• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Beautiful people have better genetics - fallacy or fact?

dfsgdfgdfg

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 18 May 2013 - 06:38 PM


There must be some deeper reason as to why beautiful people are more desirable in all facets of society. Wouldn't it be evolutionary disadvantageous to be highly motivated to mate with people who only look a certain way yet may or may not have good genes?(genes for high intelligence, athletic ability etc).

Do beautiful people have better genes then less good looking people or is it that they just have better opportunities due to having more self esteem?

Edited by The Immortalist, 18 May 2013 - 06:39 PM.

  • like x 2

#2 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2013 - 07:38 PM

Beautiful people would generally be more able to bear young or plant seed. Beauty doesn't apply so much these days though as our initial lifespan had an average of 25yrs IIRC. So a "healthy" woman would give you a "healthy" baby, but they might only be healthy for 25 yrs before dieing. Today it's a little bit different. BIITEOTB now and has been since the dawn of medicine. The definition of physical beauty needs a more accurate definition which would include not doing anything or being in a state that might impair one's health or their offspring's health.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

A great deal of what is considered "beauty" in a mate is simply youth, which corresponds well with fertility. Other aspects of beauty are related to health- for example, being too far over- or underweight isn't healthy, and is widely considered not beautiful. Healthy skin, teeth and hair are indications of good nutrition, which ties back into general health. Symmetry is considered highly desirable, and this might have some bearing on genetic quality. A bigger factor might be "averageness". If you computationally average out the facial features of a large number of plain-looking or even ugly people, the result is pretty good looking. Having all your features close to the mean is another indication that your genome is at least not wildly messed up. Although we seek averageness, I think people also seek novelty, but only to a degree. People who look "exotic" are often considered very desirable, although only within certain bounds. This could relate to people seeking a bit of genetic diversity, which would be good for the overall genetic health of their clan and tribe.
  • like x 5
  • Agree x 1

#4 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:38 AM

A great deal of what is considered "beauty" in a mate is simply youth, which corresponds well with fertility. Other aspects of beauty are related to health- for example, being too far over- or underweight isn't healthy, and is widely considered not beautiful. Healthy skin, teeth and hair are indications of good nutrition, which ties back into general health. Symmetry is considered highly desirable, and this might have some bearing on genetic quality. A bigger factor might be "averageness". If you computationally average out the facial features of a large number of plain-looking or even ugly people, the result is pretty good looking. Having all your features close to the mean is another indication that your genome is at least not wildly messed up. Although we seek averageness, I think people also seek novelty, but only to a degree. People who look "exotic" are often considered very desirable, although only within certain bounds. This could relate to people seeking a bit of genetic diversity, which would be good for the overall genetic health of their clan and tribe.


Even if you are young, at a healthy weight, have healthy teeth and hair and skin and symmetrical you can still be ugly........the person could have all of those qualities but the person has an extremely recessive chin and eyes extremely wide apart yet with still healthy eyes and a very bulbous yet symmetrical nose for example.

I don't buy that averageness theory. People who are movie stars or top models are have facial features that are very rare in the overall population. For example one of the epitomes of male beauty is Dolph Lundren when he was young and his facial features are very rare in the overall population. It is very rare to have such a well developed jaw,chin and cheekbones with a well shaped nose.
Posted Image
  • dislike x 1

#5 Alizee

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 8
  • Location:MI

Posted 19 May 2013 - 03:30 AM

I would say yes, but only to an extent. I think being beautiful in general depends on a lot of factors beyond just being born that way. I should know, since I have been consider ugly and I am now "beautiful", when I was a teenager I was ugly, and when I finally gotten my weight down to the healthy BMI my looks became something I truely just discover, and people treat you differently when you have beauty. I also take Retin-A, which clear up my acne, but also kept me looking young which kind of help me discover the life-extension movement. I'll be honest, beauty has kind of gotten to my head, since it's the one and only thing I have....

Am I beautiful? I wouldn't say I am a typical beauty, but I get told that so I take it to heart. I am cute, that's all I know for sure.

I think I have a better set of genetics than 60% of the world, or I am least better educated than a lot of people. But I have my share of issues too, I deal with depression now and then, and I deal with autism... which I consider more of a gift than a curse, since if I didn't have it then I probably wouldn't be concern about my beauty to the inner details like I do.

But I think beauty, at the bare minimum tells someone that you weren't born mentally disabled, but you could become one later in life. I also believe beautiful people are in general more intelligent than non-beautiful people, and I been proven more than once that this holds true. I'm sorry if that offends some people, but I think it's a general trend.

But beauty can be disguise in the form of obesity, which I know since I suffer from that when I was young

And I think being ugly is far worse than being beautiful as far as genetics go. I think average or plain looks can be be pretty neutral.
Beauty only means how healthy you appear to be, and the more healthier means the better you can produce a child.

I wouldn't trade my looks for million dollars. I would only trade my looks to live forever and with a chance to get them back... if I knew that I would be ugly for the rest of my existence... I have lost my purpose in living.

Edited by Alizee, 19 May 2013 - 03:45 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#6 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:54 AM

A great deal of what is considered "beauty" in a mate is simply youth, which corresponds well with fertility. Other aspects of beauty are related to health- for example, being too far over- or underweight isn't healthy, and is widely considered not beautiful. Healthy skin, teeth and hair are indications of good nutrition, which ties back into general health. Symmetry is considered highly desirable, and this might have some bearing on genetic quality. A bigger factor might be "averageness". If you computationally average out the facial features of a large number of plain-looking or even ugly people, the result is pretty good looking. Having all your features close to the mean is another indication that your genome is at least not wildly messed up. Although we seek averageness, I think people also seek novelty, but only to a degree. People who look "exotic" are often considered very desirable, although only within certain bounds. This could relate to people seeking a bit of genetic diversity, which would be good for the overall genetic health of their clan and tribe.


Even if you are young, at a healthy weight, have healthy teeth and hair and skin and symmetrical you can still be ugly........the person could have all of those qualities but the person has an extremely recessive chin and eyes extremely wide apart yet with still healthy eyes and a very bulbous yet symmetrical nose for example.

I don't buy that averageness theory. People who are movie stars or top models are have facial features that are very rare in the overall population. For example one of the epitomes of male beauty is Dolph Lundren when he was young and his facial features are very rare in the overall population. It is very rare to have such a well developed jaw,chin and cheekbones with a well shaped nose.
Posted Image


I think that has to do with keeping a low BMI during certain years of development.
  • dislike x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#7 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,103 posts
  • 410
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:04 AM

As general, there are many examples, in which the beuty means health.

The good looking teeth are a part of the beautiful smile. The good looking teeth mean teeth with no carieses, no missing teeth, white in color, etc. All this means healthy teeth. Why? Because the caries is a disease, the tooth are missing because of caries and parodontosis, i.g. because of a disease, and their discoloration and malposition may also mean diseases.

The beautiful skin is the smooth, eavenly colored skin with no acne pustulas, no errosions and no reddenings, with no nodules and other intumescences on it, so ... it actually means a healthy skin. All of the above - pustulas, errosions, reddenings, tumors and nodules are symptoms of skin diseases.

The beutiful hair is the hair that do not have bald spots and have a dense even color. E.g., this is the healthy hair.

The beautiful body is the body, that is not obese, have proportional hands and legs, do not have deviations in the spine, and others. This is the desvription also of a healthy body.

Even though everything this is relative. There are also examples of beauty standarts, that have nothing to do with the health. We have to know, that these are OUR beauty standarts, maintained from OUR society. There are other societies, that maintain other beauty standarts, that have nothing to do with the health. For example it has been a tradition in Japan the females to darken their teeth, by coloring them in black. According to me thus colored teeth look as devastated from caries. Even though, according to the standards of the traditional japaneese culture, they look beautiful. Here a link with a picture: http://japanuptown.c...or-black-teeth/

#8 lazarian

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:02 PM

I believe that what we consider to be beautiful is strongly related to genes. If someone is beautiful, their genes have a higher likelihood of being carried on to the next generation, and there must be a reason for this fact. However, in today's society the concept of beauty has been changed so much that it is unlikely that it still has a lot to do with genetic predisposition in that aspect.

#9 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 253

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:30 AM

Take the example of Lindsay Lohan. She was exeptionally beautiful before abusing herself. She still looks OK but the shine has worn off. Someone with terrible genes will be 'ugly' no matter what, but they can be ugly-pretty or ugly-handsome doing the opposite of LL.

In order of importance, it's genetics first, then epigenetics which depend on things like nutrition and exercise.

#10 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,706 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:15 AM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as goes the saying and certainly sexually, for every trait that we consider "ugly" there will be someone out there who fetishises it and seeks it in a partner whether for long-term love or just for sex.
  • like x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#11 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:27 PM

The good looking teeth are a part of the beautiful smile. The good looking teeth mean teeth with no carieses, no missing teeth, white in color, etc. All this means healthy teeth. Why? Because the caries is a disease, the tooth are missing because of caries and parodontosis, i.g. because of a disease, and their discoloration and malposition may also mean diseases.

[...] There are other societies, that maintain other beauty standarts, that have nothing to do with the health. For example it has been a tradition in Japan the females to darken their teeth, by coloring them in black. According to me thus colored teeth look as devastated from caries. Even though, according to the standards of the traditional japaneese culture, they look beautiful. Here a link with a picture: http://japanuptown.c...or-black-teeth/


In this week's Chemical and Engineering News, there is an article about a versatile new nano-coating that's made with tannic acid and iron. In that article, they mentioned the black tooth coating from old Japan, but said that it was done to prevent cavities. Maybe the chemistry was similar? I wonder if the practice began as a health aid and came to be viewed as beautiful, or if it was the other way around? I could see it being seen as beautiful- I mean, people put grommets in their earlobes.... If you could have bought black tooth coating back in the goth era, I'm sure some people would have gone for it.

#12 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,103 posts
  • 410
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:07 PM

You may wonder whatever You want. If they did it for some sort of caries prevention, this must to be proved first.
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#13 mehisa

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 2
  • Location:u.s
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:23 AM

Yeah ive always wondered why were trained to love beauty cause it always seems like beautiful people are sometimes flawed in other ways either they have bad personality or character and other problems and they can come down with a illness like others. I think it just means they are less likely to have a dna defect to cause a big illness cause they are so attractive.

#14 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 12:04 AM

That's a bad way to judge... It's one of those disarming misnomers, at least as far as society is concerned... it's too complex to explain in short order.

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

Yeah ive always wondered why were trained to love beauty cause it always seems like beautiful people are sometimes flawed in other ways...


What makes you think we're "trained" to love beauty? We might be trained to like certain fashions, but our attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, symmetry, and markers of fertility (e.g. youth) is innate.
  • like x 2

#16 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 15 September 2013 - 06:39 AM

Better is a very subjective word. Do their genes have utility? Certainly, but mostly if you assume a Darwinian perspective in that it makes reproduction easier. Additionally, given certain cultural conditions, it may affect self-esteem. That aside, however, I wouldn't say they're intrinsically better. The only way you could make that argument is if it were centered on something more objectively beneficial, such as intelligence. Even then, there are definite drawbacks (anecdotally, there seems to be a soft inverse correlation with intelligence and happiness).

#17 revenant

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 94
  • Location:St Louis, Missouri
  • NO

Posted 27 October 2013 - 01:53 AM

Rather than individuals that looked more or less appealing to others within a group, the passing down of DNA during our formative millennia probably had much more to do with the success of groups' abilities to prevail over other groups in a spatial context, i.e. and having members with traits that helped the group to succeed in a given environment. The groups with adaptable immune systems, intelligent members, and members with the physical abilities to procure food and prevail in combat (strength, speed, aggression) where the ones that passed along the traits we see today. I have known some really good looking girls with ugly ass parents. I have know some ugly ass people who were really smart. I have know some ugly dudes with hot girlfriends who were really smart and could kick the shit out of most people. If better genes are a measure of the ability to pass down DNA, good looks do not = better genes.

#18 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 27 October 2013 - 06:24 PM

There is alot wrong with that statement. There has long been a different method of "prevailing."
  • dislike x 1

#19 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:28 PM

They have better genetics for being beautiful, but not so much for other things. Very few Nobel prize winners could win a beauty pageant.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#20 becomingwiser

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 7

Posted 19 October 2014 - 03:36 PM

I think that everyone looks equally beautiful in a purely natural environment... there's no evolutionary sense to why some people would be more "beautiful" than others. If you look at other animals they all generally look almost the exact same in each species. The law of averageness comes from the fact that the average is probably how we're "supposed" to look. 

 

So what you think of as not being beautiful is I believe some form of developmental abnormality due to nutritional inadequacies, environmental factors such as modern toxins, etc. Also some genes are more susceptible to these toxicities and inadequacies than others. 

 

I really hate when people talk about "better" genes or "worse" genes, for me there are no bad genes, there is a reason for everyone and everything. Humans have genes for large brains which is supposed to be "good" and yet humans are the very ones who are ruining the planet using their brains. 

 

 


Edited by becomingwiser, 19 October 2014 - 03:36 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 October 2014 - 01:35 AM

I think that everyone looks equally beautiful in a purely natural environment... there's no evolutionary sense to why some people would be more "beautiful" than others. If you look at other animals they all generally look almost the exact same in each species. The law of averageness comes from the fact that the average is probably how we're "supposed" to look. 

 

So what you think of as not being beautiful is I believe some form of developmental abnormality due to nutritional inadequacies, environmental factors such as modern toxins, etc. Also some genes are more susceptible to these toxicities and inadequacies than others. 

 

I really hate when people talk about "better" genes or "worse" genes, for me there are no bad genes, there is a reason for everyone and everything. Humans have genes for large brains which is supposed to be "good" and yet humans are the very ones who are ruining the planet using their brains. 

 

I guess these are all your opinion which you are entitled to, but I don't agree with a word of it.  Do you really think other animals all look alike?  We probably all look alike to them.  And do you really think that facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation are in fact due to nutritional deficiency?  What's your evidence for that?

 

No bad genes?  Talk to someone with cystic fibrosis.



#22 becomingwiser

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 7

Posted 20 October 2014 - 02:25 AM

 

I think that everyone looks equally beautiful in a purely natural environment... there's no evolutionary sense to why some people would be more "beautiful" than others. If you look at other animals they all generally look almost the exact same in each species. The law of averageness comes from the fact that the average is probably how we're "supposed" to look. 

 

So what you think of as not being beautiful is I believe some form of developmental abnormality due to nutritional inadequacies, environmental factors such as modern toxins, etc. Also some genes are more susceptible to these toxicities and inadequacies than others. 

 

I really hate when people talk about "better" genes or "worse" genes, for me there are no bad genes, there is a reason for everyone and everything. Humans have genes for large brains which is supposed to be "good" and yet humans are the very ones who are ruining the planet using their brains. 

 

I guess these are all your opinion which you are entitled to, but I don't agree with a word of it.  Do you really think other animals all look alike?  We probably all look alike to them.  And do you really think that facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation are in fact due to nutritional deficiency?  What's your evidence for that?

 

No bad genes?  Talk to someone with cystic fibrosis.

 

 

I really think other animals do look alike. I know the effect you're talking about but I still believe that humans look substantially different to one another. I have no clue of what you're talking about when you say "facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation", if you can provide examples of that I'd appreciate it. You know it's quite easy to fixate on some aspect of a face and consider it to be ugly after a while. 

  

Okay I agree some genes might be bad, however I think they're caused by civilization in some way. Things only ever seem to go wrong when civilization is involved, is it really such a big jump to infer that every other bad thing is caused by an unknown mechanism of it?  


  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#23 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 October 2014 - 02:27 AM

I guess these are all your opinion which you are entitled to, but I don't agree with a word of it.  Do you really think other animals all look alike?  We probably all look alike to them.  And do you really think that facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation are in fact due to nutritional deficiency?  What's your evidence for that?

 

No bad genes?  Talk to someone with cystic fibrosis.

 

 

I'm with niner on this. Only someone who's had minimal contact with animals can say something like - "all animals look alike" - of course they don't, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. It's harder for a human to discern them because our brains are wired for human face recognition, BUT if you have more than one pet of the same breed you will learn to identify them, something I know for a fact from personal experience.

Are there negative physical traits in animals? Of course. Even as a human you can learn to identify them, we are obviously capable of distinguishing them, animal husbandry has existed for thousands of years after all.

Unfortunately "bad genes" sounds like "sieg heil" to most people and we have the western media to thank for that. Of course the brainwash only lasts until your child is born with a genetic disorder, most people wake up at that point.


Edited by corb, 20 October 2014 - 02:27 AM.


#24 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 October 2014 - 02:56 AM

 I have no clue of what you're talking about when you say "facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation", if you can provide examples of that I'd appreciate it. You know it's quite easy to fixate on some aspect of a face and consider it to be ugly after a while. 

 

Have you never heard someone say something like "she has her mother's lovely eyes, but her grandfather's bulbous nose"?  Kids look like their parents, and grandparents, more often than not. 



#25 becomingwiser

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 7

Posted 20 October 2014 - 05:26 PM

 

 I have no clue of what you're talking about when you say "facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation", if you can provide examples of that I'd appreciate it. You know it's quite easy to fixate on some aspect of a face and consider it to be ugly after a while. 

 

Have you never heard someone say something like "she has her mother's lovely eyes, but her grandfather's bulbous nose"?  Kids look like their parents, and grandparents, more often than not. 

 

 

I've heard it, but I have never noticed it or taken it seriously myself. People are very susceptible to "seeing things" when it's suggested to them. 



#26 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 October 2014 - 08:04 PM

 

 

 I have no clue of what you're talking about when you say "facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation", if you can provide examples of that I'd appreciate it. You know it's quite easy to fixate on some aspect of a face and consider it to be ugly after a while. 

 

Have you never heard someone say something like "she has her mother's lovely eyes, but her grandfather's bulbous nose"?  Kids look like their parents, and grandparents, more often than not. 

 

 

I've heard it, but I have never noticed it or taken it seriously myself. People are very susceptible to "seeing things" when it's suggested to them. 

 

 

Did you know there are computer programs being developed that match facial features from photos and guess your kinship from that?

With a very high % of success.
 



#27 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 October 2014 - 08:06 PM

 

 

 I have no clue of what you're talking about when you say "facial features that are obviously handed down from generation to generation", if you can provide examples of that I'd appreciate it. You know it's quite easy to fixate on some aspect of a face and consider it to be ugly after a while. 

 

Have you never heard someone say something like "she has her mother's lovely eyes, but her grandfather's bulbous nose"?  Kids look like their parents, and grandparents, more often than not. 

 

I've heard it, but I have never noticed it or taken it seriously myself. People are very susceptible to "seeing things" when it's suggested to them. 

 

I can only assume that you have not had much exposure to families or that you are not very observant.
 



#28 becomingwiser

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 7

Posted 20 October 2014 - 10:31 PM

Even if true, that's a tangential point. Look at a picture of someone like Rihanna really close up: she has many traits of ugliness: large nose. You can see clear markers of "ugliness" there, based on traits perceived as ugly. NikiMinaj is similar - I'm giving these as examples because they're so prominent as being sexy. A computer algorithm trying to find ugliness would find them ugly.   

 

However it would be hardly credible to call those people "ugly" in general. I believe structural "ugliness" is very rare, and my belief is that it's caused by developmental issues.  

 

But the vast majority of "ugliness" seen in the modern world has nothing to do with fatness or bad skin. Those genes are not bad except in the modern world where they are exposed to modern food, modern toxins and modern stress. 

    


Edited by becomingwiser, 20 October 2014 - 10:32 PM.


#29 becomingwiser

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 7

Posted 21 October 2014 - 12:11 AM

Oops, when I said "nothing to do with fatness or bad skin" I meant everything to do with those two. The fatness (or occasionally really skinny) and bad skin are what really mark individuals as less desirable to our senses. 


Edited by becomingwiser, 21 October 2014 - 12:11 AM.


Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 October 2014 - 12:38 AM

Even if true, that's a tangential point. Look at a picture of someone like Rihanna really close up: she has many traits of ugliness: large nose. You can see clear markers of "ugliness" there, based on traits perceived as ugly. NikiMinaj is similar - I'm giving these as examples because they're so prominent as being sexy. A computer algorithm trying to find ugliness would find them ugly.   
 
However it would be hardly credible to call those people "ugly" in general. I believe structural "ugliness" is very rare, and my belief is that it's caused by developmental issues.  
 
But the vast majority of "ugliness" seen in the modern world has [everything] to do with fatness or bad skin. Those genes are not bad except in the modern world where they are exposed to modern food, modern toxins and modern stress.


It sounds like you just don't find Black women to be attractive. Structural ugliness is rare? What do you think keeps plastic surgeons in business? Developmental issues? Where are you getting this stuff? At least I can agree with you that fatness and bad skin are ugly, but that's not the only way people can be ugly.

Here's an evolutionary psychologist's take on the issue of beauty compared with other traits.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users