Beauty: an evolutionary tool?

[BIOphile]

Would I be right in saying that a person's physical beauty is really just a tool of the gene to further propagate itself because it's 'hardwired' into us to see beauty as a sign of fecundity?

Heh, that's what one of my papers is based on, and if the whole premise of it is wrong...

I guess this fits into the selfish gene theory.

I'd love if you know something more about this subject and you could tell me more about it, too.

Thanks!

 

Edit: I suppose someone should move this thread to the Evolution subforum. Sorry about that.

Edited January 5, 2009 by BIOphile

[npts2020]

Beauty is a very subjective term. In some cultures beauty=size (I'm thinking traditional Hawaiian for one) where the heavier you were the more beautiful you were considered to be. Plus when the hormones kick in I have seen immediacy overcome beauty pretty frequently.

[iNow]

But there are common cues to health and fertility (fecundity, as BIOphile mentioned). Things like bilateral symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio, skin condition, etc... are pretty common across cultures and time periods.

[BIOphile]

The paper I'm writing is trying to make a connection between sex hormones and development of the adult body, and how these changes increase the attractiveness of the individual, increasing its chances for procreation...

I'm going for universal indicators of beauty, like the ones iNow said. I'll make a good paragraph about those.

[iNow]

Out of curiosity, are you planning to include cues to economic (SES) stability and standing? I seem to recall work dealing with this, whereby people who were seen as "richer" or more "financially stable" were regarded as more beautiful than people who were "poorer" or less financially stable.

[BIOphile]

Ooh, nice idea, I should include this too.

I figure it's all about how able the partner is to support children or a family. I'm sure we've been conditioned by society and early influences to notice this financial stability or instability. Chances are if one did not care for any other aspects of a person aside from physical appearance, apparent health and financial status, and there was one rich twin and one poor, we would go for the rich. There's also the chance that the poor would appear to be less healthy because of lack of financial stability and from that the inability to live in ideal conditions and eat the proper food, etc..

I'm starting to ramble, sorry. It's just that I think through things while I type and my fingers blather it all over the text box.

In short I will do some research into your suggestion and include a paragraph in my paper. Thanks!

[iNow]

Right on. It'd be cool to see what you come up with. Another similar angle is how people are into the green/environmental movement. Much like having a high SES, those who have a strong awareness and commitment to the environment tend to do better sexually (at least, on college campuses, anyway).

 

 

I've even heard rumors of hottie women in Australia wearing tight t-shirts that say, "I only go down on guys who recycle," but perhaps that's not as appropriate for a research paper as I might wish it to be.

 

Cheers.

[FrankButlar]

I think that what is considered attractive within a culture and what is accepted as beautiful by the majority will give an evolutionary advantage to one who possesses the most desirable traits.

Frank Butlar

[CharonY]

There is of course more to that. What is considered as beauty will be overlaid with a lot of cultural background, however there are some things that work universally. However, "hardwired" is the critical part here. If we only consider a genetic basis then you need at least two components:

-first: genes that result in something that we describe as beautiful

-second: genes that make us feel attracted to those carrying the first set of genes, so that we perceive them as beuatiful

 

You will have noticed that while a number of things associated with beauty can be objectively measured like symmetry etc, the concept of beauty in general is also down to perception.

[Mr Skeptic]

Another good one: an average is considered beautiful. Take a person (I think the face) and average them with several other people. The average (a generated image) appears beautiful.

 

While some beauty cues are arbitrary and change across cultures, there are a few constants. Some beauty cues are an indicator of good health, and some of fertility. A woman is more attractive during her most fertile period, and conversely, she finds people more attractive during that time as well. Long, healthy hair is an indicator of both good health and fertility (in olden times, men had long hair). Waist-to-hip ratio seems to be an indicator of good health and fertility, and I've heard that it correlates somewhat with their babies' intelligence. I think belly fat (an indicator of stress) is considered ugly, but in many cultures being chubby was considered beautiful (it showed that you ate enough, or possibly had high social status). Beauty is a well-studied area, and I can't remember all I've read about it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

[iNow]

Long, healthy hair is an indicator of both good health and fertility (in olden times, men had long hair).

 

What do you mean, "in olden times!?!" It's 2009, and I still have long hair, so put that in your pipe and smoke it, Cheech!

 

Although, TBH... My stressful job is causing it to fall out more quickly than I'm comfortable with, so cutting it short again is quickly approaching from the horizon. It's been long for more than a decade now. Hopefully I won't go the way of Samson.