Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nemeside

The future: beautiful women and ugly men

Recommended Posts

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, who has conducted research that indicates beautiful couples tend to have girls, and this statistic is responsible for an increase in beautiful women

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics has conducted research that indicates beautiful couples tend to have girls, and this statistic is responsible for an increase in beautiful women.

From the Birmingham Post, Birmingham, England, July 30:

Finding a Beautiful Wife Could Be About to Get Easier

The search for a beautiful wife should soon get a good deal easier.

According to the latest research, beautiful parents are a third more likely to have daughters than sons. (Brangelina, TomKat ) - that's my coment

As time goes on, the beauty gap between men and women is expected to grow, the findings suggest.

In theory, women should go on becoming more attractive than men.

Researchers demonstrated that beautiful people are 36 per cent more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first born child.

The discovery supports the evolutionary theory that parents tend to produce children who benefit from their own attributes.

Selection pressure means that when parents have traits they can pass on that are better for boys than for girls, they are more likely to have boys.

Such traits include large size, strength and aggression, which might help a man compete for mates.

On the other hand parents with heritable traits that are more advantageous to girls are more likely to have daughters.

Study leader Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, said: “Physical attractiveness is good for both men and women, but it is much better for women than for men. So physically attractive parents bias their offspring sex ratio to have more daughters.â€

Dr. Kanazawa based his conclusions on data from 3,000 Americans taking part in an investigation called the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Participants were assessed for factors that provide an objective measurement of attractiveness, such as symmetry and secondary sexual characteristics.

He said the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder†was a myth debunked by psychologists 20 years ago.

“Physical attractiveness is an objective, quantifiable trait of a person just like height or weight,†he said.

“There is now a computer program which can measure someone’s physical attractiveness down to a decimal point. Physical attractiveness is rooted in the geometric concept of symmetry, mathematical concept of averageness, and biological concept of secondary sexual characteristics.â€

People from all societies agree on who is beautiful and who is ugly, he stressed. And infants can tell the beautiful and ugly apart within a few weeks of being born.

Previous research by Dr. Kanazawa has shown that scientists, mathematicians and engineers who have systematic “male brains†are more likely to have sons than daughters.

Dr. Kanazawa told the Sunday Times of London, “We have shown two things. Beautiful parents have more daughters than ugly parents, because physical attractiveness is heritable and because daughters benefit from attractiveness more than sons.

“We have also shown that women on average are more attractive than men, because over evolutionary history the slight bias of beautiful parents to have more daughters has accumulated, so that girls have become more and more attractive than boys.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah difinitely its intersting .

But There is a few weird point .

First of all , Who decide who is beautiful or not .

People actually has bias ,

but It is quite difficult for us to judge whether She/He is beautiful or not .

I think there is a complex hierarchy and complex bias of people .I mean ,

There is a lot of person who would be told that you are better but not best (you are not bad ).

Did Dr kanazawa difine them as beautiful ?? (maybe he did .cuz its impossible judging ppl whether beautiful or not .someone think he is a beautiful ,,but someone think he is not bad ..)

IF so , This reseach is obviously wrong .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gosh man the point of this is to explain that it is not beauty isn't in the eye of beholder, beauty is simply estimated thing

i even highlighted it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gosh man the point of this is to explain that it is not beauty isn't in the eye of beholder, beauty is simply estimated thing

i even highlighted it

Its the same thing . I want explanation of

>the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder†was a myth

It is totally ridicurous .lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about the universal beauty standard a few years ago. Apparently, it's partially based upon Da Vinci's golden ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

€œThere is now a computer program which can measure someone’s physical attractiveness down to a decimal point. Physical attractiveness is rooted in the geometric concept of symmetry, mathematical concept of averageness, and biological concept of secondary sexual characteristics.â€

You can see What is Physical attractiveness below site.

http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm

You can try whether your face is beautiful or not .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with that assessment. In the 1800's, plump women were considered more attractive than thin women because it meant they came from wealthy families that had more than enough food to eat. Also, pale was better than tan because it meant you didn't have work outside all summer in the heat. Now that most people work indoors, being tan is more popular because it means you are able to relax outside in the sun instead of sitting at a desk all day. And being thin is in since we know the health risks associated with being obese.

Beauty standards change. They don't come from a simple mathematical formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Researchers are idiots. What is their standard for beauty? This is just a stupid "research" subject. I can't believe they spend money on this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely disagree with that assessment. In the 1800's, plump women were considered more attractive than thin women because it meant they came from wealthy families that had more than enough food to eat. Also, pale was better than tan because it meant you didn't have work outside all summer in the heat. Now that most people work indoors, being tan is more popular because it means you are able to relax outside in the sun instead of sitting at a desk all day. And being thin is in since we know the health risks associated with being obese.

Beauty standards change. They don't come from a simple mathematical formula.

I COMPLETELY agree WITH EVERYTHING you said!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely disagree with that assessment. In the 1800's, plump women were considered more attractive than thin women because it meant they came from wealthy families that had more than enough food to eat. Also, pale was better than tan because it meant you didn't have work outside all summer in the heat. Now that most people work indoors, being tan is more popular because it means you are able to relax outside in the sun instead of sitting at a desk all day. And being thin is in since we know the health risks associated with being obese.

Beauty standards change. They don't come from a simple mathematical formula.

I COMPLETELY agree WITH EVERYTHING you said!!!

Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snerk* Interesting read, but the content is laughable.

Hate to say it but there's a good many attractive people born to parents with average to below average looks. Was every model featured here fathered by a greek adonis and mothered by a helen of troy?

Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of shallow men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol but this makes sense when you just go to the street and just 'hell where all Brad Pitts been gone?'

i wanted to say that it is already now noticeable, for example in my country it is a rule lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is such a stupid study.

it's not stupid, yeah it's a hypothesis, i don't take it in serious way, but at least it's based while you said nothing to deny it

just made a statement it's stupid - to treat like that is stupid in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely disagree with that assessment. In the 1800's, plump women were considered more attractive than thin women because it meant they came from wealthy families that had more than enough food to eat. Also, pale was better than tan because it meant you didn't have work outside all summer in the heat. Now that most people work indoors, being tan is more popular because it means you are able to relax outside in the sun instead of sitting at a desk all day. And being thin is in since we know the health risks associated with being obese.

Beauty standards change. They don't come from a simple mathematical formula.

wait i'll find what they said to this

edit: they didn't convince me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not stupid, that's just not wasting my time on something so idiotic. First of all they did not even define what they found beautiful and second of all where do they get these statistics? Imo men are better looking than woman as of now. Lucky women have makeup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and they did the study on Americans. I don't think there ARE enough beautiful American women to do a study on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
Do Not Sell My Personal Information