Facial aesthetics and biology

[Anonymous No.6867402]

I know a lot of you here know about facial aesthetics. I am curious about what evolutionary reasons makes certain attributes desirable.

[Anonymous No.6867411]

Such as cheek bones, I heard they indicate better hunting ability. Something about shading the sunlight better so it is easier to see?

[Anonymous No.6867416]

cus me want fuck

some face make me fuck want more

[Anonymous No.6867424]

>>6867402
heres a quick lesson: evolutionary psychology is a bunch of ridiculous bullshit

[Anonymous No.6867423]

What about Jaw bones? Could it be that a stronger jaw is better at chewing meat so it means that the man is able to ingest more protein and become stronger?

Or maybe the jaw bone is just a proxy for something like testosterone. Which indicates male fertility and other things.

[Anonymous No.6867427]

>>6867416
yh me 2 wnt fuc

it all bout de fuc op

[Anonymous No.6867443]

>>6867424
But what about physical traits? Things like hair, having healthy hair is an indication of good nutrition and overall health. Therefore it is attractive for reproduction purposes. This is observed in many animals.

[Anonymous No.6867448]

>>6867424

How's that ugly face and squat body treating you?

[Anonymous No.6867458]

This thread makes me think.
Is Rick even attractive, or is it more of a cult of personality around him.

[Anonymous No.6867464]

>>6867427
>>6867416

There has to be someone here that knows this shit. I have read some things here before.

[Anonymous No.6867480]

>>6867464
its just that some facial features show evolutionary fitness, so people have become evolutionarily programmed to seek out those features, because reproducing with individuals with greater evolutionary fitness means that your offspring will also be more fit to survive

examples are strong jaws (more masculine = more testosterone = more fertile and strong), cheek bones (body invested nutrients to produce more bone so the individual must be fit and have nutrients to spare), etc

[Anonymous No.6867488]

>>6867458
Little bit of both. He is definitely more attractive than most people I see on a daily basis. Then his attractiveness increases with his personality and creative ability.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867491]

these sort of allosteric means of identing evolution/purpose in human shape are beyond decadent.
human selection has been above inate hunting ability for a few centuries now so it's effectively a chance process...
it also varies geography depending on the social context of the time...
it's actually just a huge clusterfuck and there isn't a globally 'ultimate' human configuration.
We're often exposed to a lot of eurocentric perceptions of beauty but it is in no way universal - not in the slightest.
In reality porbably best perceived as a mixture of different polarities defined by context.

inb4 some genetics autist tries to fucking argue ULTIMATE BLUES EYES BLOND 6'8 MASTER RACE in a objective manner.
usually always concludes the same - this topic is not worth thinking on (personally) and maybe devote your time to reading some issey miyake and his conflicts in this realm B)

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867498]

>>6867491
oh
forgot to include
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnO1QDqpaQ

[Anonymous No.6867532]

>>6867491
Right but I think society has changed so quickly in terms of going from nomadic hunter gatherers to living in cities. Out of the millions of years that our species has been around, only a small fraction has been spent in cities. Therefore we have evolved to live in those nomadic hunter gatherer societies. So our bodies and genetics are mostly wired for than living condition. Of course there are some example of modern evolution such as the increase in people alive that have type 1 diabetes, thanks to medicine.

Also this is still highly specific to region. White skin confers higher fitness in areas with little sun because it can absorb vitamins betters. Dark skin is better in area where there is a lot of sun because it prevents burns.

I am just curious to pinpoint some of these specific traits to understand our past.

[Anonymous No.6867542]

>>6867532
That's not how evolution works. We don't "evolve" in 3000 years.

[Anonymous No.6867556]

>>6867498
one minute in and those eyes are freaking me out

[Anonymous No.6867571]

>>6867498

>blocked in my country

wtf

[Anonymous No.6867576]

>>6867571
>tfw canadian

[Anonymous No.6867582]

Beauty is created by the media and your surroundings. Look in Korea and you'll see feminine looking men idealized. Look in a ghetto and you'll see rappers being idealized. Look in America and you'll see strong jaws being idealized in women, even though a lot of the world considers that too manly. It sounds cliche, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Symmetric faces are the only things considered globally attractive, but you can look at Rick Owens models and see that's not always the case.

Facial beauty has never played a big role. Wouldn't we all look identical if natural selection made our animalistic ancestors prefer one to the other? There's a reason ugly guys can get hot girls.

[Anonymous No.6867585]

>>6867491
>ULTIMATE BLUES EYES BLOND 6'8 MASTER RACE

keep in mind that you are on 4chan and most racists are just fatty losers that would have never made the cut in Nazi Germany, but hey, at least they got blue eyes.


High cheek bones and a strong jaw are typical for a mesomorph body type.

Other than that it's mostly preference and those magical 9 seconds where you decide whether you wanna fuck somebody or not.
I have full lips, thick slightly wavy hair, brown eyes and dark brown hair.
Some people dig that some don't.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867587]

>>6867532
it's sort of an exponential technological growth - mimiced by our success as a species.
yes - if we look at the entire existance of homo homo sapiens it is a very long time and comparatively a short time has been spent in cities.
however this 'comparatively short' time is still a notable amount of millenia - maybe around 100+ human generations - more than enough time for genes to have adapt to a condition. However the condition of a city does not adhere to that of primitive hunting and gathering in which physical traits dominate.
instead married to commerce, social status, intellect, lineage etc etc a lot of which can not really be graded so effectively in physical figure. the selection is irrelevent and it becomes a clusterfuck
case and point being the prevelance of Hemophilia in many royale lineages.
Hemophilia is not advantageous in the slightest but persisted within wealthy and what would be considered 'successful' families.
>Therefore we have evolved to live in those nomadic hunter gatherer societies. So our bodies and genetics are mostly wired for than living condition.
i hope youve reconsidered this.

>pinpoint some of these specific traits to understand our past.
it's all just a energetics-thermokinetics and metabolic thing really - varying from region to region dictated by environment (energy efficiency blah blah blah).
it's not that deep and it's actually kind of boring,

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867592]

>>6867585
i think i said something about eurocentric - polarised views etc etc

[Anonymous No.6867596]

Symmetry means less genetic defects, meaning young more likely to survive.

That's it.

All attraction is based on what creates the offspring most likely to survive.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867598]

>>6867571
google wodaabe

[Anonymous No.6867611]

Ok, so what about this chart. Where do you lay and how has it impacted your life.

[Anonymous No.6867628]

>>6867596
Sure, from a biological perspective all that matters is fitness for the given environment.

What about the golden ratio. Haven't there been studies where people with certain ratios are more pleasing to look at because of a relation to nature?

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867627]

>>6867596
symmetry may associate to less genetic defects but ...
>meaning young more likely to survive.
sorry we aren't a herd of buffalo, this is inaccurate hasn't been accurate for thousands of years.
you can't compare human social complexes to that of a animals - we are actually quite phenominal things but that's also why we're so successful.

>All attraction is based on what creates the offspring most likely to survive.
i get so depressed thinking people actually believe this.
pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee educate yourselves (beyond what your highschool teacher dictated to you out of a darwinism enthusiast text)

[Anonymous No.6867638]

>>6867627

humans are still animals

[Anonymous No.6867649]

>>6867627
We haven't evolved at all in the 3000 years of modern civilization.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867669]

>>6867638
That doesn't mean you can compare our evolution to that of a rabbits or whatever you're doing.

>>6867649
[citation needed]

it would also be really easy to argue that.
yeah that statement is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.6867673]

>>6867611
>tfw lower inner eyebrows
>tfw frowning mouth

Is this why people think I am always in a bad mood?

[Anonymous No.6867677]

>>6867673
today anon learned he had aspergers

[Anonymous No.6867690]

>>6867669
There are some examples of evolution in modern civilization. Still, as a whole we have changed very little.

In science you can compare humans to rabbits. The difference is that humans are much more complex and there are many traits that are not expressed in physical appearance.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867727]

>>6867690
in science you can compare the gastrointestinal system of a rock to a humans.
too bad no body will take you seriously.

>Still, as a whole we have changed very little.
sorry what?
you are reallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy naive.
here's some quick wiki-foo for you because you love it so much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
>last common ancestor between humans and the remaining great apes diverged 4–8 million years ago.
>at least 4million years ago
at which time period do you think the greatest changes in human behaviour are occured?
protip: it wasn't while we were sitting around shoving sticks up our ass and masturbating in dark caves while munching on raw meat and plant roots.
i think you define evolution by some nebulous definition in 'physical change' or something crazy - i dont know what to tell you really...
youre just wrong on every front
humans have become changing radically due to changes in diet and accessability brought on by newer technologies.
same goes for behaviour
same goes for psychology
same goes for x y and z

sage because suspecting elaborate troll and i always fall for it.

[Anonymous No.6867801]

>>6867402
If you mean about female attraction
This is all just from the top of my head so call bullshit if you want
I remember that female attraction is actually heavily influenced by societal factors where as male is mostly physical factors. The reasoning behind this was that women don't care what a man looks like and just that he can provide a stable life. They showed how sexual preferences always steered towards traits that showed stability and success.

The example i here a lot is that when being fat was rich women liked big guys when being thin is for the rich women like thin men

[Anonymous No.6867818]

>>6867727

>in science you can compare the gastrointestinal system of a rock to a humans

What point are you trying to make? A rock is obviously not living and doesn't have a gastrointestinal system where as a rabbit does and also has a common ancestor with us.

>i think you define evolution by some nebulous definition in 'physical change' or something crazy - i dont know what to tell you really...

I define evolution the way that my biology professor did: A change in allele frequencies of a population over time. All I am saying is that these genes (or rather alleles which are variations of that gene) have not changed much recently. Of course modern society has changed our appearance due to nutrition, hygiene, medicine and technology.

When I said:
>Still, as a whole we have changed very little
I was referring to changes in genetics, of course we are taller and healthier now.

>sage because suspecting elaborate troll and i always fall for it.
I am not a troll. You either misunderstood me or have limited knowledge of biology.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867870]

>>6867818
comparing most other animals evolution to that of a humans is as meaningful as comparing the gastrointestinal tract of a rabbit to that of a rocks
>not a meaningful comparison.

that's a geneticist definition and should only be used in that frame of work - when analysing the change in allele frequency in a gene pool of a species over time. Not in any other sense and you should definitely not apply it to other realms of science.
You didn't say that, but now you are - perhaps you should have considered this because saying 'humans havent evolved in last few thousands years' is kindve a ridiculous statement.
even in the context of genes humans have evolved relatively dramatically with the rise in technological sophistication and accessability.

we have changed a lot in the context of genes...

no dude you don't have a fucking clue i suggest you stop refering to your high school biology teacher as a professor.

you haven't even provided citations or any means of evidence for your bullshit claims aside from some imaginary professor who if i was him would be ashamed to have a student like you.

isn't it like week1 for most of you amerifats anyway? it's just introductory shit, don't even play.

[Anonymous No.6867934]

>>6867870
>comparing most other animals evolution to that of a humans is as meaningful as comparing the gastrointestinal tract of a rabbit to that of a rocks
All I said is that you can compare them scientifically, I didn't say in the specific context of human evolution. But guess what we use rats all the fucking time test out drugs. So it is apparent that there is some connection. Stop trying to invalidate what I said just because you don't know what I am referring to.

>saying 'humans havent evolved in last few thousands years' is kindve a ridiculous statement.
I didn't say this, maybe another anon did. What I said is that we haven't evolved much, please prove me wrong because I would like to know.

>o dude you don't have a fucking clue i suggest you stop refering to your high school biology teacher as a professor.
Graduated in biochem and econ. You don't have citation for a single thing you said but yet you are attacking me. Chill out dude.

[Anonymous No.6867964]

defined features and strong jawlines, along with thick eyelashes and eyebrows and indicators of high testosterone

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6867982]

>>6867934
youre a fucking moron, seriously.

>All I said is that you can compare them scientifically,
why say anything at all then? You effectively didn't state anything nor did you mediate my point.

>rats all the fucking time test out drugs
Well done! Good thing those are drugs and not GENETIC LINEAGE which is again the topic you are trying to push but quickly forgetting.
Youre honestly an idiot...THERE IS NOTHING TO INVALIDATE BECAUSE YOU ARENT SAYING ANYTHING ON THE TOPIC OR ACCURATE
ITS JUST PILES OF BULLSHIT
Youre trying to talk about the relationship between phenotypical expression and underlying environmental influence
but you dont know that because you just dont have a fucking clue about what youre talking about and youre referring to random shit frivolously

>we haven't evolved much
we have in the contexts of genes

im not going to provide any evidence because you haven't - reciprocating the courtesy.

i will suggest that you think about it pragmatically in relation to how technologies manipulate genes both indirectly and directly.

>Graduated in biochem and econ.
lmfao and you're this out of the loop?!
you can't even give me one citation to ratify your point less hold a point to save your life.
Did you graduate in the 50's or s/t?
All your shit is crazy outdated.

Wiki is a frame of reference - much more than anything you have provided.

fuck no dude - you're a moron and on top of that you're trying to discredit me with some sense of knowledge which you quite obviously dont possess.

go check yourself before you look like a greater tool.

[Anonymous No.6868047]

>>6867982
>check on /fa
>TL pretentiously barking internet territorial scraps again
>check out

[Anonymous No.6868127]

>>6867585

>tfw mesomorph
>tfw high cheek bones
>tfw strong jaw
>tfw I still feel ugly

[nya nya :3 No.6868145]

>>6867498
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnO1QDqpaQ
Wodabee are the /fa/est tribe in Africa.

[Anonymous No.6868199]

>>6867649
>3000 years
this is what americans actauylla belieave

[Anonymous No.6868295]

>>6868127
You're gonna make it, brah.