Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 womenDr. 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 EasierThe 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 comentAs 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.†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 i accidentally found it and i think it's interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 thingi even highlighted it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 thingi even highlighted itIts 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SympathysSilhouette Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I read about the universal beauty standard a few years ago. Apparently, it's partially based upon Da Vinci's golden ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodolo...awa/JTB2007.pdfHere is text .actually Why there is more very attractive woman than man is just MAKEUP . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 €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.htmYou can try whether your face is beautiful or not . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez_c Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninanina19 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miha Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninanina19 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mameha Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 *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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodolo...awa/JTB2007.pdfHere is text . actually Why there is more very attractive woman than man is just MAKEUP . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninanina19 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 This is such a stupid study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 itjust made a statement it's stupid - to treat like that is stupid in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemeside Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 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 thisedit: they didn't convince me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninanina19 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninanina19 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Oh and they did the study on Americans. I don't think there ARE enough beautiful American women to do a study on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.