she has a great personality

November 14, 2006 3:27 PM

Humans are hard-wired to obsess over beauty. Being nice is, biologically, not enough.
posted by four panels (60 comments total)

Aaah, yes, the psychology pseudo-study strikes again. Of course the studies are done as follows. Someone is shown pictures of faces and is told to describe them. None are done "in the wild" where actual interactions are for real. None follow people through life to determine where beauty gets them. This one is almost as bad as last weeks terrible study, where women sniffing underarm odor during fertile periods and expressing which one they liked the best meant that "women have pursued a strategy of being with "dominant" (how this is defined is never shown) males during fertile periods and staying with more "caring" males during the rest of the period.

Its not to say that the good-looking amongst us don't have advantages, but looking at a photo does not a model of the real world make.

This is exactly why most psychology is pseudo-science. Informative, but not science.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:52 PM on November 14, 2006 [2 favorites]

Not this again.

On preview: what Ironmouth said, mostly.

Their initial premise-- that there is something physically inherent that all cultures, at all times, recognize as a universal beauty standard is flawed, to start.

And the good-looking among us, women in particular, find beauty a mixed gift. We give power and status of a complicated kind to beautiful women, but we also punish for it, or take it away after a span of a few years.
posted by jokeefe at 3:59 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

They compared the left and right ring fingers of 183 Polish women between the ages of 24 and 36. Women whose fingers differed in length by more than two millimeters formed the asymmetrical group.

True, they might not be as "beautiful." But you should see what they can do with that asymmetrical finger. whoa.
posted by TweetleBeetleBattleBookie at 4:03 PM on November 14, 2006

Thirding.

Please do not use the tools of evolutionary analysis to 'investigate' such high-order human concepts as beauty or culture.
posted by docgonzo at 4:04 PM on November 14, 2006

I was going to post a comment about how silly evolutionary psychology, and, by extension, this article, is, but then an equally silly comment was posted first.

This is exactly why most psychology is pseudo-science. Informative, but not science.

Do enlighten us as to the necessary and sufficient conditions for an activity to be science, Ironmouth.

I won't defend the study (or studies) under discussion here - I don't know enough about them to know if they're any good. However, assuming for the sake of argument that they are not, I will point out that it's ridiculous to thereby impugn the bulk of experimental psychology.

None [of the studies] are done "in the wild" where actual interactions are for real.

This sounds like a criticism of experimentation in general, not of poorly conceived psychology.
posted by noahpoah at 4:07 PM on November 14, 2006

...a strategy of being with "dominant" (how this is defined is never shown) ...

I thought "dominant" was defined, in the context of the study you mentioned, as having high levels of testosterone. If you disagree with this, just point to research that establishes that there is no link between testosterone, dominance and/or agression.

None are done "in the wild" where actual interactions are for real.

I'm not a psychologist, but isn't the purpose of a study like this to isolate the one factor one is interested in studying, in order to eliminate the sources of error that are inherent in 'real world' studies?

The concept of beauty and its role in our society is a complex and loaded one. I applaud researchers that have the courage and inventiveness to examine it.
posted by spazzm at 4:10 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

Desmond Morris, who's written tons of books on all kinds of animal behavior (including us) probably has more to say about this subject. I confess I kinda think his observations on human behavior smack of self-aggrandizement, but he does have a pretty impressive history of research.

In any case, some of his observations suggest a far more basic foundation for an appreciation of human beauty... and it's pretty much reduced to sexual availability .. or the appearence of such. Seems kinda obvious to me.

On the other hand, I read something a while back (couldnt find a link to it) that suggested that in face to face meetings, concepts of beauty (and sexual compatibility) are far less a function of social "standards" than on very subtle, complex biological triggers. Things that include not only pheromones but, my personal fave, the unconscious recognition of similar or compatible patterns of neurons firing that can be perceived in the eyes. That is way cool.

Turns out beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.
posted by elendil71 at 4:10 PM on November 14, 2006

D'oh. I'll preview next.
posted by spazzm at 4:11 PM on November 14, 2006

Stuff like this is the reason I dropped my psychology class in high school; discussions about it never include nearly enough data, when data is obviously needed in immense quantities.
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:12 PM on November 14, 2006

Wow, a crappy pop-science article based on bad research.

The surgeon whose "studies" the article heavily features has a website about his work, which demonstrates his face mask with flash animation and missuses "it's." None of his theories seem to have found their way into peer-revied journals-- but they have been featured by "Hard Copy" and "Marie Claire," so he must be a credible expert on these things.
posted by bookish at 4:16 PM on November 14, 2006

> Being nice is, biologically, not enough.

Hm. Well, this is more or less what most of the girls I asked out in university told me...
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:40 PM on November 14, 2006 [2 favorites]

Women whose fingers differed in length by more than two millimeters formed the asymmetrical group.

Is a difference of two millimeters even visible to the average human eye? Oy.

The concept of beauty and its role in our society is a complex and loaded one. I applaud researchers that have the courage and inventiveness to examine it.

And that's why it's disappointing to see it done, invariably, badly.
posted by jokeefe at 4:41 PM on November 14, 2006

No wait, this makes sense. From now on, all beauty pageants will be judged along quantifiable criteria based on various iterations of phi instead of all that ridiculous "talent" crapulence to confuse the issue.

Seriously though, if there really is anything to this, you've gotta grant the stipulation that any specific culture's beauty bell-curve will get skewed depending on the physical characteristics of whoever is in the perceived "ruling class." Because if your despotic Queen/Chieftess happens to sport a unibrow, hairy crevices, and several spare tires orbiting her royal frame and she proclaims herself "teh Hotness," then you'd best learn to wanna hit that. Possibly over the course of several generations, but oh, you learn.

But now we're running out of indigenous and previously isolated cultures to test this kind of theory on! That's a tragedy. Because then we could parade a bunch of NYC runway models in front of the fertile fellows of the tribe, then ask them if they're hot or not. I'd bet they'd probably reject the batch as being malnourished. In other words: physical attractiveness, perceived fertility, and practicality all ride the same subway, so unless someone can figure out how to isolate any of those variables we're not getting any closer to an answer on this.
posted by krippledkonscious at 4:43 PM on November 14, 2006

1: Where's the mask? I wanna see if I'm purty.

2: Sure, he put that mask over beautiful people and it matched up; but did he try any fugly people, or better yet, "plain" people?
posted by davejay at 4:44 PM on November 14, 2006

George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 5:06 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

And the good-looking among us, ....find beauty a mixed gift

I can live with it.
posted by jonmc at 5:12 PM on November 14, 2006

Serioulsy, though, just casual observation, (or even rifling through porn newsgroups) are a pretty fair indicator that what people find beautiful covers a pretty broad spectrum.
posted by jonmc at 5:19 PM on November 14, 2006

YOU'RE ALL JUST JEALOUS


Serioulsy, though, just casual observation, (or even rifling through porn newsgroups) are a pretty fair indicator that what people find beautiful covers a pretty broad spectrum.

I like that reply on so many levels :)
posted by spiderwire at 5:24 PM on November 14, 2006

Oh, christ, and jonmc beat me to the punch by hiding the joke in the first part of a double comment.

bookish, is that not a reasonable place to publish?
posted by spiderwire at 5:27 PM on November 14, 2006

well, hey spiderwire, am I wrong? skinny folk, fat folk, blonde, brunette, redhead, one-eyed microcephalic midgets...it all gets somebody's motor humming, it's merely a matter of finding them. I used to consider myself bland looking until my face appeared on the 'net often and got positive response. It's a numbers game.
posted by jonmc at 5:32 PM on November 14, 2006

I used to consider myself bland looking until my face appeared on the 'net often and got positive response. It's a numbers game.

jon, until you've made the AVN awards, you haven't really arrived.
posted by spiderwire at 5:34 PM on November 14, 2006

what people find beautiful covers a pretty broad spectrum.

But it doesn't include Roseanne Barr. You missed the author's whole point.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:37 PM on November 14, 2006

Rosie's kind of cute in some ways. And John Goodman and Carroll O'Connor have followings among gay men, I'm told. Attraction is a murky thing.

And spiderwire, I don't do nudity unless it's integral to the plot.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on November 14, 2006

Ahh yes, the plight of the true artiste. :( The awards truly have been pandering to the lowest common denominator lately.

I blame reader-response theory.
posted by spiderwire at 5:51 PM on November 14, 2006

As well you should, spiderwire. Reader response theory . . .

"Assholes!" /Ze Frank
posted by cgc373 at 6:07 PM on November 14, 2006

"Because then we could parade a bunch of NYC runway models in front of the fertile fellows of the tribe, then ask them if they're hot or not. I'd bet they'd probably reject the batch as being malnourished."

I would too (although some of them have pretty faces, sure), and I'm a white male American living in a major city, not an African tribesman.

"And spiderwire, I don't do nudity unless it's integral to the plot."

Ha! Your humility is showing!! Cover that up, yo! :D

For the record, I do nudity pretty much whenever I feel like it. Except at work. They frown on it here.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:13 PM on November 14, 2006

Yes, beauty is always such a blessing.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:15 PM on November 14, 2006

all of you who don't like this post are obviously ugly.
the best people are the beautiful ones , because they're the one's with all the money, and thats why they're the smart ones.
posted by nola at 6:34 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

or maybe i'm just tooted up on hydrocodone.
posted by nola at 6:38 PM on November 14, 2006

Stanley Fish is actually just his porn name. True story.

depending on what you mean by "true story"
posted by spiderwire at 6:44 PM on November 14, 2006

all of you who don't like this post are obviously ugly.
the best people are the beautiful ones , because they're the one's with all the money, and thats why they're the smart ones.

Please. I'm gorgeous, but poor and not-too-swift.
posted by jonmc at 7:00 PM on November 14, 2006

This reminds me of a show I saw on the Discovery Channel when I was a teenager, on which this monstrously chin-bearded evolutionary psychologist was asserting that all famously beautiful women throughout history have had the same "eye-to-nose-to-chin ratio." To support his thesis he had a bunch of ridiculous transparencies that he kept laying over photographs of Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe and howling, "Would you look at that--it's uncanny!" I dismissed him as a fool, but the experience inspired in me a deep-seated fear that if one of my nostrils were larger than the other I would never find anyone to love me, so the day I became a triumphant child bride I laughed aloud on that altar and instead of saying, "I do," shouted "Choke on it, you cunty scientists! Obviously some kind of bewitching ichor of sensuality flows forth from my mismatched nostrils rather than the more pedestrian snot of others, so eat my alluring asymmetrical dust!" At least that is how I remember it.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 7:06 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

I dunno, I find that actually getting to know a person makes them look different to me than when I just look at a static image of them. Like, the first time I meet someone I suspect I see them as they actually appear, no biases, but as I come to like a person (or dislike them, as the case may be), they seem to grow more (or less) attractive.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:08 PM on November 14, 2006

if one of my nostrils were larger than the other I would never find anyone to love me,

perhaps, but think of the meth-snorting advantages!
posted by jonmc at 7:08 PM on November 14, 2006

but as I come to like a person (or dislike them, as the case may be), they seem to grow more (or less) attractive.

I dunno. I've often found myself physically lusting after people I actively dislike. Our libido has a mind of it's own sometimes.
posted by jonmc at 7:09 PM on November 14, 2006

the unconscious recognition of similar or compatible patterns of neurons firing that can be perceived in the eyes

Where can I read about this?
posted by Hicksu at 7:12 PM on November 14, 2006

Are all the naysayers here really claming that there aren't certain common attributes to "beauty" that get selected for through generations? Of course there are cultural differences, and of course there is great variety and all sorts of exceptions, but there is definitely more to it then just "its all relative".
posted by rsanheim at 7:16 PM on November 14, 2006

perhaps, but think of the meth-snorting advantages!

Why would I snort it when I can inject it directly into my urethra? Point taken, however--lines of ants do tend to prefer the left one.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 7:20 PM on November 14, 2006

skinny folk, fat folk, blonde, brunette, redhead, one-eyed microcephalic midgets...it all gets somebody's motor humming, it's merely a matter of finding them.

Right on cue.

You don’t seem to be saying that there is equal competition for mates across all different appearances (since you say “it's merely a matter of finding them “) so I’m not sure what you seem to be holding up as evidence for the “beauty is relative” theory.

I can find at least one person who finds any given thing attractive, so beauty is relative? What are the other 99% competing for? Not the same thing, but a fairly narrow band, for the majority. But by all means bring out the anecdotes. That’s certainly proving... well, that you have anecdotes.

As for “out of the lab”, well then you have bone to pick with science at large. It’s fine to say that human behaviour is too complex and the variables are too interwoven to isolate. Yet this is obviously not always the case.

I’m not defending this bit of research, but these criticisms are weak.
posted by dreamsign at 7:52 PM on November 14, 2006

Hm, why all the negativity? I think it's kind of interesting. Not that it's true necessarily -- about the Golden Mean or whatnot -- but it's still an interesting read that makes me think.

It does seem potentially to be a case of giving meaning to patterns instead of the patterns themselves having meaning (23 anyone?), but that doesn't mean it's not worth considering.

Conversely, I don't believe for a second that recognition of beauty is entirely subjective. Certainly there's some element of this, especially with regards to body types and sex appeal. But a pretty face has been a pretty face for a long, long time. It reminds me of "cuteness" in baby mammals and the way that (possibly) influences reactions to them.

So I'm curious, is the reaction to this sort of study from an instinctive level (disliking whether it has any truth to it, but balking at the idea people treat beauty in a scientific way), or that you feel certain it has no merit? And why?
posted by cj_ at 7:55 PM on November 14, 2006

I don't buy it because the concept of beauty changes so much over time. A beautiful woman from 1500 is not the same as a beautiful woman from 2000, even from within the same culture.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:05 PM on November 14, 2006

And a beautiful woman from anywhere is not the same as a beautiful woman from a Harley gathering.

/cheap shot
(sorry)
posted by maryh at 8:19 PM on November 14, 2006

I think people are prone to mixing up sex appeal with beauty in these kinds of discussions, and the article doesn't do a good job of keeping them seperate. They are related, but not specifically the same thing. We know that who you want to shag is subtley shaped by a complex set of emotional and cultural influences, as well as what is available to you.

Who you chose to partner with and your feelings about them doesn't make a pretty face suddenly ugly if they aren't identical. In considering beauty in the abstract and sexually neutral sense, I think there is still a case to be made here. Does it have anything to do with "Phi"? I honestly don't fucking know, and I highly doubt it, but I applaud the effort to make sense of it.

For anyone horrified at the idea of measuring beauty mathematically, there are people who are more analytically-inclined who find beauty in such an idea itself, as do many people who enjoy music for more than how it sounds to the ear. It's not such a terrible idea to consider.
posted by cj_ at 8:39 PM on November 14, 2006

An online article that analyzes physical beauty, but without displaying any inline images (or even image links*)? That IMG SRC ban is really getting around — might as well revert to Lynx.

*For Western notions of beauty, Fashion Era is a great place to start. We may have photography to keep everyone aware of the latest haute couture rage, but Louis XIV sent out fashion dolls.
posted by cenoxo at 8:42 PM on November 14, 2006

Bad science or not, good read. Thanks for the link.
posted by nonmerci at 8:46 PM on November 14, 2006

Nancy Burson — First and Second Beauty Composites.
posted by cenoxo at 8:48 PM on November 14, 2006

davejay - I couldn't find the original png mask that I first saw on a BBC special starring Elizabeth Hurley and John Cleese, but here are a couple of sites that use the masks on people.

From this site (which points to the first link) the site has pages (look under "Applications", "You and the Mask") showing how you can take a photo of your own face (full on and profile both) and then try the mask against it. There's no direct link but click on 'Mask Applications' and 'You and the Mask')

jokeefe - Is a difference of two millimeters even visible to the average human eye? Oy.

My left and right ears are about a mm different in height. One epicanthic fold is 1.5 mm less folded than the other. I find it very (and uncomfortably) noticeable. I can notice asymmetry in other people but the asymmetry in others doesn't detract from their attractiveness nearly as much (or at all) as how I perceive my own asymmetry.

Ironmouth - This is exactly why most psychology is pseudo-science. Informative, but not science.

Don't. I made a quip (in jest) in undergrad and spoiled a 'sure thing' with a psych major.

Sure, I still make fun of psychologists because they "have to do all kinds of convoluted stats to make their data work" but I have no problems classifying psychology, when done well, as a science.

As long as there are enough proper controls. Large enough sample size based on power calculations. Proper controls. Proper controls, and proper controls!
posted by porpoise at 8:48 PM on November 14, 2006

What an ugly webpage. It's prettier and easier to read as print preview.
posted by Joeforking at 8:59 PM on November 14, 2006

You don’t seem to be saying that there is equal competition for mates across all different appearances (since you say “it's merely a matter of finding them “) so I’m not sure what you seem to be holding up as evidence for the “beauty is relative” theory.

I thought jonmc was making a porn-specific argument there.
posted by spiderwire at 9:13 PM on November 14, 2006

On preview, the guy's website is REALLY bad. But the article itself is at least thought-provoking. :P
posted by cj_ at 10:41 PM on November 14, 2006

Can't we all just agree that hot chicks are hot? Symmetry is hot.
posted by blacklite at 11:11 PM on November 14, 2006

Can't we all just agree that hot chicks are hot? Symmetry is hot.

There is a lot more to "hotness" than looks, there are plenty of intangibles like "scank factor," "total obnoxiousness" and "complete idiocy" to take into account.

Paris Hilton can be as symetrical as she wants and her daddy can afford, but she can not get around scank factor 9.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:53 AM on November 15, 2006

I've always thought Beauty was in the eye of the doorholder.
posted by srboisvert at 5:40 AM on November 15, 2006

ATTENTION
ALIENS ARE COMING TO ABDUCT ALL THE GOOD LOOKING AND SEXY PEOPLE.
YOU WILL BE SAFE, I'M JUST WRITING TO SAY GOODBYE.
posted by Gooney at 8:04 AM on November 15, 2006

nola: "all of you who don't like this post are obviously ugly."

I'm what most people in this society would term "ugly" and I thought this study was mostly correct in its assertions. Yes, beauty is varied, as in there are lots of ways to be beautiful, but like the researcher said, nobody thinks Rosanne Barr is beautiful. (Except maybe Tom Arnold, but then he's no peach, right?)

As for the whole, "it's the inside that counts" (not actually said, but implied all over the comments), well, what utter nonsense. Ask anyone who's either ugly or beautiful and willing to be honest if that's true and the answer will be a resounding no. At least not when it comes to beauty and sexual desire, which is what we're talking about since the article states that women with more symmetrical faces have higher reproductive hormone levels. Let's pretend that Rosanne isn't the obnoxious hosebag she is. Instead imagine she's intelligent, thoughtful, sweet, blah, blah, blah. Want to sleep with her yet? Didn't think so.

I think people are misreading the purpose of the study. It's not, "people are hard wired to sexually desire beautiful people, therefore ugly people have no value" it's "people are hard wired to sexually desire beautiful people, because beautiful people make more babies." It's a simple evolutionary imperative, not a condemnation of ugly folks.
posted by katyggls at 9:32 AM on November 15, 2006

Let me bitterly echo katyggls- those of you who aren't really ugly don't know what it's like. It doesn't matter if your personality is sparkling (and why would it be, with a lifetime of subtle and overt confirmation that as an ugly person you have no value, because you're not worthy of love or affection); no one will take the time to see that if you're ugly. A nice personality inside a person of ugliness is like the huge gold stash at the end of Cryptonomicon: it's utterly valueless, because it can't be accessed.

Beauty and its advantages is very very real, and if I could live my life again I'd gladly trade everything just to be pretty. Saying otherwise is just pablum, just the usual empty rhetoric people like to say to make themselves feel good: things like "There's someone for everyone" or "It's what's on the inside that counts" or "Confidence is all that matters', blah blah blah. An inestimable load of crap.
posted by hincandenza at 11:11 AM on November 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

"I've always thought Beauty was in the eye of the doorholder."

No, no, it's "BEERholder."

That should clear up some confusion...
posted by zoogleplex at 1:25 PM on November 15, 2006

So that’s why I married that bitch. Ok. Clears a lot up.
Jesus I hated her. I wonder what she’s doing right now. Not thinking of me, I’ll bet. Rotten shrew. But what if she is?
*eyes the phone*

Yeah, I always got by on my looks. Like Abe Simpson.
And crossdressing. Like Abe Simpson.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:40 PM on November 15, 2006

Hincandenza: I love your ugly ass.
posted by tehloki at 10:37 PM on November 15, 2006

"What are the other 99% competing for? Not the same thing, but a fairly narrow band, for the majority. But by all means bring out the anecdotes."


Big hair and low self esteem.
posted by hatchetjack at 1:33 PM on November 16, 2006