arise from low-level image differences (Experiments 2 and 3). In addition, the spontaneous preference for attractive tiger faces influenced performance in a recognition memory task involving attractive versus unattractive tiger face pairings (Experiment 4). The findings suggest that infant preference for attractive faces reflects the activity of general processing mechanisms rather than a specific adaptation to mate choice.
Introduction
...'A major unanswered question concerning the basis for the attractiveness effect in infants is tied to the larger discussion of whether judgments of facial beauty reflect an adaptation for mate choice or are simply a by-product of general information processing mechanisms (Basolo, 1990; Cornwell, Boothroyd, Burt, Feinberg, Jones, Little, Pitman, Whiten & Perrett, 2004; Ghirlanda, Jansson & Enquist, 2002; Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000; Rhodes, 2006; Symons, 1979; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). A human-specific attractiveness preference would make evolutionary sense because attractive faces advertise a number of traits about an individual including fitness, and what is considered fitness may be different for different species (Etcoff, 1999; Geary, 1988). In addition, a human-specific attractiveness preference could provide a bestiality avoidance mechanism. Alternatively, it could be that there is a general preference for attractive mammalian faces. In other words, there is something common across all mammalian faces that makes an exemplar attractive and different from an unattractive exemplar.
In the present study, we examined whether young infants, 3 to 4 months of age, would display an attractiveness effect for nonhuman animal faces (i.e. domestic cats in Experiments 1 and 2, and tigers in Experiments 3 and 4). Evidence on how infants respond to the attractiveness of nonhuman animal faces provides data that is relevant to the debate over whether the attractiveness preference reflects an adaptation for mate choice or is merely an offshoot of general information processing mechanisms. In particular, if the attractiveness effect reflects an adaptation for mate choice, then one would expect it to occur only for conspecific faces. However, if the attractiveness effect is an outgrowth of general perceptual or cognitive mechanisms, then it would not be expected to be human-specific.'
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, a group of 3- to 4-month-old infants was presented with four 10-s preference trials, each of which paired a different attractive cat face with a different unattractive cat face.
Results and discussion
A preference score for the attractive cat faces was calculated for each infant by dividing the summed looking time to the attractive faces over all four trials by the summed looking time to both attractive and unattractive faces over the four trials. This score was then converted to a percentage and averaged across infants to yield a mean preference for the attractive cat faces. The mean preference for the attractive cat faces of 61.25% , SD = 13.22, was reliably different from the chance preference of 50% , t(19) = 3.81, p < .01. In addition, 16 of the 20 infants displayed individual preference scores for the attractive faces above 50% , p = .01. The data indicate that young infants will display an attractiveness preference for faces from a species other than humans.
Experiment 2
To determine whether the attractiveness effect for cat faces is comparable to the attractiveness effect that has been observed for human faces, we examined how the attractiveness effect for cat faces is affected by stimulus inversion. When infants view inverted human faces, they no longer show an attractiveness preference (Slater et al., 2000; Van Duuren et al., 2003).
The inversion manipulation also allowed for an assessment of whether the attractiveness effect observed in Experiment 1 might be attributable to low-level image differences between the two sets of faces that are not necessarily diagnostic of attractiveness versus unattractiveness in cat faces in general. If the attractiveness effect is due to low-level image differences, then the preference for the attractive faces should be preserved with the inversion manipulation, given that such differences would not be affected by inversion. Alternatively, if the attractiveness effect is based on perception of the cat faces in their upright orientation, then one would expect chance responding (i.e. a no-preference result). Experiment 1 was thus repeated, but in this instance with inverted cat faces.
Results and discussion
Familiarization trial
Individual looking times were summed over the left and right copies of the stimulus on the familiarization trial and then averaged across infants. Mean looking time was 7.54 s (SD = 1.58) for infants familiarized with attractive tiger faces and 7.52 s (SD = 1.69) for infants familiarized with unattractive tiger faces. The difference in mean looking times was not significant, t(18) = 0.03, p > .20. This result is informative inasmuch as it indicates that the attractiveness preference is observed only when attractive and unattractive faces are paired, a finding that is consistent with a more general observation that infants are more likely to exhibit differential responding toward two classes of stimuli when those stimuli are presented paired together than when they are presented in isolation (e.g. Younger & Furrer, 2003).
Preference test trials
Each infant's looking time to the novel stimulus was divided by the looking time to both test stimuli and then converted to a percentage score. The mean novelty preference for an unattractive tiger face following familiarization with an attractive tiger face was 54.20% (SD = 12.54), a value that was not significantly different from chance, t(9) = 1.06, p > .20. In addition, just six of the 10 infants displayed individual preferences for the novel unattractive faces above 50% , p = .75. In contrast, the mean preference for an attractive tiger face following familiarization with an unattractive tiger face was 65.33% (SD = 12.80), a result that was reliably different from chance t(9) = 3.39, p < .02. Also, nine of the 10 infants displayed individual preferences for the attractive faces above 50% , p = .02. Moreover, the difference between the two conditions was statistically significant at the one-tailed level, t(18) = 1.96, p < .05.
The expected asymmetrical pattern of preferences was observed and is consistent with the spontaneous preference for attractive over unattractive tiger faces that was demonstrated in Experiment 3. Specifically, a spontaneous preference for attractive tiger faces would have facilitated a novelty preference for an attractive tiger face after familiarization with an unattractive tiger face, and interfered with a novelty preference for an unattractive tiger face after familiarization with an attractive tiger face.
General discussion
...'One may ask what the present results imply regarding whether the attractiveness preference in infants is dependent on perceptual learning mechanisms or whether it reflects a face representation that newborn infants bring to the learning situation for faces. The learning account of the attractiveness effect is couched in terms of prototype formation: when several faces are averaged, adults perceive the resulting face as more attractive than any of the individual faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). By this learning account, infant preference for attractive faces may reflect a preference for faces similar to a composite of the faces seen since birth. In contrast, by a nativist account, newborn infants could enter the world with a face representation (Slater & Quinn, 2001), and attractive faces are preferred because they more closely match this representation. This representation could still be in the form of a prototype, except that it would have been formed through evolutionary mechanisms.
Our view is that when one considers (1) the findings from previous studies showing that newborn infants display an attractiveness preference for human faces (Slater, Bremner et al., 2000; Slater, Quinn et al., 2000), and (2) the results of the present study where young infants showed a preference for nonhuman animal faces that were not experienced prior to participation in the experiments, the overall pattern of outcomes is more consistent with the idea that infants come to the task of face learning with a face representation that is sufficiently general as to direct attractiveness preferences that are not human specific. This conclusion accords well with work examining the nature of the face representation that young infants use to recognize individual human and nonhuman (i.e. monkey) faces (Pascalis, de Haan & Nelson, 2002). However, whereas the ability to respond to attractive versus unattractive nonhuman animals persists into adulthood, the ability to differentiate among individual nonhuman animal faces decreases in older infants, a decline that continues into adulthood. More generally, whereas some aspects of our representation of faces may be modifiable by experience so that they become quite finely tuned on the basis of one's early learning history (see related work on the developmental processing of race; Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy & Hodes, 2006; Kelly, Quinn, Slater, Lee, Gibson, Smith, Ge & Pascalis, 2005; Kelly, Liu, Ge, Quinn, Slater, Lee, Liu & Pascalis, 2007), others like attractiveness may remain broadly receptive to a variety of inputs. This latter observation is not to deny that environmen
continued:
environmental learning can influence judgments of facial beauty given that ratings of attractiveness of human faces by older children and adults have been shown to be affected by both laboratory and everyday experience (Cooper, Geldart, Mondloch & Maurer, 2006; Rhodes, Jeffery, Watson, Clifford & Nakayama, 2003).'
....'An interesting question for further empirical work is to determine why the attractiveness dimension of the face representation is in some sense underspecified by experience, at least during early development. That is, if the input to a 3- to 4-month-old consists primarily of adult faces of a particular race (same-race), is biased toward the female gender (Quinn, Yahr, Kuhn, Slater & Pascalis, 2002; Ramsey-Rennels & Langlois, 2006), and includes no experience with nonhuman animals, then how is it that infants are able to respond to attractiveness in infant faces, other-race faces, male faces, and cat/tiger faces? The present findings actually suggest that neither an innate mate choice bias nor a general learning mechanism that is driven by experience can account for face attractiveness preferences in infants. Rather, the initial settings of our perceptual system push infants to look at some entities (attractive faces) more than others (unattractive faces) because of a family of preferred perceptual features that includes but may not be limited to particular features such as large eyes (Geldart, Maurer & Carney, 1999) and the complex geometric attributes that characterize the spatial relations among the features such as their location (e.g. height) and arrangement (e.g. symmetry, top-heaviness) within the whole (Cassia, Turati & Simion, 2004; Eisenthal, Dror & Ruppin, 2006; Geldart, Maurer & Henderson, 1999; Perrett, Burt, Penton-Voak, Lee, Rowland & Edwards, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady & Sumich, 1998; but see Rhodes, Geddes, Jeffery, Dziurawiec & Clark, 2002). Moreover, the fact that the geometric attributes may be encoded from non-face objects raises the interesting possibility that aesthetically based preferences in infants might even extend beyond faces to non-face objects that are judged by adults to be attractive (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000).
In conclusion, the finding that infants will display an attractiveness preference for nonhuman animals suggests that the attractiveness preference that infants display for human faces reflects the activity of general processing mechanisms that are innately prespecified but subject to modifications due to experience. The findings imply further that the search for whatever mechanisms guide infant and adult visual systems toward attractive faces needs to consider the attributes that can be encoded from both human and nonhuman animal faces.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566458/
environmental learning can influence judgments of facial beauty given that ratings of attractiveness of human faces by older children and adults have been shown to be affected by both laboratory and everyday experience (Cooper, Geldart, Mondloch & Maurer, 2006; Rhodes, Jeffery, Watson, Clifford & Nakayama, 2003).'
....'An interesting question for further empirical work is to determine why the attractiveness dimension of the face representation is in some sense underspecified by experience, at least during early development. That is, if the input to a 3- to 4-month-old consists primarily of adult faces of a particular race (same-race), is biased toward the female gender (Quinn, Yahr, Kuhn, Slater & Pascalis, 2002; Ramsey-Rennels & Langlois, 2006), and includes no experience with nonhuman animals, then how is it that infants are able to respond to attractiveness in infant faces, other-race faces, male faces, and cat/tiger faces? The present findings actually suggest that neither an innate mate choice bias nor a general learning mechanism that is driven by experience can account for face attractiveness preferences in infants. Rather, the initial settings of our perceptual system push infants to look at some entities (attractive faces) more than others (unattractive faces) because of a family of preferred perceptual features that includes but may not be limited to particular features such as large eyes (Geldart, Maurer & Carney, 1999) and the complex geometric attributes that characterize the spatial relations among the features such as their location (e.g. height) and arrangement (e.g. symmetry, top-heaviness) within the whole (Cassia, Turati & Simion, 2004; Eisenthal, Dror & Ruppin, 2006; Geldart, Maurer & Henderson, 1999; Perrett, Burt, Penton-Voak, Lee, Rowland & Edwards, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady & Sumich, 1998; but see Rhodes, Geddes, Jeffery, Dziurawiec & Clark, 2002). Moreover, the fact that the geometric attributes may be encoded from non-face objects raises the interesting possibility that aesthetically based preferences in infants might even extend beyond faces to non-face objects that are judged by adults to be attractive (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000).
In conclusion, the finding that infants will display an attractiveness preference for nonhuman animals suggests that the attractiveness preference that infants display for human faces reflects the activity of general processing mechanisms that are innately prespecified but subject to modifications due to experience. The findings imply further that the search for whatever mechanisms guide infant and adult visual systems toward attractive faces needs to consider the attributes that can be encoded from both human and nonhuman animal faces.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566458/
Posted by AdreamuponwakingDepends on what age the girl is tho.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
click to expand
That's why I don't delete anymore, I just lock myself out of the accounts at this point.
Posted by PVJamzPosted by schwarz
My conclusions:
There is the widespread almost universally agreed upon notion that unattractive people are more likely to hone their intelligence through furthering education because they simply can't get by on their looks alone.
Now, from my limited observations in real life (I'm 17, so my experience isn't that solid):
The human body is fluid and works in harmony; good genetics and a good face usually means that person has a good brain too.
My devil's advocate purely contrarian thesis:
Most (not all) people like to believe that ugly people's consolation prize is that they're likely intelligent. They hate the idea that a very attractive person probably also has high intelligence and thus has the world by the balls.
So is this thread helping your self esteem or nah.
click to expand
I haven't processed it in relation to me as an individual yet. No idea where I stand currently
Sometimes being conventionally attractive is a bad thing though, I think when I'm dressed up looking good less men hit on me... When I'm just casual and look normal more men are likely to approach me.
Posted by TheSagI was very selective and picky. Saturn in the 7th House. But now, I've lowered my standards.Posted by firebunnythen why didn't you?Posted by TheSagNot the case with me. I didnt study hard for the money nor for girls. And there were plenty of girls who wanted to hook up on me even before I became a lawyer.Posted by firebunnyDude, if you ever go to Europe go to Germany, you can get hookers there for 20€-30€ and they are clean. So much for your wants and needs. ^^Posted by TheSagI prefer to have enough money for my wants and needs and a little more... and a girl of my dreams. I think I found her. Just not sure. If she's the one, am I ready for a long-distance relationship? Damn this is hard. But distance aside, I think she's perfect. @_@Posted by firebunnyRegarding the post I quoted it seemed like they were more "excited" since you passed ^^Posted by TheSagWomen have been contacting me even before passing the bar.Posted by firebunnyFunny? It's predictable and should make you think about your real value. You are a walking life insurance lolPosted by lisabethur8Im looking for the complete package. But yes, more women have contacted me since I passed the Bar. It's funny.Posted by firebunnyPosted by AdreamuponwakingFrom my experience... attractive women don't care about the looks. just as long as the guy is smart and wealthy, he's "ideal." for average women, they care more about looks than their attractive counterparts... so I tend to attract more average women than attractive ones... but now that I'm already a lawyer, more attractive women are messaging me on FB.Posted by firebunnyWomen care more about security than looksPosted by AdreamuponwakingYes, but some women look for the *complete package.* I've seen this over and over again. And I'm talking about women who are already successful (i.e., those with stellar academic achievements and high-paying jobs).Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
especially the smart women you just alluded too.
Looks fade and unlike men, we don't have the privilege nor desire to simply trade the one we married in for a newer model after awhile.
That is unless you are a cougar...but those are rare.
it might be....subconsiously you're turning down the average ladies and going for more attractive..lol
this topic is kind of funny. 😛
I don't get why rich guys feel excited about getting girls when they know it's because of their money? They will get screwed sooner or later anyway. I would definately prefere to be broken and good looking while having sex with hot women, who cheat on their rich bf.
On a serious note: The problem with career/rich guys who have sacrificed their lives for their careers is that they are the reason for gold diggers and It girls. When they were younger they got rejected by girls, so they were like "once I get older, I will make money and get back at all those bitches". What they don't realize is, that they will fall in love with a gold digger and suffer. That's why all those MGTOW morons won't ever live the life they dream about. They hate women and want revanche by making money in order to buy sex . They create what they hate the most lolclick to expand
Posted by lisabethur8A bit. But I have plenty of options. What's making me indecisive is the fact that a girl has something I like that another girl doesn't have. It's basically a chicken-and-egg riddle.Posted by firebunnyomgosh they are?Posted by lisabethur8YesPosted by firebunnyPosted by lisabethur8Lots of these women look to me. I kinda know the signs already. I'm 30 years old by September so I kinda know, from experience.Posted by firebunny😆Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, but some women look for the *complete package.* I've seen this over and over again. And I'm talking about women who are already successful (i.e., those with stellar academic achievements and high-paying jobs).Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
hahaha
women who work at Walmart by the cash register won't look to you huh? 😛 😆
you are single, are women on dxp, the single ladies looking to hook up with you?
cause you are a bachelor with good prospects, a lawyer with already finished degree i think.
are women private messaging you to get to know you and fly out to Philiphines to live with you and hopefully marry you and have children?
are you interested in any?
(wedding bells for firebunny in the future)
they have to go through your mother huh?click to expand
Posted by MagicMarchPerfectly put! Lol
Advantages:
Never getting a speeding ticket
Always getting hired by male managers
Always get hit on and taken out on nice dates
Disadvantage:
Hating azz biches
Posted by Adreamuponwakingoh... looks definitely attract girls.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
click to expand
The benefits to both sides are perspective. It's better (more easy/beneficial) to be attractive than unattractive.
But it's best to be unattractive and then become attractive later in life. Prolly worst to start attractive then have looks fade, but I can't really speak on that.
But it's best to be unattractive and then become attractive later in life. Prolly worst to start attractive then have looks fade, but I can't really speak on that.
I don't know... I do get a lot of free stuff and get into high priced events for free. I guess that's a perk.
Posted by tizianiActually could we put request to whoever it is here about when account had been deleted - all posts stays under name
When you delete, all this line of thinking will be lost and we'll be set back years.
PosterNoLongerWithUs or PosterIsInBetterPlace?
I am serious. Where is the forum Master?
Posted by GemitatiPosted by tizianiActually could we put request to whoever it is here about when account had been deleted - all posts stays under name
When you delete, all this line of thinking will be lost and we'll be set back years.
PosterNoLongerWithUs or PosterIsInBetterPlace?
I am serious. Where is the forum Master?click to expand
—??
Dead@PosterIsInBetterPlace
Posted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
Posted by starwarsTrue... I know quite a few pretty women who are very attractive with no confidence.... very insecure.
attractiveness has nothing to do with success (e.g: bill gates)
but success has to do with confidence
and confidence isn't always linked to looks and attractiveness, I've noticed.
Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
click to expand
Posted by starwarsThat come back was like if you stick your finger in your ass!?Posted by GemitatiYo wish ?Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
click to expand
Posted by starwarsHahahaha said starwars the aristocat!Posted by Gemitatitoo vulgar for your agePosted by starwarsThat come back was like if you stick your finger in your ass!?Posted by GemitatiYo wish ?Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
click to expand
?
Posted by PossessionStNo! It's actually a dark pork!Posted by starwarsIs this beef realPosted by Gemitatitoo vulgar for your agePosted by starwarsThat come back was like if you stick your finger in your ass!?Posted by GemitatiYo wish ?Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
click to expand
Posted by starwarsFirebunny IN ands is real! ?Posted by PossessionStis the firebunny vs ands realPosted by starwarsIs this beef realPosted by Gemitatitoo vulgar for your agePosted by starwarsThat come back was like if you stick your finger in your ass!?Posted by GemitatiYo wish ?Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
click to expand
Posted by PossessionStIt gets stuck in YOUR teeth! Fix them!Posted by GemitatiIt gets stuck in your teethPosted by PossessionStNo! It's actually a dark pork!Posted by starwarsIs this beef realPosted by Gemitatitoo vulgar for your agePosted by starwarsThat come back was like if you stick your finger in your ass!?Posted by GemitatiYo wish ?Posted by starwarsYo mama! ?Posted by Gemitatiand having to beg gemitati for paper squares but shes running out cuz 51 yo crisisPosted by starwarsAnd going to the bathroom with no toilet paper...
being pretty is one hard job
all you ever do is stress over the 2 liters of water you have to drink daily
That is my beef with porkclick to expand
And btw no one invited you to stay for dinner. And if you were invited - you eat what is served unless you were given a choice. Which is not the case here.
So...? It is!
Posted by cornmaizesharkafter a certain age not really.....Posted by Adreamuponwakingoh... looks definitely attract girls.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
click to expand
if this were true more men would have body image issues and would elect for more cosmetic procedures
Posted by AdreamuponwakingIt is true though.Posted by cornmaizesharkafter a certain age not really.....Posted by Adreamuponwakingoh... looks definitely attract girls.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
if this were true more men would have body image issues and would elect for more cosmetic proceduresclick to expand
Men do have body image issues, many of them, but that's not even relevant to whether or not females are attracted to good looking males. And cosmetic surgery is also not relevant. Men are taught to tough out being ugly and women are taught to seek improvement. Doesn't mean men don't feel insecurities.
You want proof? Read some threads on dxp where guys are talking about looksmaxing. Why would they talk about that if they didn't care what they looked like? Why would guys care what they look like if they didn't have body image issues?
Posted by cornmaizesharkEverybody cares about what they look like to a certain degree ( due to socialization/advertising ) HOWEVERPosted by AdreamuponwakingIt is true though.Posted by cornmaizesharkafter a certain age not really.....Posted by Adreamuponwakingoh... looks definitely attract girls.Posted by firebunnyI find this hard to believe.Posted by AdreamuponwakingYes, basically. Many of my female friends turn out to have a crush on me. While I maintain platonic relationships with them, they're expecting more. I consider them as 'mere' friends and I can get them to do things I want them to. But in return, I could sense that they want something more. *Shrugs*
getting free stuff
vs
being able to have and maintain more platonic relationships.
i know a lot of extremely attractive friends of mine who only have a few friends, not by choice.
Most of the friendships they formed with people were short lived because the people they tried to befriend were actually interested in dating them from the very beginning.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
if this were true more men would have body image issues and would elect for more cosmetic procedures
Men do have body image issues, many of them, but that's not even relevant to whether or not females are attracted to good looking males. And cosmetic surgery is also not relevant. Men are taught to tough out being ugly and women are taught to seek improvement. Doesn't mean men don't feel insecurities.
You want proof? Read some threads on dxp where guys are talking about looksmaxing. Why would they talk about that if they didn't care what they looked like? Why would guys care what they look like if they didn't have body image issues?click to expand
men are taught that..if they become rich and powerful this ultimately doesn't matter.
which is true. Good looks aren't really going to pay the rent unless you are an actor or a model.
But even if you are one of those rare people you are still less desirable as a male who makes the same or more based on his intellectual aptitude or other factors to most western women of a certain age because again looks can only get you so far in life.
Think about it
Why is it so easy to see age gaps...particularly between rich white men and their partners?
And if you notice these rich white old men aren't getting the same cosmetic procedures as their female counterparts espcially after they have made it.High Hughner looks like crypt keeper for christ sake.Donald trump is not the most attractive guy. Elon Musk is an outlier in that he got hair plugs after he made his first 20 mil but that's about it... he still dropped his long-term partner for someone younger and blonder when he reached billionaire status.
Women, whether they are poor or rich, KNOW that their appearance is #1 factor in determining what their desirability is regarding the opposite sex and since.....Men still largely control everything....the power in which women receive from men is predicated heavily upon this desirability.
Smart women, and or talented women with mediocre to "unsatisfactory" looks based on contemporary conventional standards have to work harder and still have to care about improving their looks no matter how successful they are.
Not a fan of Hilary Clinton but it's ridiculous how some people cared more about her outfits
than her policy standpoints. No one had the same critique for all of the men who were running for president.
Posted by LordComplexityI like it how it's mostly men who disagree with me.Posted by Adreamuponwaking
I find this hard to believe.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
Incorrect, looks inside and out will attract a chick as long as she hasn't already learned how badly she wants you to have $ $ $ . Which ultimately once they see you aint got a job or whatever, they will toss your ass out.
The primary exception is if she is sitting on a shit ton of wealth herself. Then she doesn't need it from you to begin with.click to expand
I'm a woman and 98 percent of my friends are women in their twenties.
These are my observations.
I've only met one girl in her late twenties thus far that put looks as her #1 trait in a guy. She's pretty much a bro who occasionally wears dresses. She is also still single and miserable. I think her longest relationships is 6 months.
benefit of being conventionally unattractive is that you have to work on your personality heaps and develop a good sense of humor lol ( coming from personal experience )
Posted by confusedaries7513
benefit of being conventionally unattractive is that you have to work on your personality heaps and develop a good sense of humor lol ( coming from personal experience )
I never thought of it that way.
I assumed they enjoy a liberation, more free time, more auotonomy, and truer friends.
I think being ugly is an opprtunity.
But if your soul is attention driven or greedy, one misses the opportunity. Or if they have been attacked by others because of their look so this has turned out to become a prominent subject for them. It's only a subset of bad looking people.
Posted by PossessionSt
Lol everyone answers as a conventionally attractive person —??
everyone talks like High School Movies from Holleywood. It's the stupidity of the middle class.
In real life stories run real.
Posted by DwellingOnMovefirst of all, don't label anyone as ugly.Posted by confusedaries7513
benefit of being conventionally unattractive is that you have to work on your personality heaps and develop a good sense of humor lol ( coming from personal experience )
I never thought of it that way.
I assumed they enjoy a liberation, more free time, more auotonomy, and truer friends.
I think being ugly is an opprtunity.
But if your soul is attention driven or greedy, one misses the opportunity. Or if they have been attacked by others because of their look so this has turned out to become a prominent subject for them. It's only a subset of bad looking people.click to expand
second of all, what is this "opportunity" you are talking about? is it being single? attractive people can be single too. it's a choice.
Posted by confusedaries7513Posted by DwellingOnMovefirst of all, don't label anyone as ugly.Posted by confusedaries7513
benefit of being conventionally unattractive is that you have to work on your personality heaps and develop a good sense of humor lol ( coming from personal experience )
I never thought of it that way.
I assumed they enjoy a liberation, more free time, more auotonomy, and truer friends.
I think being ugly is an opprtunity.
But if your soul is attention driven or greedy, one misses the opportunity. Or if they have been attacked by others because of their look so this has turned out to become a prominent subject for them. It's only a subset of bad looking people.
second of all, what is this "opportunity" you are talking about? is it being single? attractive people can be single too. it's a choice.click to expand
instead of asking me questions, imagine how much more space for living your true self had if you were seen as ugly by the mainstream.
It's like how poor people in the 3rd world have to improvise for the things they can never afford. With liberation it comes to creativity, effort, trial-and-error, and these things bring self-realisation and genuine happiness.
"attractive people can be single too. it's a choice."
yeah, then opening thread on Internet: I'm so perfect, how am I single? self-pitty. psychology. assuming others are ugly and fat cause somebody has another opinion. I think we've seen enough of the attractive singles.
Not to forget: I did not refer a word to being single or not. I meant through the whole life. In all aspects of life. It's like having rich parents or not. Without rich parents it's your turn. You bring it on. Life quality is yours.
yeah, then opening thread on Internet: I'm so perfect, how am I single? self-pitty. psychology. assuming others are ugly and fat cause somebody has another opinion. I think we've seen enough of the attractive singles.
Not to forget: I did not refer a word to being single or not. I meant through the whole life. In all aspects of life. It's like having rich parents or not. Without rich parents it's your turn. You bring it on. Life quality is yours.
Posted by AdreamuponwakingThe reason I disagree is because I went from not so attractive to a bit over average so I know the difference in how women react. Since becoming "conventionally attractive" I've always had women who wanted to be with me, even unemployed and broke. And if anything, my personality has worsened since growing into my looks.Posted by LordComplexityI like it how it's mostly men who disagree with me.Posted by Adreamuponwaking
I find this hard to believe.
looks don't attract girls.
money and power does.
Incorrect, looks inside and out will attract a chick as long as she hasn't already learned how badly she wants you to have $ $ $ . Which ultimately once they see you aint got a job or whatever, they will toss your ass out.
The primary exception is if she is sitting on a shit ton of wealth herself. Then she doesn't need it from you to begin with.
I'm a woman and 98 percent of my friends are women in their twenties.
These are my observations.
I've only met one girl in her late twenties thus far that put looks as her #1 trait in a guy. She's pretty much a bro who occasionally wears dresses. She is also still single and miserable. I think her longest relationships is 6 months.
click to expand
And women (and other men) put up with bad behavior more from attractive men.
No one is saying that the majority of women put looks as the #1 trait, simply that women are attracted to looks. But you seem to be implying that the majority of women are straight gold diggers and I'd think that most other women would take exception to that.
Posted by TheTinManPosted by LordComplexityWHAT!!! now how can an attractive (a VERY attractive one I might add) man be dominant or take on that role? please explain that one before I log off.Posted by schwarz
And what are the benefits of being conventionally unattractive?
Depends on your sex. Women get loads of attention because men are "supposed" to be the initiators in the first place. Attractive Men(tm) still have to take the dominant role, especially if they are goin after someone who is significantly attractive themselves, so all they get is a bunch of fangirls that secretly wanna fuck them but won't actually act on it themselves 99% of the time.
If she is significantly unattractive, or is damaged, your ability to manipulate and take advantage of a chick goes up significantly. In a homosexual situation, these rules don't tend to apply as inherently.
But mostly it just increases the odds of a chick sayin yes when you pursue her. You still have to be attractive in pretty much all or at least most ways to maintain the relationship for long. But especially financially.
click to expand
I think LC is saying that he should show explicitely which one all those million girls he prefers to be with.
The reality has shown: there are some men (what percent we don't know) who are released when a woman takes the lead and let the thing take off.
In this discussion we should not forget that beauty does not come alone. Whether they can make good money, or take lead or be loyal are all character traits which exist independently.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
Coconut Count:
@CaramelizedCoffee-6
@starwars-6
@Ram416-6
@MzSaaaag-4
Whom am I talking to here about having 26 posts and seeing just 3?
Help...
Are you Domino?
What to expect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
COCONUT COUNT
@sakuraflowers-6
@CaramelizedCoffee-6
@starwars-6
@FknNerd-6
@Ram416-4
@MzSaaaag-2
Melikey you, CC! Don't mind your haters. They're just jealous of you. You are special. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
COCONUT COUNT
@sakuraflowers-5
@CaramelizedCoffee-4
@Effervescent-6
@starwars-6
@FknNerd-2
So I got a new friend request today on Facebook and it's a girl I had problems with like literally 20 years ago
Part of me is like "it was 20 years ago"
The other part is like "why though ?"
Do I just ignore her request? Decline? Or send her a me
Witnessed an argument today.
Basically a woman, when she was younger, got put out by her mom. Went to stay with a friend and the entire two months there, her friend and the people that lived there treated her like complete crap. This young lady gets
Headquarters flew us in for company celebration last few days. Everything covered. Which is great except I found out these past few days how chauvanistic this company is.
I just returned from "celebratory big dinner" feeling very disillusioned and disa
Which one is the better placement?
@_@
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
COCONUT COUNT
@sakuraflowers-4
@Cancan26-4
@ MzSaaaag-6
@CaramelizedCoffee-4
@Effervescent-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypNMcYtgTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
COCONUT COUNT
@FknNerd-6
@Starwars-6
@sakuraflowers-2
@Cancan26-4
And happy as an ass of whoever...
All who love me...fess up!
I know you want to!
I love you much! ❤️?
So I have taken the oath of attorneys and signed the roll of attorneys. I have officially become a full-fledged cpa lawyer. Everywhere I go, I am treated with much respect, and more than that. People changed the way they deal with me.
It also happens
From wikipedia:
At the time, these creative decisions were met with great criticism from Carroll fans, as well as from British film and literary critics who accused Disney of "Americanizing" a great work of English literature.[13] Disney was not surpri
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1YBuz0XwxM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oaXxvP7M8
COCONUT COUNT
@FknNerd-4
@MzSaaaag-4
@Starwars-4
@LivenLuv-6
@Effervescent-3
@AneemA08 -6
@Ssuperman-4
@Ram416-6
just kidding. 😛 😆