pictures
It's funny how people don't really know what they look like. We see other people from all sorts of angles, in real life, so we know when a picture doesn't represent them well or catches a weird expression. But when you look at a picture of yourself, you don't have anything to compare to. Even seeing yourself in the mirror isn't the same as real life. I don't know. I guess I was just wondering how accurate our self-image can actually be. Like, does Michael Jackson think he's hot? Or Britney Spears think she's ugly? How is it possible to judge yourself accurately? But there isn't really a definition for ugliness... hmm. Just musing.
posted by jacquelyn @ 1:46 AM
14 Comments:
Its not that you dont have anything to compare it to. because i think everyone has a mental image of themselves, the problem is most people's images of themselves are very critical and that way when a picture of them is put to comparison it ultimetly will fall flat. We are all our own worst critic.
(sorry for the lengthy comment. It's kind of wordy. Feel free to have the admin delete it if it is too long.)
I have to disagree. To say beauty and ugliness don't exist is just ridiculous; though you may be right, their relevance to society today maybe useless. It was always my belief that the human perception of beauty began its roots as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid future deformities and maximize the offspring's chance of survival.
Look at the traits most "adored" today in women. Lean, somewhat tall, proportionate, symmetrical, - all for the purposes of avoiding deformity and weakness -Large mammary glands, (-ha, I'm so scientific-) and adequate hip size -both of which can conceivably affect the future offspring in infant and early development-
This is not to say mating amongst/with the ugly never occurred, (because it clearly did) Just that the "Beautiful people" mated more with more "reproductive vigor". I believe that, as a result, Ugliness became a factor selected against in the Darwinian sense of natural selection.
Why then are there still ugly people today and why hadn't we all evolved into hotties? I think it could be due to environmental changes causing different selective pressures to be more desirable than others.
Also, like stated above, beauty is judged on multiple levels leaving the possibility that a totally hot cave chick could of had all the right features except for one, which ,while compensated by the others, still passes on to the future generations. (And who said a good personality didn't go far?)
The only thing missing is a sense of self perception. But if we analyze this further, I think we find that self perception isn't necessary. It's the need/want to pass on your genes, whether your ugly or not, and a sense of self "beauty" would only get in the way of that. That's not to say that these days self perception isn't important or revelevant - Anorexia, Bulimia, and Body dysmorphic disorder exist without a doubt- but I don't think it occurs to people under normal conditions to question the state of their physical appearance.
So to conclude, (oi vey, sorry for writing the quasi-science report) I think beauty, like goose bumps and the vestigial tailbone may just be relics from the past. This doesn't change the fact they don't exist, even if their use today isn't clear.
Because at the end of the day everyone wants to go out with the beautiful people and if you say otherwise it's only because of reasons like "personality" and other stupid things.
You both good points, but are underestimating the importance of a physical appearence. Regardless of how or even if you think of yourself, the billions of other people in the world WILL come to a(often subconcious) conclusion about your image based on what they see. You can't say beauty is dead or unimportant, because their are several carrers that are only open to those who are visually appealing wether that appeal be false or not. What I am saying is, that the success of a person needs to be long term, and the only group that can do that is "them" "soceity" or simple everyone else besides the person in question.
I am not saying that i support visual discrimination of any kind, but rather just acknoledlging that it exists, and because it exists, things like beauty and "hotness", or sex-appeal neccesarily(although arbitraily) must exist as well. And to ignore these ideas is to become ignorant and seperated from the society that created them. BUT! maybe(and for many people it is) exactly what you want. There does exist many cliques in the world that would disagree with "society" but that doesnt mean we can neglect to recognize its importance.
Lastly, I believe we have run into some muddy water as to how we view ourselves, wether it be by internal reflection or an external look in the mirror. I think we could argue that to the death, and should just submit to accepting that everyone will see it different, but that their collective differences diffines a culture which must be recognized as real, and therefore all of its ideas(regardless of validity) should also be recognized as real.
ok i think there really is beauty and ugliness (is that correct english? anyway who cares - cause we graduated!! hehe). I think that even if the two most beautiful people on earth have kids they could have some butt ugly ones. The body features of the parents get all mixed together and sometimes those combinations are pretty and other times they aren't.
Going back to some of what Jax was saying - It is weird to think about how we percieve ourselves and how others see us. I think we all do have some kind of mental image of what we think we look like and they are sometimes differnet from what we really look like which is why people often hate pictures of themselves. It is also weird to think about how people know what we look like more than we do, because they see us all the time when we can't really see ourselves. For example, I have very little idea what the back of my neck etc looks like cause, well, I can't see it. Other people have stood behind me and therefore know what my neck looks like. It is just weird to think that others may know what we look like more than we (ourselves) do. Ok, done rambling. :)
Well said druidprop. And etepete, no two people will percive any one thing the same. Thats human nature. So while it is interesting to note what "others" think about our appearence as opposed to our own perception, doing so would neccesarily require a nearly infinte number of comparisons and would soon make the whole issue useless.
It has been said to not worry what other people think about you, but I agree with druidprop insofar as saying that other people's opnions of us are a necceasry discriminatory tool in our culture's way of conducting business.
Hold on; not to be a total shphitz, and really i'm not trying to be rude, but how can you rectify these two statements.
"I say lets just do away with the whole concept of phsycial beauty, anyway."
and
"But you are all wrong! The fact is that we need visual discrimination. Physical beauty is an important concept"
Maybe i'm not understanding your points. I think we all agree that what we call "beauty" is an integral dimension of the human experience, whether it be distinguishing class or through mate attraction.
again, not trying to be a shphitz.
another thing too, would you consider joining like minded individuals in a group blog venture Conglomoblog ?
I agree that physical attraction has developed due to mating, and eliminating deformity, etc. But not so anymore. Sure, in men, attractiveness is completely health, stamina, and virility. But in women it's different. Breasts are exaggerated; you don't need a d cup to feed a child. These days the "model" woman is tall and skinny. Very skinny. I know that in ancient Greece, for example, I'd be considered pretty damn gorgeous for my sturdy hips and child-bearing thighs, but such a feature is much less than commendable in our current society.
At the same time, another mating attractive thing would be youth. Women needed men who were strong and powerful, whatever the age, but men needed to get women young for the greatest chance of offspring. With a higher mortality rate, a woman needed to get pregnant more to produce children. Then she needed to give birth to many children to increase chance of family survival (like sea turtles or something).
So although I don't see a problem with a healthy skin tone and whatnot, I think we shouldn't depend on our instincts about procreation to determine attractiveness. Society has changed drastically, and I would rather judge a person's attractiveness based on his or her whole person.
Ummmm...yea. That was me.....Peace Out.
Something to consider: Physical beauty may be a meaningless survival characteristic that correlates well to other, meaningful ones. Consider a society wherein people can be either ugly or pretty, and, in addition, can be either 'fit' or 'unfit' to survive. Assume, at the outset, that these are uncorrelated, but that beautiful people mate more often and fit people have a longer fertile life.
Over time, the 'fit' would be more likely to mate with the pretty, which would mean that most fit offspring were pretty, and most pretty offspring fit. This would leave the 'ugly', whether fit or not, to breed primarily with the unfit. This would create a definite, but artificial, correlation between fitness and beauty, even if each had no direct relationship on the other.
Thus speaks the overweight guy whose fashion sense occasionally dictates matching socks.
well, i think you guys are forgetting a small detail in the Darwinian theory concerning humans. Humans can fall in love...with anyone. The hottest person you have ever seen can fall in love with the ugliest person you have ever seen and they could be very happy. Animals live by the "survival of the fittest" but human beings are more complex than that. A sweet, considerate not-so-cute guy will find a mate much faster than a hot total asshole guy.
It is true that some human beings are more into the looks of other people and physical attraction helps bring people together, but love is very powerful. Animals don't have that. Yes, the animal side of us wants to still find that mate that is best, thus better looking. But human beings have learned not to give in to all their animal urges. I mean, guys don't go around humping everything when they're tured on like dogs do. Humans have learned to take care of such things in private.
In conclusion, human beings defy the laws of Darwin when it comes to choosing a mate because of a higher conciousness of self and others (ability to know oneself and fall in love).
Even if we have the capacity to fall in love, we have the tendency to fall in lust with those who are more attractive -- and reproductive organs don't really differentiate between a meaningful and substantial relationship between two people who love each other and the animalistic gyrations of total strangers who find each other hot. Love might weaken the effect of this selection process, but it doesn't mean we can disregard it.
know that for a fact byrne?
somehow i have doubts that karl marx would actually say "masturbation"...
same with jesus.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home