wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> psychology >> Physical Attractions
        
(Message started by: Crystal on Apr 20^th, 2004, 7:00pm)

Title: Physical Attractions
Post by Crystal on Apr 20^th, 2004, 7:00pm

>:(Hmmm I really hated everything you wrote. I guess you have your reasons or whatever, but wow... If one person can believe that everyone is like that. Seriously, there is so much more to a person than what they look like. I can't believe people can be so outward based.. Doesn't anyone care what lies beneath the skin? You probably think that I'm some so called "unattractive" person based on my view of this. Probably because only an ugly person would complain, am i right? I've seen this view before, everyday I see this. I don't think I'm ugly at all, but I'm not like everyone else. I see what is really there. I just can't understand how you could think that looks only matter. Hey, how about we single out all the "unattractive" people and kick them off the planet. They must be worthless human beings because they've never done anything important and never will... Only good looking people should be hired and talked to. I'm so tired of this stupid opinion... Why is everyone this way? How about you look into that and see why people are so physically absorbed and let me know what you come up with. Thats what I'd really like to know.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by william wu on Apr 20^th, 2004, 10:51pm

(http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/psychology/attraction.shtml)

Crystal, I'm sorry if you are offended. But I think you misunderstand where my article is coming from. I am absolutely NOT describing my own opinions as to what I think makes someone attractive. I am merely reporting interesting conclusions backed by experiments performed in the field of psychology! These conclusions can be found in any standard textbook on social psychology. The article is intended to be objective, not opinionated. Some of these conclusions may be harsh, but unfortunately they are statistically true. On average, physical attractiveness tends to take precedence over other qualities when people are queried about what makes them attracted to the opposite sex. And attractive people are more likely to get raises and to be helped out in emergencies. Because of such correlations, I can write that beauty bestows great advantages in life. It is a fact, regardless of whether we like it. To further dismiss any suspicions you may have that I wrote such an article to extol myself, I can tell you that I don't consider myself very attractive, and based on my unimpressive track record with the fairer sex, I don't think other people do either. I've been a nerd all my life. :) I hope this clears things up.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by towr on Apr 21^st, 2004, 12:58am

on 04/20/04 at 19:00:34, Crystal wrote:

>:(Seriously, there is so much more to a person than what they look like

You'll be happy to know that's not just a cliche anymore, there is now a scientific basis for it:
"Physical beauty involves more than good looks" (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2631.html)
8)

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Icarus on Apr 21^st, 2004, 7:44pm

Indeed, I think Crystal is reading into the original article judgements that are not there. It never states that only looks matter. What it does is provide solid evidence about how the world works. It does not state that this is okay, or how things should be. Only how they are. And in that, every bit of experience I have gained is in full agreement. We make first judgements of other people based on how they look. And though the studies quoted were of men, my experience is that women are the same (though perhaps not as strongly; men are far more visually oriented than women - another result supported by scientific studies). That judgement only changes slowly as we become familiar with them. Which is part of why Proximity and Similarity are also strong factors.

And yes, the attractive do find the world easier in many ways. They do find it easier to get a job, to get raises and promotions, to attract other people, to avoid punishment. Attractive people on the whole tend to do better at sales, and other occupations where people must make judgements about someone without really knowing them. It is not fair, but guess what? The world never has been and never will be fair!

And yes, everyone IS like that. You are like that too. This response is mostly unconscious and we do it every day. But as towr's post points out - that first impression is not the end. Which is quite fortunate for people like me, because I have never made favorable first impression in my life. It is only as people get to know me that I have any hope at all. But I do not complain, and do not let it bother me. Others have their strengths, I have mine. I rely on my strengths instead of bemoaning the lack of theirs.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by william wu on Apr 21^st, 2004, 9:04pm

on 04/21/04 at 19:44:13, Icarus wrote:

And though the studies quoted were of men, my experience is that women are the same (though perhaps not as strongly; men are far more visually oriented than women - another result supported by scientific studies).

Relating to this point, there are studies showing that women have much higher variance than men in their criteria for attraction ... as expected. As one of my professors once said, the criterion of attraction for men is simply, "Does it move?" Hehe. :D

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by towr on Apr 21^st, 2004, 11:16pm

on 04/21/04 at 19:44:13, Icarus wrote:

I wonder if much of that isn't actually cultural. Many supposed differences between men and women are.

Quote:

That judgement only changes slowly as we become familiar with them.

I wouldn't necessarily say slowly, I've had my assesment of people change after a short conversation.

Quote:

It is not fair, but guess what? The world never has been and never will be fair!

I always like the following quote on the matter:
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
- Marcus (Babylon 5)

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Icarus on Apr 22^nd, 2004, 4:57pm

My big problem with the idea of "fair" is that one person's "fair" is someone else's "unfair".

Is it fair that the Rockefellers (to name just one example) grew up in luxury that they did not earn, but inherited, while my father worked 60-80 hour weeks just to keep us fed and clothed? NO!

Would it have been fair to take the money that the Rockefellers originally earned and give it to a poor Kansas farmer who had nothing whatsoever to do with it, rather than the family of the men who worked for it? NO!

As far as I can see, there is no such thing as "fairness". So I worry about "justice" and "mercy" instead.

Excellent quote, by the way, though the sentiment is one I am very familiar with.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by towr on Apr 22^nd, 2004, 11:49pm

You have the same problem with mercy and justice as you do with fairness. What one person will call justice another may well call injust. Unless you limit justice to lawfullness, in which case the law (if a well defined set exists) determines what justice is.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Icarus on Apr 23^rd, 2004, 5:19pm

Perhaps - but I don't believe the problems are quite the same. In principle at least, a consistent set of laws and application of them can exist, so justice is theoretically possible. Fairness - as the term is used - is only consistent "locally". I believe no universal standard is possible.

It's like a trying to pick a non-zero vector field on a manifold.(Hey - I'm a geometer, what other kind of example am I going to give? :D) Justice is like a multi-holed torus, you may have to work at it a bit, but you can do it. Fairness is like the sphere: you can pick one easily for any small locale, but when you try to expand it, there is always someplace where it doesn't work.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by towr on Apr 24^th, 2004, 4:59am

I have no idea what your analogy means.. (I'm not a geometer)

I do think fairness could in principle be universal, just like justice could in principle. Just take a local consistent version, and annihilate everything outside that local region ;)
I suppose I'll have more to say on it once I've finished the introduction to ethics course..

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Three Hands on May 8^th, 2004, 12:25pm

on 04/22/04 at 16:57:04, Icarus wrote:

This example might show a difference in starting capability, which is presumably the inherent unfairness of the universe - and not always just in terms of wealth, but also intelligence, physical appearance, etc. - but we surely have the ability to judge people fairly, working on the basis of their origins and limitations (mentally and physically). Granted, this requires us to actually know the people in question, but theoretically we could grant the people a fair assessment of who they are. Those who resign themselves to stating that the world is just "unfair" as an excuse for not attempting to make the most of themselves generally get looked down upon by society. So yes, people don't start off equal, and so don't receive an equal experience of life, but who they are can be assessed fairly - and probably is to an extent. Given that the experiment linked to by towr suggests that people found others more attractive if they worked hard, and were seen as making an effort to get on in life for themselves, it appears that a fair judgement is being made by others on the basis of their knowledge in assessing the worth of a given individual. So if life starts us off on an unequal footing, then it doesn't mean that we aren't necessarily fairly judged - it's just that it can be harder for people to judge the relative worth of people they don't know particularly well since we don't all start off from an equal position. Hence why life is generally seen as "unfair".

Of course, the common complaint that things aren't fair on the basis that some people are better off than others is also a valid complaint that is harder to deal with, but often has its basis in the unequal opportunities faced by people due to different backgrounds - wealth, intelligence and physical health, for example. Generally speaking, I would suggest that there are positive and negative ways of viewing a situation - either bemoaning the fact that you can't do something while someone else can, or realising that you are better able to appreciate something they might take for granted. People generally complain more about the unfairness of life when they take the negative view, rather than the positive view.

So yes, life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean you should use it as an excuse to complain when things don't go your way. That just makes it harder for you to realise what you are capable of, and making the most of it - which seems to be a good method for enjoying life :)

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Icarus on May 8^th, 2004, 4:00pm

If you read again, you will see that I wasn't complaining at all. My point is, there is no objective definition of fairness. Usually when I hear someone complaining "that's not fair", it is a whine because they didn't get something they wanted - not deserved, just wanted. I do not complain that others get a better deal than I do. I just concentrate on making the most of what I have.

There is a wonderful parable Jesus told about the issue of fairness. A well-to-do farmer went to the marketplace one day to hire some day laborers. He went first at 6 AM and hired some men to work his fields, agreeing to pay them a denarius (a standard day's wage for such laborers). At 9:00 he went and hired some more men, telling them he would pay them what was right. At 12:00 he encountered more men in the marketplace and decided to hire them for the day as well. The same thing happened at 3:00. Finally at 5:00 (they worked 12 hour days back then), he was passing through the marketplace and noticed some men standing there. He asked them "Have you been waiting here all day and no one has hired you?" They replied, "No one, sir". So he told them to go to his field, and he would pay them what was right. A 6:00, he called the laborers in to pay them. Starting with the last group, he gave each man a full denarius. When those who were hired in the morning saw it, they began to get excited. But the farmer payed the next group the same, and so on until it was their turn. When they recieved a denarius too, they got mad and started complaining "We have worked here through the heat of the day, and you have made these who worked only one hour equal to us!".

The farmer replied: "Did we not agree this morning that you would be paid a denarius? Take your money and go your way. Do I not have the right to do as I please with my own money? If I choose to be generous to these men, what is that to you?"

Did the farmer in this story treat the men "fairly"? By most people's definition, the answer is no. But in fact he treated them justly, giving to everyone what was due them. And he treated them mercifully, giving unearned money to those who needed it.

This is why I said that justice and mercy are my concerns, not fairness.

Title: Re: Physical Attractions
Post by Three Hands on May 9^th, 2004, 3:58am

Sorry Icarus - didn't intend to sound like I was having a go at you. Probably more having a go at various other people in general...

I guess you managed to summarise most of my perspective - the idea that, although life isn't fair, we can give others a fair judgement. So what you define as justice and mercy are more or less the qualities I was suggesting as those which we can use to act "fairly" towards others, even when it may appear to others to be an unfair action.