Good looking people have better lives because they are simply better people.
However, what some of the jealous types don't realise is that success still requires hard-work.
It's not like we get everything handed to us on plate.
Like an issue of Gravity.
Be attractive makes the gravity around you be strong, and then the whole world turns around you. Be ugly condemns you to gravitate around others.
The same happens with money and power... they are the real Trinity O_o
"what do you think makes attractive people better?"
They are better genetically. More resistant to disease, more physically fit, more intelligent etc.
This reminds me an old joke.
-Do you know why models have one neurone more than horses?
-For don´t shit on the catwalk.
I bought some awesome jeans when I was vacationing in Florida back in March, but I've had a hard time finding affordable, high-quality jeans in Beijing.
Attractive genetics are the result of unnatural selection. Otherwise, we'd all be into women with big birthing hips. Assuming that social relations are always directly caused by an underlying genetic or biological factor is called reification. You're taking something abstract and treating it as if it were concrete.
Remember, purebred dogs are more susceptible to disease. Unless one's attractiveness comes through regular exercise, good hygiene and avoidance of vice, attractive people are not necessarily fitter. But those hard-working beautiful people are boring, and they deserve to be roughly fucked in their firm and well-toned asses.
God loves ugly.
Hahahahaha... someone once wrote on my guestbook that better looking people are more intelligent, and the only reply I could come up with was that I am utterly ugly ...
That's utter malarky. People can only observe phenotypes (physical expressions of genetics), not genotypes (actual DNA). Studies didn't show anything to be based on subconscious evaluations of DNA suitability (whatever that means). They observed correlations and formulated a hypothesis to fit the data.
But it bears repeating, correlation =/= causation. Until you can actually pinpoint the area of the human genome and mark it as the "big ole tittayz appreciation locus," it remains an unscientific conclusion when social environmental factors are more readily observed to play a role in decision making.
Moreover there's a huge difference between saying a decision is based upon genetics (marginalizing other factors) and saying that it's affected by genetics (in concert with other factors).
To suppose that biology is the main factor when presently there is no method to test or prove it is utter pseudoscience.
Ugh. Using biological jargon to explain basic fucking anthropology is like relying on an astronomer to predict weather patterns. Yes, I know that the position of the Sun affects the weather on planet Earth, but there are factors much more readily observed which are much more useful for us to study.
@ sth: thats girls point of view, ask guys, they wont agree
hahaha they always do...in mind ~~~
dont know her either..i dont watch korean sitcoms...
(continued) ... is she the girl in the Korean "City Hunter"? I dont remember her name ...
For one thing, what I'm taking exception with is Lao Lee's choice of the words "based on" (because it implies that the genetic factor is exclusive or more important than others) rather than "influenced by" (which would allow for other factors of comparable importance). I'm sorry, but unless you can prove to me that a significant proportion of people chose their mate based on smell alone, then this doesn't really prove what you claim. They're not smelling genetic makeup. They're smelling an odor based on a limited number of genetic loci.
Also, notice that HLA genes are related to immune system function and do not correlate with the other factors that I imagine most people are thinking of when we're talking about attractiveness (facial symmetry, body structure, etc.)
Besides, odors constitute a phenotype, not a genotype, and the expression of phenotypes is always, always, always influenced by the environment. People don't live in laboratories where variables are so easily isolated! In the abstract, oral contraceptives are mentioned as a potentially mitigating factor. Washing frequently would be another way that a phenotype can be altered.
If we want to talk about tits--and we all want to talk about tits, unless our mouths are occupied by one--then environmental factors affect the display of the tig ole bittays gene. Diet is one of the most important factors. Malnourished chicks don't end up with huge tits even if they come from generations of huge titted women. Come to think of it, Chinese chicks have bigger tits these days. That's less due to genetic factors than nutrition. Unless you want to make the argument that it's due to Western influence, in which case we're probably going to be asked to leave soon.
Biology is ill-suited to explaining human behavior. It's like hammering nails with a really expensive electric screwdriver. Yes, the latter tool appears to be far more technologically advanced, but it's terribly imprecise when used for this purpose.
Oops. The thing about the birth control was from the posted excerpt, not the abstract.
@Jorrit, I am nitpicking on the "based on," especially since Lee's second paragraph said, "I dont know how true this is as I am sure there are many different factors that also come into play".
But there is no such thing as a "subconscious evaluation of DNA suitability". That process is quite indirect. When it comes to human behavior, genetic expression is always subject to environmental conditions. What we are able to perceive--even subconsciously--is such a tiny fragment of our genetic potential.
Socialization replaced the natural selection process a very long time ago. Proof: criteria of physical attractiveness have changed throughout history at a rate that far outstrips the glacial pace of genetic evolution by several orders of magnitude.
However, evolution remains a very attractive narrative for describing the changes in historical currents. Richard Dawkins annoys the piss out of me (the guy's a troll par excellence), but I sincerely appreciate his contribution of memetic evolution as a sort of subjective cultural analog to genetic evolution.
I do enjoy these kinds of articles as well and your humor isn't lost on me, but as a social scientist I feel it is very necessary for me to be as shrill and obnoxious as possible in fighting what I consider to be academic imperialism. It's not fair that social sciences are the first to receive budget cuts, while bio research assistants are hooking people up to expensive MRI machines and watching which part of their brains light up when you rub their balls this way or that way. Social scientists don't get to use the big and impressive tools, so it's harder for them to capture the attention of inept science journalists, upon whom prestige (and grant funding) are dependent.
It might be because social scientists are all lazy good-for-nothings, but some of us can put down the bong long enough to operate SPSS and look at which variables are most influential. Y'know, like, statistics and shit. Numbers. Math. That's sufficiently science-y, right? Please pay my stipend. My fridge is empty.
Awwww, I wanna do plastic surgery... :(
Anthropologists have pointed out that most primates, like other mammals, do it from behind, and our primate ancestors probably did so as well. If appreciation of titties is an evolved preference, it is most likely due to their resemblance to asscheek cleavage.
generally speaking yes, but some super models do commit suicide from time to time