The Downsides of Being Beautiful

originally posted by: schuyler
How much more proof do you need?

Well some at least would be nice, you've only provided anecdotal evidence so far and a view of evolutionary biology from somewhere around the 1950s.

My Mum, her Mum, me, not only successfully and naturally birthed children, but our flat chests fed our babies more than adequately...they expand you know, when necessary, pelvis and boobies, nature is sooooo clever that way.

All you have been discussing, in a very long winded, self-validating way, is your preferences, beauty wise.

The pudding and it's proved.

I thank you.

originally posted by: jacygirl
And yes, there have been studies about this. I remember a documentary that showed small children choosing a new teacher. The kids always chose the more attractive teacher, regardless of personality. (No, I don't have a title or link, sorry.)

And did this study find that the children's judgement, based merely on appearances, were sound? Is judging by appearances alone a good way to select an able and competent teacher?

a reply to: Anaana

And yet, what on earth is "more attractive"?
There is no innate biological impetus, save perhaps symmetry. The rest is cultural. It can also change incredibly quickly.
In five hundred years, the pinnacle of perceived beauty may be short, fat and gremlin-like, with a mono-brow.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Sounds delightful! The symmetry thing is interesting, from the reproductive point of view, a woman's face, during ovulation does appear more symmetrical.

humrep.oxfordjournals.org...

Women who make the room light up with their good looks may have a secret up their sleeve - it may be down to their menstrual cycle. Both men and women consider a woman's face to be at its most attractive when she is at the peak of her fertility, according to new research.

www.nature.com...

This though has nothing about standards of beauty, it is about signalling. It has been assumed that human fertility was "hidden" but it turns out it is written all over our faces. And, if you get in tune with your own cycle (none of it being hidden from us of course), you can observe it for yourself. It is quite tangible.

a reply to: rukia

Dude! Hahaha. You are not that hot. You opened yourself up to that. There are tons of benefits to being beautiful. Especially if you are a chick. I can't believe you spend time thinking about this. hahahah

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
This amounts to "Bragplaining" When you complain about something for the sole purpose of brining it up in conversation to brag about it.

Ie; I really hate the leather seats in my new BMW, they are either too cold in the winter or too hot in the summer.

I disagree. (I mean it can be for some, but I percieve another reason for discussing it together).

Because many of the problems that arise are based in prejudices and assumptions, which left unaddressed or examined, continue.
Provoking some thought, which might cause someone to think at certain moments, instead of mindlessly act, can be a good thing.

The assertion that there is absolutely no way to measure beauty is just not true. There are some markers which are pretty reliable. We've brought up symmetry- though this is true in the western world, and has even been found in some very primitive cultures (the Hadza of Tanzania showed a stronger preference for symmetry than the British) in Eastern cultures, of Asia, the opposite is true! They show a marked preference for asymmetry.

But still, it becomes a marker we can pretty much point at as beauty with some consistancy, within two different parts of the world.

There are other markers which remain constant, like signs of fertility and health in both men and women. Our bodies have evolved with these responses no matter what we are actually looking for in a mate, no matter how our personality and preferences have formed.

That is why I insist on bringing up the effect of these subconscious evolved behaviors and responses in parts of our lives that are not mate-seeking. They may have evolved for that purpose, yet step in and influence our decisions in other areas.

A man who does not seek child-like features in a potential female mate as most males have evolved to (blond hair, small upturned nose, full lips, round highly colored cheeks, etc.) will still respond to such a woman in the workplace in a specific way- as if she is not suited for positions of authority and responsibility, as if she is ignorant, uneducated, and altogether better made for sex than anything else.

On the other hand, I've seen women easily fall to the authoritative role of a male when his features indicate a high testosterone level, even if his intellectual abilities in judgement and decision making are inferior to another man of equal or higher status who shows less physical signs of testosterone.


People who are widely recognized as attractive don't necessarily want the benefits that others are jealous of.
Many of them don't want to have higher expectations placed upon them, they don't want the attention... so they benefit when others stop and think and check their evolved reactions.

Ah hell, the topic seems impossible to discuss objectively, as it touches and all of us.
I think I used to be one of those people that, for various reasons, was commonly seen as good looking in my environment and time period. I found it frustrating and awful.
Frankly, I couldn't be happier to have middle age slip in and pull me out of that!
I can talk about it now because it isn't true anymore.

I didn't enjoy the women close to me feeling bad in social situations because people were paying more attention to me.
I didn't enjoy them getting mean and cruel insidiously as if I am a rival (sometimes without them even being aware they are slipping into that).
I didn't enjoy having my achievements and successes constantly attributed to my looks by my peers,
nor my own questioning whether or not they were.
I didn't like being spoken to as a child, because the person in front of me found my appearance inspired feelings of youth and innocence, and made them feel less "intellectual" in my presence.

I didn't enjoy having any of my interests and goals ignored or pushed aside with the excuse that I can depend upon my looks to live (a career in modeling and a trophy wife future was always put forth as my pre-ordained fate).

Sure, no one is expected to feel sorry for such struggles, on the other hand, they can have a split second of thought when they are about to passive aggressively say something mean about their beautiful friend at a party, or at work, or even attribute more to them than is realistic in any given situation. We can be mindful and try to balance our reactions somewhat, to being less prejudiced positively or negatively.

Complaining about ones leather seats in the BMW to peers IS useless- it would make more sense to bring up that subject amongst the engineers and designers of cars, for whom that information and feedback can be useful.
This subject, of how people respond to beauty and it's effects, involves us all, and so is useful to discuss.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Bluesma
Not how it influences career, friendships, competition sports, other familial relations (besides mate), everyday exchanges with strangers.....there's actually some interesting findings on these other areas.

Men and women are judged on their appearances in the media, men and women are used in the media to sell things. A competitive sportsman or woman, in this shallow, appearance biased society, has to expect to be judged not just on their performance on the track or field, but on how they "look" out their too. Is that fair?

No, I don't think it is. Do you? Do you think it should stay that way... people remaining completely unaware of the way they are instinctively letting evolved mating behaviors influence their choices in various aspects of life and response to others??

Are you trying to say we should keep quiet about that, keep it taboo, so that it can continue?

What we will ascertain as beautiful when we stop and think about it,
often is not the same as what we react to as beautiful when we don't think about it!
What the mind (the intellect, the individual personality) has determined "beauty" has no problem separating from what the body (the physical senses and instinctual reflexes) determines as beautiful- but disassociation and denial DOES NOT eliminate or stop such effects from happening!
On the contrary, such denial gives those more freedom to influence actions and choices.

When we are considering someone as a potential mate, we think about it- our individual tastes and preferences are applied to our judgement. That process can overide the instinctual reflexive responses.

It is with the people we are around in everyday life, who we are not considering in terms of mating, that those built in biases are most active.




I'll go bring up some studies, if people are having trouble doing that themselves as they form their opinion on the subject.

a reply to: rukia

Beautiful chick once told me

Men are afraid and intimidated

And she only gets the jerks asking her out

My msg to op is

More morality

Less physicality

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: rukia

I am a handsome man. I am not noticeably good looking but I have my symmetry and proportion. (thanks mom!)

And an ego to match

Well, since we are bragging. I once saw a man drop a whole tray of drinks in a motel lobby when he saw me in my bikini. Course this was in the 70's. Ah, it fades so fast.

Some of the most serious researchers show some concern about exposing their results widely, like Semir Zeki, who said:

"I think you’ll be able to tell what people like, what people dislike, what people find beautiful, what people find not beautiful. But this is of course an invasion into their subjective states, and invasion into their very private lives, and I’m not sure you want to do that. At any rate, this is not a question that should be left to [just] scientists. We are really interested in learning more about the brain. But all these studies done all over the world about value, judgment, reward pleasure and all these things are basically invading our very private worlds, and we have to be careful about this information."

Zeki is an esteemed professor of Neuroesthetics at University College London, who studies the subject with MRI's.

IMO- truth about the physical world is always available to everyone, that is why no one can keep the truth from the corporations that wish to use it to make money. It is unrealistic to hope that they can be left in the dark.
On the other hand, the public gains some defense and power of their own, when they too, are informed.
The claim that there is no influence of subconscious drives and built in desires (you have total conscious free-will at all times) benefits those corporations and media, so that you go along without being alerted, as they stimulate and use those subconscious mechanisms to their benefit.


Here is one paper, in which there are tons of references to various researchers and their work- you can use those to jump off of and explore further the findings on the subject-
THE EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY OF
FACIAL BEAUTY

originally posted by: Bluesma
Some of the most serious researchers show some concern about exposing their results widely, like Semir Zeki, who said:

"I think you’ll be able to tell what people like, what people dislike, what people find beautiful, what people find not beautiful. But this is of course an invasion into their subjective states, and invasion into their very private lives, and I’m not sure you want to do that. At any rate, this is not a question that should be left to [just] scientists. We are really interested in learning more about the brain. But all these studies done all over the world about value, judgment, reward pleasure and all these things are basically invading our very private worlds, and we have to be careful about this information."

Zeki is an esteemed professor of Neuroesthetics at University College London, who studies the subject with MRI's.

Have you read that, or simply misunderstood? He is not talking about the downside of being beautiful but of quantifying it, as many of us have been arguing. We aren't standardised and don't want to be...and as a rule, give or take, there is only one other person that needs to know exactly what turns us on.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Here is one paper, in which there are tons of references to various researchers and their work- you can use those to jump off of and explore further the findings on the subject-
THE EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY OF
FACIAL BEAUTY

Again, have you read the papers or simply misunderstood? It does not support the OPs article that claims that there are downsides to being beautiful but highlights, repeatedly, the difficulties in quantifying what exactly it is that "pleases" our brains in response to symmetrical appearances and perceived attractiveness. The only downside that I could ascertain from the studies overall is that symmetry is not a good indicator of health or fertility, generally, so yes, we are fooling ourselves into believing that a pleasing appearance is an indicator of "better". I am not sure if you understand what statistical analysis determines and why, as I said, that is of interest to advertisers, etc but of little interest to individuals and the uniqueness of each perception. Statistical normality, regular ordered features may be statistically more likely to please most people, or rather be least inoffensive, but statistical reality is not actual reality, it's barely even natural, and seldom more than probable even if it's a statistical certainty.

And, either way, not one of those studies support the point that you were bemoaning wasn't being discussed, that there are downsides to being beautiful, what they point out is that made to make a decision based on a given set of limited choices, greater symmetry will tip the balance because the brain is attracted to order because we seek to make sense of situations. Similarly, you are attracted to the idea that you are persecuted because you think you are beautiful and that that threatens other people's self-esteem, they put you down to make themselves feel better? That kind of thing? The article appeals to both vanity and the need to be liked/loved/accepted. It is using those studies to manipulate you, to confirm your persecution complex...and you have let it.

Looking and being beautiful are different things, that is what some of us have been saying all along. Your studies and now you are supporting that perspective, that looks can be deceptive, although you seem to fail to see that.

Sounding wise and being wise are two different things, you know.

Thanks though for supporting my argument, perhaps you'd like to have another go at supporting your own now.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Ie; I really hate the leather seats in my new BMW, they are either too cold in the winter or too hot in the summer. 

You too, I got camo seat covers on mine so my butt won't blister.

Btw, speaking of beautiful

Has anyone here seen those Viagra commercials with those 3 different beautiful woman but 3 different racial types?

They have a black lady, white lady, and oriental lady and indeed they are beautiful in a strange way, but there was always something weird about them.

Then I realized they ALL LOOKED ALIKE save one was white, one was black and the other oriental.

Then it dawned on me: These women are CGI!

They created a CGI female for the Viagra commercial!


They use to say, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, now its beauty is in the eyes on the microchip


what are we coming to?

a reply to: Willtell

Can you show us the ad?.

Here's the white lady I found on utube. Il look for the other 2

The usually run on tv ads...I found this one but don't see the other two, probably because their still running.

originally posted by: Anaana


Have you read that, or simply misunderstood? He is not talking about the downside of being beautiful but of quantifying it, as many of us have been arguing.

This researcher, working without being hired by any corporation for their uses, refers to universal traits which stimulate the parts of the brain that react to beauty.
He thinks that knowing what those specific stimuli are, can be used to less than ethical purposes- like manipulate people, as I said.

He didn't mention a thing about " the downside of being beautiful," he was referring to his findings on what stimuli our brain reacts to as "beautiful" universally.

We aren't standardised and don't want to be...and as a rule, give or take, there is only one other person that needs to know exactly what turns us on.

Got it, understand it, share it. We ALL WANT to be different, to be islands of individuality, not a sheople, all self made, self directed, consciously free willed.
Unfortunately, science tells us that is not as true as we'd like.
We all have a lot more in common than we'd like.

Some of us also care about how strangers, our employers, our coworkers, our teachers, our students, employees, people doing services for us (or those we do services for) react to us and act towards us. (and how we react towards them)
For some people (I am one of those) all these interactions are important to me too. My mate is not the sole focus of my life, though he is very important to me.

Again, have you read the papers or simply misunderstood? It does not support the OPs article that claims that there are downsides to being beautiful but highlights, repeatedly, the difficulties in quantifying what exactly it is that "pleases" our brains in response to symmetrical appearances and perceived attractiveness.

Again, I am starting off with the first premise you and others are arguing-
that there is no common universal traits recognized and reacted to as beauty.


Difficulties in "quantifying" was not the question addressed in the article.
Causation was the problem addressed. The studies show marked correlation, causation is still up for hypothesis.

WHY certain traits have evolved to provoke these reactions in the brain is what that particular author was interested in,
but that is secondary to the question of whether they exist, which has a lot of research backing it up, that she referred to.

The only downside that I could ascertain from the studies overall is that symmetry is not a good indicator of health or fertility,

Ah, but to consider the question of "downsides" to such traits, one would have to agree that they exist.
If we're on agreement there, then we can move on to whether or not they have downsides.



But, did you see that some of the studies show a marked difference in how women with these traits are kept from getting positions of authority or responsibility?
Or that even female friends, when in social situations or in the presence of men, the woman who feels less attractive goes into rivalry behavior, rather predictably?

There's a lot of downsides, as I have pointed out in my other posts, for the person who has them, as well as the person who doesn't.
(even having an unfair advantage is a downside to any normal human being that cares about other humans, and has any sense of responsibility, accountability, and justice).

I am not sure if you understand what statistical analysis determines and why, as I said, that is of interest to advertisers, etc but of little interest to individuals and the uniqueness of each perception.

Of course it is of interest to to advertisers- because it influences the decisions and choices of individuals.

Individuals who want to believe they are completely uninfluenced in behavior or choice by subconscious signals might not be interested, no. To those who consider the evidence that that is false, it has interest.
There is more to life than finding a romantic life partner. There is a whole myriad of social relations and interactions that are influenced heavily by our evolved reactions to certain physical traits.

Looking and being beautiful are different things, that is what some of us have been saying all along. Your studies and now you are supporting that perspective, that looks can be deceptive, although you seem to fail to see that.

Because our reactions to appearences can be deceptive, causing us to give unfair advantage or disadvantage to people we do not have deep personal relations with, (which has been my stance all along, and hasn't changed)
then it seems useful for us to point out and be aware of those reactions, and at least try to do it less, through being mindful of that influence.

If you deny it is happening, you cannot do that at all.

You know I've never, Ever bought the whole beautiful people are smarter magically somehow BS. Logic would demonstrate that beautiful people get free handouts because they are coveted for breeding and don't have to do much to survive since they are essentially "kept" their entire lives and evolve to be less intelligent, where as ugly people have had to use wits to survive, nothing came for free and thus evolved to be more intelligent and cunning.

In honesty I'm more attracted to intelligent people and often quickly get over their looks. Most of the women I've been hot for were ones whom I admired intellectually first.

I'm sure 90% of the posters here could overwhelm the OP with all their collective life experiences watching good looking people get free handouts and an easy ride. Other than the fact that often beautiful people (whom there are a number of very intelligent ones - good breeding, selective breeding by the intelligent people you could say) are assumed to be stupid bimbos there aren't many downsides...at all. I'd take easy street any day and be good looking if I could. Alas, I appear to look like Jack Black and Jim Belushi had a Hobbit love child. Short, stocky, ain't pretty, well except for my hair. I have epic hair, and the pantene to prove it. Nothing in my life has come easy, and sadly my limited charisma is all I have to eek out a living and/or attract a mate. But dumb somehow cause I'm not beautiful....please. To be honest I think most "beautiful" people are aloof and lack astuteness in the realities of their existence.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

I'm sure 90% of the posters here could overwhelm the OP with all their collective life experiences watching good looking people get free handouts and an easy ride. Other than the fact that often beautiful people (whom there are a number of very intelligent ones - good breeding, selective breeding by the intelligent people you could say) are assumed to be stupid bimbos there aren't many downsides...at all.

I think you are right, many of us have watched good looking people get unfair advantages, and repeatedly so.
I am obviously one of those that hold the opinion there are certain traits that commonly influence others a specific way.

Besides the bimbo assumption, you don't think that the people getting those advantages find that a downside??

-That people you love (siblings, friends, etc.) get unfairly passed up because of this mechanism isn't painful or difficult?
-That you might have achievements that are not truly representative of your skills, wouldn't be troubling to you?
-That others blame you for this sort of thing happening, as if your genetic make up was chosen by you purposefully to get an easy pass??

-That there is a repeated assumption that good looking people are egotistical, corrupt, and unethical psychopaths or something... who lack empathy and sense of moral justice... that is not really an "upside".
Unless you are one of those, of course. But I think those are rather rare.

If the good looking one getting unfair advantages speaks up in objection to those,
They are quickly criticized as being vain, because they acknowledged openly what was happening. Even if others around were already doing so.
Being percieved as stupid and clueless is often preferable to all that, and is often chosen as the role to play instead.
Evil Narcissist or Gentle Idiot.