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


Beautiful people have better genetics - fallacy or fact?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 October 2014 - 02:43 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.



My impression is that there are a sizeable number of heterosexual women* who find bad skin(or at least a certain type of bad) attractive. Think Clint Eastwood in Westerns and Russell Crowe in Gladiator. Their skin is kind of rough, likely made so by their experiences and environment, which can represent a kind of macho toughness.


Perhaps it can be attractive to have bad skin, so long as it is extrinsically caused? A marker of the strength to survive adversity, hence attractive? Apparently there was a fashion in Germany in the early 1900's which involved intentionally obtaining a scar on the face, from fencing, which was supposed to be attractive on males("dueling scar.")




Also I think it's quite common for heterosexual women* to find somewhat overweight men attractive too. Seems there's an attraction to a 'big bear' sort of body. Even though it may not be obvious muscle mass, being somewhat overweight may still give a dominance/strength signal that is attractive.


*(and bisexual men and women, and homosexual men too, at least.)

Edited by Brett Black, 21 October 2014 - 03:06 AM.

  • like x 1

#32 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 09 November 2014 - 01:53 AM

Strong evidences for average theory: what is beautiful is average, ence more easily readable and it feel similar, we like similarities. And the halo effect, since nobless or early human evolution attractiveness is a social status.


Strong evidences that beautiful people have no better genes than others.

Edited by Florian Xavier, 09 November 2014 - 01:54 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1

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

#33 GhostBuster

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 22

Posted 17 December 2014 - 08:24 PM

What I would like know is, why the most of people are not so handsome/beautiful and why beautiful people are so rare, if beauty means good genes. Good genes should equal with good reproductive success, so almost everybody should be good looking. Something just doesn't add up. The explanation that "evolution is not finished yet" ( i.e sometimes in the future there a lot more beautiful people) is kind of lame.

#34 nowayout

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

Posted 18 December 2014 - 05:33 PM

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.



Doesn't the fact that I (and most others I know) find Lundgren rather unattrative sink that theory?  The very fact that you find him an epitome shows the fallacy of the idea of objective beauty. 


Dolf Lundgren has "better" genetics from the point of view of people who like people who look like Dolf Lungren.  For those of us who prefer the look of, say, Eric Bana or Denzel Washington, having Lundgren's genetics would be a tragedy. 

Edited by nowayout, 18 December 2014 - 05:39 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2

#35 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,001 posts
  • 405

Posted 18 December 2014 - 08:37 PM

This topic reminds me of that sad study involving girls in a fifth grade class who were asked, individually, who they thought was the ugliest girl in their class. 75% of the girls said "I am."

#36 The Immortalist

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

Posted 18 December 2014 - 11:10 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. 


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?  


I don't know what your talking about man. Individual animals look significantly different from another animal of the same species. You just have to look closely and you can tell. If you have a pure breed dog don't tell me you can't physically tell the difference between another dog of the same breed. I can pick my dog out of a pack of 100 dogs of the same breed. 

#37 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 1,840 posts
  • -56
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 August 2020 - 05:17 PM

genetics shape culture somewhat. Smarter, beautiful and athleism is evoloutionary progress to a degree. That is what everyone will eventually become if they work on their counciusness etc . They all go hand in hand, exceptions to this rule ofc. this is why we feel more sad when a smart or attractive person dies becuase progress is stopped in its tracks all the hard work for nothing. And thats why we want evil people etc to die since they hinder progress evolution as human beings.

Edited by kurdishfella, 16 August 2020 - 05:28 PM.

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

#38 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 1,840 posts
  • -56
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 31 July 2021 - 12:40 AM

Not only that but they tend to be smarter etc. Middle easts/north africa have the most ressecive genes thats what happens when you mix race a lot youe genes become weaker tend to but more dominant.

Edited by kurdishfella, 31 July 2021 - 12:40 AM.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users